Tuesday, April 18, 2006

The Last Validation:

Here is the impossible hurdle for Judge Alsup and Keller. There are 27 banks and 30 something transactions as the foundation of our crimes. Because of the nature of the elements of the crimes validation of the debt cannot be awarded. There are 10-year enhancements for a FDIC institution as victim. The claimant cannot be properly identified without scrutiny of the claim. What they were afraid to do in the civil arena they must now perform to convict. Do you think they are suddenly now going to find the courage to expose their underbelly? They themselves are exposed to criminal prosecution. When they can’t validate the judge and prosecutor are going to use them as the scapegoat for their sins. This is easy. Our damages to these 2 men was caused by the banks lying about a loan, “We had no choice based on the information brought to the court.” They will charge them with perjury, sanction each lawyer and refer them to the bar. What they can’t validate they never can. It is one thing to be called a liar because of things outside your control and quite another when you control all factual matters. The victims in this case are all lawbreakers, liars, and without clean hands. The last validation will come as a validation of our process because they still cannot validate their claim. There comes a time when every great bluffer finds an opponent whose hand does not allow him to fold and validation must occur. We are here, calling, all-in, and the cards must be displayed! Get ready for a windfall of chips!

68 comments:

complainers suck said...

CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE - Under the clean hands doctrine, a person who has acted wrongly, either morally or legally - that is, who has 'unclean hands' - will not be helped by a court when complaining about the actions of someone else.

Unclean hands can be used as an affirmative defense in cases where the complaint is equitable.

complainers suck said...

clean hands doctrine
n. a rule of law that a person coming to court with a lawsuit or petition for a court order must be free from unfair conduct (have "clean hands" or not have done anything wrong) in regard to the subject matter of his/her claim. His/her activities not involved in the legal action can be abominable because they are considered irrelevant. As an affirmative defense (positive response) a defendant might claim the plaintiff (party suing him/her) has a "lack of clean hands" or "violates the clean hands doctrine" because the plaintiff has misled the defendant or has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. Example: A former partner sues on a claim that he was owed money on a consulting contract with the partnership when he left, but the defense states that the plaintiff (party suing) has tried to get customers from the partnership by spreading untrue stories about the remaining partner's business practices.
See also: affirmative defense

complainers suck said...

Can't wait for the banks to come with "clean hands" regarding the debts

son of a prophet said...

toto said......


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Peanut Gallery said...

SOP said,
thank god for the rapture.....but we covered this already.....next topic....oops, i almost forgot....i did say that i wuld not respond to your comments any more.....sorry!



No we did not cover it. I asked for scripture to back up you rapture claims, and you ignored it as always, b/c you cant find scriptural evidence for it

Justice7777777 said...

Kurt said, "Get ready for a windfall of chips!"

Zero chips but plenty of wind.

justice77777777 said...

Justice7777777 said...
Kurt said, "Get ready for a windfall of chips!"

Zero chips but plenty of wind, especially the hot wind coming out of my ass.

just-the-facts said...

JJJJJJ77777777...Flapping again, with nothing constructive to say...Figures. Great post Kurt!

tcob247 said...

Kurt

You are "ALL-IN" with 2/7 offsuit

WillToFight said...

Complainers suck....

Unclean hands can be used as an affirmative defense in cases where the complaint is equitable.
____________

I second that! Where are the naysayer?

WillToFight said...

TACASSHO said

You are "ALL-IN" with 2/7 offsuit

_____________

What do you have assrayvision or something. You just can't let yourself back into the fold can you!

I'll send you $4500 taco if you sign everthing over to me!

tcob247 said...

If you send it now....we have a deal

WillToFight said...

Boy you think everybodys' just like you!

IDIOT, IDIOT IDIOT

LOL!

tcob247 said...

UHHHHHHHHHHHH

I don't get the big joke

You offered a deal

I accepted

You laugh.....


Hmmmmmmmm

Did you mean it or not?

If you really believe the money is coming then you will be filthy rich.

You can double it with my portion.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I guess the key is.......

Do you REALLY believe it?????

habakkuk said...

Tcob said......

If you really believe the money is coming then you will be filthy rich.

You can double it with my portion.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I guess the key is.......

Do you REALLY believe it?????
___________________________________

$4,500 will be a little hard for me to come by right now but i might be able to do it with some help from friends....I'm willing to take you up on that offer TACO if i can come up with the $$$. Don't post an offer your not willing to back up. If the offer is still there i can make it happen (that is if willtofight doesnt take it). Let me know and we can set it up. Its worth the risk to me.

tcob247 said...

You are on!

Let me know.

By the way......Willtofight won't take the offer, he doesnt really believe it

I will not back out.

Thank you Habakkuk

habakkuk said...

Tcob,

I want to give Willtofight at least 1 day to take the offer...Its only fair. Then i may need 3-5 days to get the $4,500.

habakkuk said...

By the way, whats the mortgage amount? Thats kind of an important question...right;)

tcob247 said...

$131,000

$95,000 first
$36,000 second

habakkuk said...

Ok, i just wanted to make sure it wasnt like $15K or somethin;)

Willtofight, its up to you budy.

drhfred said...

habakkuk
Please check to see if we would honor tcob247's claim in a settlement conference

against_the_odds said...

Yeah, I don't think TCOB qualifies any longer. If I remember correctly, he dismissed Kurt and Scott as the Trustees some time ago...

against_the_odds said...

TCOB MAY only qualify for a refund.

habakkuk said...

drhfred said...

"habakkuk
Please check to see if we would honor tcob247's claim in a settlement conference "



Ok...how do i check that out?

___________________________________

Question: Kurt and Scott are still my trustess but i have a friend who had to quit claim out of trust to sell his home....does he still qualify for the settlement?

mogel said...

It appears to me the current value of the home is the key factor in determining the settlement claim, not the amount of the mortgage. The lenders actions of misrepresentation, & continued lie that monies are due the lender through billings of mail fraud and demands for payment, acts as a tresspass against the person's property, so I believe it can be argued that the current value of the property is the element that should be based to figure one's damages, not to mention that the value of the home is really what is at risk to the client.


204 times the current value of the home can be argued the value of the judgment against the lender due to fraud which includes compensatory & punitive damages. This number multiple is based upon a past Supreme Court ruling where an insurance company defrauded someone, so I feel the number is not unreasonable. The lenders bad actions have been continuous since the origination of the loan since validation of the debt has NEVER occurred despite written requests to do so.

against_the_odds said...

As stated in Dr. Fred's March 1, 2006 update:

"In order for the clients to be in line for the speedily transference of their stipend they will need to have Both Kurt and Scott as trustees of their Family Estate Trust (FET). They will need a copy of their trust document, and should have some form of banking in place for the trust in order to receive unencumbered funds on this side of the pond."

Just something that needs to be clarified Hab

Mogel, how about those who went through a foreclosure (or multiple attempts at foreclosures), Chapter 13's, etc?

mogel said...

I would think that those that have been put through a foreclosure process should ask for even more damages.

Using the consumer protection laws that were written and passed by Congress, signed by the President, and upheld in the Courts is an accepted method for eliminating home mortgages. Here is a Texas case that won a big award of $3 million.

Guzman vs. Ocwen Federal Bank



$3,000,000 Jury Award Against Ocwen



Plaintiff Attorney: Hilliard & Munoz, L.L.P.


Robert C. Hilliard, Attorney At Law
Hilliard & Munoz, L.L.P.
Corpus Christi, Texas



Jury finds Ocwen Federal Bank guilty of malfeasance and criminal conduct and awards plaintiff $3,000,000.00


Ocwen Federal Banksters have been clobbered in two recent Texas Law suits for wrongful foreclosure. In Guzman v Ocwen, in a Corpus Christi County Court, the jury awarded over 3 Million Dollars in settlement and found Ocwen having acted with "malice" in their criminal conduct supported by testimony adduced by two witnesses both of which were former employees of Ocwen.

habakkuk said...

Oh ok, my friend still has the Trust (with kurt and scott as trustees), he just moved his home out of the trust....So he should be good as long as he has some form of banking with the trust....right?

mogel said...

Many Banks appear to explicitly break 4 Federal Laws:
1) 15 USC § 1601 et seq.: Truth in Lending requires that banks disclose all details of the transaction
2) 12 USC § 1831n(2)(A): Requires banks to follow “Uniform accounting principles consistent with GAAP”
3) 12 USC § 2605 RESPA: requires that banks acknowledge & respond to a “qualified written request”.
4) 15 USC § 1611 Whoever willfully and knowingly (1) gives false or inaccurate information or fails to provide information which he is required to disclose under the provisions of this subchapter or any regulation,
Some Banks also appear to break State Laws:
1) Business and Professions Code 17200 (for unfair and deceptive business practices),
2) unjust enrichment, 3) breach of fiduciary duty,
4) conversion, 5) negligence and
6) violations of the Consumer Protection Act
Some Banks even break CA Civil Code 2943, too!!!
After Notice of Default, request the Promissory Note in a qualified written request: Some will ignore it!

The under belly of the banks will be exposed if they push the criminal charges to the hilt. That is why the Federal case will be dismissed, & done sooner than later.

Here's something to think about. What if "the powers that be" just wanted to see how much they could get away with, how much harassment they could cause the Dorean Group without a real & fair fight & how far they could push the envelope? If you are in their shoes & see that the line has been marked in the sand, do you think they would cross it knowing that they stand the most to lose?

mogel said...

Here is the case where the Plaintiff was awarded 4 times in compensatory damages and 200 times in punitive damages due to conversion by the insurance company:
CLEOPATRA HASLIP et al.
v.
PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE, INC.
499 U.S.1, 113 Fed 2d 1, 111 S.Ct. 1032 (no. 89-1279)


There are penalties and forfeitures attached to what the lender did. In fact there are penalties attached to national banks going beyond their express powers in that they are exposing depositor’s money to loss in contradiction to the bank’s primary duty. Therefore, (CLAIMANT) can raise the argument of ultra virus and not only is the contract void, but even if (CLAIMANT) did receive a benefit, (CLAIMANT) was not unjustly enriched. If the contract is void then both parties walk away as if there never was a contract. Hence, your mortgage is eliminated & you are entitled to your financial monetary damages.

mogel said...

Here's a successful mortgage cancellation or recission for "Seen It in Utah" since he has asked for it many times. The Dorean Process in their challenge has many more problems that the lender has never answered, so why is it so unreasonable to think that Dorean can't be successful either? How important is full disclosure? The lender doesn't provide this when they don't validate a debt & make you think that they loaned out their own assets to you. THIS LIE IS HUGE. You decide whether Dorean has a chance in light of this decision below.

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 RESUILT 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.

son of a prophet said...

heheheheeeeeeeeeeeeeee...................


so wheres neodames to weigh on all of this....c'mon, guys, we need somenone to put out the fire of all this.....lets use alan greenpeas expression..."irrational exuberance"......


and dont forget, buy LOTS of gold bullion with your dough and you will double your settlement form the DG......


on second thawt...if one buys lots of gold with the settlement, will he become like the bankster he despises????................golden calf anyone???


better pray HARD to Yeshua that He let you keep your head...a really BIG windfall can do ugly thinsgs to a man.....

son of a prophet said...

seriously, good luck.....


but, remember to keep your head about you.

many ppl who have won mega lotterys in the past have had a miserable life afterwards...."who needs God, I just won $250M. I AM God....."

it is so easy to ruin a life with riches. that is why Yeshua warned about this many, many times in the bible....

riches can also ruin families and marriages....young chix become much more attractive to older guys with a couple hundred K to play arund with and a nice fast car....hit the night spots and the marriage is done....."c'ya honey, im trading you in for someone half your age....."

Judge Roy Bean said...

"Here's a successful mortgage cancellation or recission .....
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 RESUILT of the lender's failure to do so.
"

Byron, you're still trying to mislead people with snippets of case law.

When a mortgage is rescinded under TILA, the borrower does not get the house free and clear. The parties are simply set back to the status they were in prior to the establishment of the loan. In other words, if they want to continue living in the house, they have to take out another loan.

Judge Roy Bean said...

Complainers suck said: "CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE - Under the clean hands doctrine, a person who has acted wrongly, either morally or legally - that is, who has 'unclean hands' - will not be helped by a court when complaining about the actions of someone else.

Unclean hands can be used as an affirmative defense in cases where the complaint is equitable.
"

You're confused. The "banks" are not a party in the criminal charges against the Dorean promoters. The only parties are the US Government and the defendants.

The lending institutions may provide documents and evidence as well as have people called to testify, but they are not a party to the suit so the clean hands doctrine does not apply to them.

A more real-world application of the concept would involve the Dorean Group promoters attempting to sue Kurt or Scott.

pleaseexplain said...

When a mortgage is rescinded under TILA, the borrower does not get the house free and clear. The parties are simply set back to the status they were in prior to the establishment of the loan. In other words, if they want to continue living in the house, they have to take out another loan.


Why would you need another loan? Do the courts give the house back to the people you bought it from? Do they make them leave their new home and move back into the one you are living in? Please advise Judge.

mogel said...

Judge Roy Bean said: "When a mortgage is rescinded under TILA, the borrower does not get the house free and clear. The parties are simply set back to the status they were in prior to the establishment of the loan. In other words, if they want to continue living in the house, they have to take out another loan."

I believe your statement goes against what has happened in certain cases.
Why would that have to be the case always that the borrower has to take out another loan? It seems to me the Judge could decide to award damages AND clear the mortgage. If the damages exceed the mortgage amount, then, this could be used as an offset to clear the mortgage, could it not?

Your comment that the banks are not a party to the suit is a little bit confusing. After all, isn't several of the charges "bank fraud"? So was this alleged bank fraud committed against the government or the banks? Was the banks complicit in having these charges come to fruition and if so, what is the significance of this?

Just because the banks aren't listed as Plaintiff's, don't you think that there can be a 3rd party complaint against them based upon the outcome of this trial? Judge, I think you are the one misleading people thinking that the lenders have no potential liability or no financial interest based upon the outcome of the Federal case should all charges be dismissed.

mogel said...

Judge Roy Bean is leading people to believe that the "clean hands doctrine" doesn't apply to the lenders because they are not a party to the Federal case.

The lender is not absolved of all wrong doing just because they are not a listed party to the Federal lawsuit. I think this is what you are leading people to believe.

If there is no bank fraud proven in Court against the Principals, then, all of the Dorean documents must stand as recorded as a legitimate process & the debt is essentially acknowledged as discharged as recorded. This means that the banks committed fraud. I think that point could be effectively proven or shown in Court by all the events that have happened to date once charges are dismissed. If so, the unclean hands doctrine applies to the lenders, so if the lenders are sued, then, the lenders can't use the Courts to further their fraud to try to collect on a bogus debt since they come to Court with unclean hands. At least that's the way it should work in theory. The Courts aren't there to enrich one's fraud or to protect one's fraudulent activities.

mogel said...

Judge: "it will be
difficult to enforce the client to pay or get a new mortgage when there is no threat of foreclosure." The bank can't foreclose when there is no valid agreement, since as you say, you go back to the beginning before the agreement was signed, so why get another loan, if there is no Court order to do so? In that scenario, what motivation is there to get a new loan?

son of a prophet said...

btw, i like a good game of 'texas hold 'em' myself.....seems like we is coming to 4th street....


eveeryone all in.....lets go!

see whos bluffing....separate the men from the kids.....

mogel said...

Judge said: "The lending institutions may provide documents and evidence as well as have people called to testify, but they are not a party to the suit so the clean hands doctrine does not apply to them."

Whooptidooooo....The banks actions are completely absolved of all PAST wrong doing & can testify in Court despite their dirty hands to further their lies and objectives SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY AREN'T A LISTED DEFENDANT.
Let's take a poll & see how many people believe this is just & how the Courts originally intended the unclean hands doctrine to work.

son of a prophet said...

also, if i were on a jury, i would have to agree with moogel....


according to the CFR, the lender must validate the debt, prove that the lender put up somehting at risk...as the banks never put anything at risk, they cannot meet the proof of the CFR, so they lose easy....when someone defauslts, the banks lose nothing. so no risk, no gain....seems simple enuf to me.....

Pauligirl said...

The penalty for a lender's TILA violation is forfeiture of the mortgage interest and other charges received from the borrower, not keeping the house free and clear.

See 2003 U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Yamamoto v. Bank of New York, 329 Fed.3d 1167.

railman65 said...

I think Judge Roy Beanhead is one of the lenders, and trying to talk himself out of jail, or ruin.

railman65 said...

I think Judge Roy Beanhead is one of the lenders, and trying to talk himself out of jail, or ruin.

whyudothat said...

Pauligirl said...
The penalty for a lender's TILA violation is forfeiture of the mortgage interest and other charges received from the borrower, not keeping the house free and clear.

Ahh, plus damages to the borrower, well beyond what you just mentioned. you could easily be free and clear with those damages by the way.

Pauligirl said...

Not really.

Violations of truth in lending act

Creditors are liable for violation of the disclosure requirements, regardless of whether the consumer was harmed by the nondisclosure, UNLESS:

The creditor corrects the error within 60 days of discovery and prior to written suit or written notice from the consumer , or

The error is the result of bona fide error . The creditor bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that:

The violation was unintentional.
The error occurred notwithstanding compliance with procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such error. (Error of legal judgment with respect to creditor's TILA obligations not a bona fide error.)
Civil remedies for failure to comply with TILA requirements :

Action may be brought in any U.S. district court or in any other competent court within one year from the date on which the violation occurred. This limitation does not apply when TILA violations are asserted as a defense, set-off, or counterclaim, except as otherwise provided by state law.

Private remedies - applicable to violations of provisions regarding credit transactions, credit billing, and consumer leases.

Actual damages in all cases.
Attorneys' fees and court costs for successful enforcement and rescission actions.
Statutory damages.
(1) For individual actions, double the correctly calculated finance charge but not less than $100 or more than $1,000 for individual actions.
For class actions, an amount allowed by the court with no required minimum recovery per class member to a maximum of $500,000 or 1% of the creditor's net worth, whichever is less.
Can be imposed on creditors who fail to comply with specified TILA disclosure requirements, with the right of rescission, with the provisions concerning credit cards, or with the fair credit billing requirements.

Tony Tuba said...

true to form i haven't received the latest dorean update but a friend of mine has and he told me there is no mention of an upcoming stipend. for crying out loud are we ever going to see this stipend? why didn't dr johnson mention anything about it in this latest update?

whyudothat said...

Pauligirl said...
Violations of truth in lending act

um my dear, that's in statute.

with a fraudulent loan and a signed court order in hand with prejudice, administratively, the bank is really going to have to do some 2 sided accounting to repay the damages for the fraud it has done.

Tony Tuba said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
neodemes said...

"There comes a time when every great bluffer finds an opponent whose hand does not allow him to fold and validation must occur. "

Yep, and the last time they called your bluff, you did jail time, Kurt.

Let the chips fall where they may.

neodemes said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
hockeydonn said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
hockeydonn said...

No, the last time "they" challenged truth "they" dropped charges.

This is not about Kurt. This is much bigger.

STAY THE COURSE

Judge Roy Bean said...

Pleaseexplain asked: "Why would you need another loan? Do the courts give the house back to the people you bought it from? Do they make them leave their new home and move back into the one you are living in? Please advise Judge."
Consider that the statutory penalties available for a TILA violation are relatively small in terms of dollar amounts. In no sense did congress anticipate awarding the borrower a house just because the lender violated the Truth In Lending Act.

In TILA cases, as I indicated, the parties are effectively set back to their original condition prior to the loan. The loan is rescinded and legally does not exist any more. But the Judge will not award the borrower title to the house because that would be unjust enrichment for the borrower. A TILA violation involves a small penalty in comparison to the value of say, a $200,000.00 house.

What you will see most often is the lender offering some adjustment or perhaps even another loan to replace the defective one. Each case will have it's own peculiarities, details and figures, but nobody gets a free house in a TILA or RESPA case for that matter.

Most of the cases never even get to trial. Settlements are common and usually involve negotiated terms and conditions.

Judge Roy Bean said...

Byron (Mogel) (Confused again) said:"Your comment that the banks are not a party to the suit is a little bit confusing."

Check the case again, Byron. The Plaintiff is the United States of America. None of the defendants are banks, either. No one else is a party in a criminal case. Anyone else is either a witness or simply an observer.

Among the crimes they are charged with is bank fraud. This is not a civil matter though, so none of the banks that have been allegedly defrauded are anything other than witnesses for the prosecution.


Byron (still confused) goes on to ask: "After all, isn't [sic] several of the charges "bank fraud"? So was this alleged bank fraud committed against the government or the banks?"

The act of defrauding a bank is a criminal matter in the US. Using the mail in the act is another crime.

Byron (still confused) goes on to ask: "Was [sic] the banks complicit in having these charges come to fruition and if so, what is the significance of this?"

There's no such thing as "witness complicity" when criminal charges are brought against someone. Investigators take their findings to the US Attorneys, who present their case to a grand jury who gives an up or down (bill or no-bill) decision whether to issue indictments.

Byron (even more confused) goes on to ask: "Just because the banks aren't listed as Plaintiff's, don't you think that there can be a 3rd party complaint against them based upon the outcome of this trial?"

For what and by whom? You can't sue a witness for testimony provided in a criminal trial whether you win or lose. Unless someone can impeach their testimony and PROVE perjury, there is no recourse against any witness in a trial.

Judge Roy Bean said...

Byron (still confused) said: "If there is no bank fraud proven in Court against the Principals, then, all of the Dorean documents must stand as recorded as a legitimate process & the debt is essentially acknowledged as discharged as recorded."

Wrong again, Byron. Even if the charges are plea bargained into freedom for the promoters, the Dorean process has already been shot down in multiple civil cases and the lenders will still push each one through the civil courts - and will win no matter what the outcome of this trial. It's not only that a crime was committed by Kurt and Scott, the whole process itself has already been ruled legally, fatally flawed. Having a conviction will make the civil cases easier, since many of participants will probably be viewed as being more than happy to take part in the scam.

Byron (still confused) said: "
This means that the banks committed fraud. I think that point could be effectively proven or shown in Court by all the events that have happened to date once charges are dismissed.
"

Unfortunately for you, Byron, the civil case law is unanimously against your scam-based theories of law and banking.

Byron (still confused) said: "
If so, the unclean hands doctrine applies to the lenders, so if the lenders are sued, then, the lenders can't use the Courts to further their fraud to try to collect on a bogus debt since they come to Court with unclean hands.
"

But the law has already been tested in regard to that and a number of other bogus banking theories - there is no fraud as you like to depict it.

Byron (still confused) said: " At least that's the way it should work in theory. The Courts aren't there to enrich one's fraud or to protect one's fraudulent activities."

But your "fraud" theory is nothing but a part of a bogus debt-elmination scheme used to make money for the promoters, including yourself.

WillToFight said...

Damn Taco

what are you Frugal or what. A six figure man living in a 131,000 home. You could have paid that off in 2-3 years.

You didn't need this!

Anyway. I said sign everything over and I will give you the $4500. That means you must start with doing an affidavit that says. Any settlement, or return coming from the Dorean process belongs to....!

When I see that we have a deal. Get it done quickly and you can be gone from this site forever!

WillToFight said...

A Taco

A six figure man can afford a debt note of at least 1 Mil. What up, you lyin homey?

WillToFight said...

I think Judge is Saying

Government+Judiciary+Corporations= Fascism.

So the GOvernment/Judiciary brings the suite against the people for the questions or actions. The bank stands back and tells the court how to decide the case. The people lose and Fascism gets stronger!

And although the banks are not a party, they do not have to prove anything, because they don't act as plantiff. But they are called as witness, but as witness would have to produce facts!!!!!!

The Judiciary says that the people are bringing the suite against Dorean. Trying to pull the wool over our eyes

But in the end the JudiciaryGovernment/Banks/Fascist still loses. Still have to back up!
This is not some case where some poor kids gets railroaded because he can't afford a good defense!!!!!!


Or all hell is going to break loose!

People we'd better start standing up for ourselves!!!!!

WillToFight said...

Fudge Roy Want To Be Judge

Caught up in the scam himself that he can't see truth!

WillToFight said...

JRB

Who ruled that this process was a scam?

Again you must know what the fascist would like the turnout to be. Keep it under rap. We can't allow the ignorant to learn of our fraud. We must not bring charges. We force the courts to bring charges instead. So the truth never has to get out.

And another thing. This is not just about TILA! It is way beyond that!

You have ZERO Courage for Truth/Justice, look that up in Blacks law!

WillToFight said...

FLAWED DOES NOT EQUAL FRAUD

jrb

All can be corrected in time. That's why you say (lack of surety) "It doen't matter how the case turns out"

I beg to differ WantToBeJudge!

mogel said...

Judge Bean: You seem to think the banks do no wrong & commit no fraud, despite the warnings by many intelligent & well know people
in history, including an honest banker about the lending scam, Josiah Stamp, the 2nd richest man in Europe at the time. Too bad, he can't be a witness for the Dorean Group how banks operate. His testimony goes against all of those Civil cases you mentioned that seem to say the banks are not unjustly enriched & that the Dorean doctrine is flawed. Who better to know the truth than someone like Josiah Stamp? I suppose you think you are smarter than all of the witnesses below & you are more enlightened & all of the witnesses below were also conspiracy theorists & financial opportunists only interested in scamming people too? The problem is that the lenders use the Courts to justify their actions of deceit by getting corrupt judges to turn their eyes away from the truth. I'm not interested in any precedences where the whole truth was not measured. We are both aware of those Court cases.

"It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe that there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." Henry Ford

U.S. President Andrew Jackson said: (See The American Bulletin, 11/91)
"If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning..."
Sir Josiah Stamp, President of the Bank of England during the 1920s:
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take that away from them, and all great fortunes like mine will disappear. And they ought to disappear, for this would be a better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them (bankers) continue to create deposits."

Judge Martin Mahoney wrote the following about a case he ruled over, The First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daly, December 7, 1968: (See 17 Am. Jur. 85, 215, and 1 Mer. Jur. 2nd on Actions, Section 550)
"There is no lawful consideration for these Federal Reserve Notes to circulate as money. The banks actually obtained these notes for the cost of printing. A lawful consideration must exist for a note...
"The activity of the Federal Reserve Banks...and the First National Bank of Montgomery, is contrary to public policy and contrary to the Constitution of the United States, and constitutes an unlawful creation of money and credit for no valuable consideration. Activity of said banks in creating money and credit is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States.
"The Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks exercise an exclusive monopoly and privilege of creating credit and issuing notes at the expense of the public, which does not receive a fair equivalent. This scheme is obliquely designed for the benefit of an idle monopoly to rob, blackmail, and oppress the producers of wealth [you and me and our ability to work and be productive].
"The Federal Reserve Act and the National Bank Act are, in their operation and effect, contrary to the whole letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States, for they confer an unlawful and unnecessary power on private parties; they hold all of our fellow citizens in dependence; they are subversive to the rights and liberation of the people.
"These Acts have defied the lawfully constituted Government of the United States. The Federal Reserve Act and National Banking Act are not necessary and proper for carrying into execution the legislative powers granted to Congress [See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States] or any other powers vested in the government of the United States, but on the contrary, are subversive to the rights of the People in their rights to life, liberty, and property...
Here is a synopsis of it and you can read the whole thing at the website below:
A Minnesota Trial Court's decision holding the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional and VOID; holding the National Banking Act unconstitutional and VOID; declaring a mortgage acquired by the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its business, along with the foreclosure and the sheriff's sale, to be VOID. Yes a common man was able to get his
mortgage cancelled as far back as 1968.
http://banksrestorationact.4mg.com/mahoney-introduction.html

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.”

“The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating.”

“The Central Bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the principles and form of our Constitution. I am an enemy to all banks, discounting bills
or notes, for anything but coin.”

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered...The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.– Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.

History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance. -James Madison
“If Congress has the right [it doesn’t] to issue paper money [currency], it was given to them to be used by...[the government] and not to be delegated to individuals or corporations” -- President Andrew Jackson, Vetoed Bank bill of 1836.
“It is apparent from the whole context of the Constitution as well as the history of the times which gave birth to it, that it was the purpose of the Convention to establish a currency consisting of the previous metals. These were adopted by a permanent rule excluding the use of a perishable medium of exchange, such as of certain agricultural commodities recognized by the statutes of some States as tender for debts, or the still more pernicious expedient of paper currency.” – President Andrew Jackson, 8th Annual Message to Congress (December 5, 1836).
The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.

“The money powers preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its REIGN by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
- President Abraham Lincoln (after the National Banking Act of 1863 was passed).


Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. -Woodrow Wilson
President Theodore Roosevelt in 1933 speaking of the cause of the depression gave a very famous speech. In this speech everyone remembers his statement: “We have nothing to fear except fear itself.” What most people don’t remember are the other things talked about in his speech such as these statements: “Our distress doesn’t come from failure of substance, but because of the UNSCRUPULOUS MONEY CHANGERS (BANKERS). They only know the rules of self seekers. We require two safeguards: (1) THERE MUST BE A STRICT SUPERVISION OF ALL BANKING AND ALL CREDIT. (2) THERE MUST BE PROVISION FOR A SOUND & ADEQUATE CURRENCY.”
President John Adams in 1819 said: “Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity and even wealth of the nation than they can have done, or ever will do good.”

“All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in the Constitution or Confederation, not from a want of honor or virtue so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.” John Adams, at the Constitutional Convention (1787).
“This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations.” – President Rutherford B. Hayes

“Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.” -- James A. Garfield, President of the United States shortly before he was assassinated in 1881
“The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans’ freedom, and before I leave office, I must inform the citizens of this plight.” – President John F. Kennedy (at Columbia University, 10 days before his assassination)

Judge Roy Bean said...

Willtofight blathered: "JRB
Who ruled that this process was a scam?
"

Duh! Try to keep up. The civil courts who have ruled in the cases where your buddies Scott and Kurt, lost, and you know all too well the parties who lost, including Julian.

Judge Roy Bean said...

Byron - you can't defend a scam like the DG program by saying some other entity is operating a scam.

When you think you've been scammed, the process is to sue the perpetrator.

Breaking the law to somehow get even doesn't cut it.

mogel said...

Judge said: "When you think you've been scammed, the process is to sue the perpetrator."

The Dorean Group tried that & lost using your ingenius idea there.

"Breaking the law to somehow get even doesn't cut it."

Aren't you assuming the law has been broken. What laws are you referring to? If the lender lent none of their own money, there can't be any bank fraud by the Dorean process. If that doesn't exist, all of the other charges don't exist either. No one has been convicted to date. It's a little premature to say anyone has broken the law.

neodemes said...

Give it time, moogie, give it time.