Sunday, September 10, 2006

Class in Session: Lesson 3

Definitions can have particular meanings specifically in legal settings. Let’s look at a few from the UCC and remember in your reading that the UCC absorbs many principles of law. If you have a trustee considered a person relevant to the UCC than all the principles of trust law are already factored into these statutes. You don’t get to make up your own story outside the guidelines. Whether judge, prosecutor or president you are not above the law. This of course is law to them binding by their public offices.

Aggrieved Party: means a party entitled to pursue a remedy.

Agreement: as distinguished from “contract,” means the bargain of the parties in fact, as found in their language or inferred from other circumstances, including course of performance, course of dealing, or usage of trade as provided in section 1-303

Contract: as distinguished from “agreement,” means the total legal obligation that results from the parties’ agreement as determined by [The Uniform Commercial Code] as supplemented by any other applicable laws.

Creditor: includes a general creditor, a secured creditor, a lien creditor, or any representative of creditors, including an assignee for the benefit of creditors, a trustee in bankruptcy, a receiver in equity, or an executor or administrator of an insolvent debtor’s or assignor’s estate.

Fault: means a default, a breach, or wrongful act or omission.

Good Faith: except as otherwise provided in Article 5, means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.

Person: means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, government subdivision, agency, or instrumentality, public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.

Remedy: means any remedial right to which an aggrieved party is entitled with or without resort to tribunal.

Representative: means a person empowered to act for another, including an agent, an officer of a corporation or association, and a trustee, executor, or administrator of an estate.

Right: includes remedy.

Signed: includes using any symbol executed or adopted with present intention to adopt or accept a writing.

Unauthorized Signature: means a signature made without actual, implied, or apparent authority. The term includes forgery.

Now these are some of the definitions that governed my actions. Where is the fault? We were honest to the standards of fair dealing pursuing our right and remedies without a tribunal as authorized agents of the aggrieved party based upon agreements and contracts having collected faults and verified who was the true creditor. We obeyed this law and cannot be made criminals for doing so. You think we are fools? Try and make that work as a prosecutor. Petty detractors with worthless opinions doesn’t change the law, not even judges are above the law. Soon the game will be up and then we will be laughing out loud. LOL, Ha Ha, he he, ROFLMAO

48 comments:

neodemes said...

Kurt,

Your case is resting on aquiesence by silence being recognized by the court.

Good luck with that.

kaz4541 said...

i understand that we all should learn these lessons but i think what we are waiting for at this point is, this whole thing to be over... nobody still hasn't told us what happened on 5th. how soon will we be laughing?? i think i remember hearing "soon" long time ago...

neodemes said...

kaz4541 said...

nobody still hasn't told us what happened on 5th. how soon will we be laughing??

**************************************

I don't know about you, but, I'm already laughing.

Filed Sept. 6

;-)

wantobefree said...

LOL

dgwondering said...

Tobias is making a deal so he has another hearing this month. There's another pre-trial meeting if the settlement hearing before a magistrate doesn't produce any results. The trial is set for January.

And Kurt saying "you don't get to make up your own story outside the guidelines," is really stupid because that's what he's done and still does.

He and other Dorean clients tried these arguments in civil court and lost basically because the presentment was legal gibberish and not made in good faith.

Stillwaiting said...

Kurt,
This is great info and quite possibly for some of us it is info we already know and for others it maybe new. This is the info that should have been given to us long ago. Long before you put us into a contract with the DG. Long before you took our money. Long before you took our dreams. Long before people lost their homes.
This is the info you should have provided us upfront. This is the info we should have been blogging before we spent any money or changed important personal paperwork.
Now you want to give us all of this information after the fact. A lesson that we should have been given before the test. Had you done it that way, educated people first, then asked for money to keep the process alive that would have been understandable and we would have made an educated decision at that time.
In fact, you did not know the outcome of the event. If you thought they were going to roll over with out a fight then you are sadly underestimated your enemy. Read the Art of War.
If you needed an army of people and the funds to attack you should have recruited us that way. Instead you "taxed us" no different than those you are now fighting.
The truth upfront is what people want and leaders provide.
September 5th is now passed and again like last December/January has now passed.....and now these dates mean nothing.

justice77777777 said...

September 5th is now passed and again like last December/January has now passed.....and now these dates mean nothing.


Be ready from another update from Dr. Fred, stating how "glorious" the last court date was and what it produced.

mogel said...

DG Wondering said: "He and other Dorean clients tried these arguments in civil court and lost basically because the presentment was legal gibberish and not made in good faith."
__________________________________
Then prove where the BAD FAITH IS?
Anyone can allege anything.

tcob247 said...

mogel...............

How much koolaide can one person drink before they throw up?

dgwondering said...

Mogel, read the court's ruling in the civil trials. You know the part about "bad faith" and that it was one of the most blatant examples the judge had seen. Gosh, that loss just doesn't count in your world, eh?

Or are you just the same old lying Byron Gashler you've always been?

whatdoyoumean said...

When do criminal trials get referred for settlement, mediation?

I have been through a mediation before in a civil trial. It means the other side wants to try to settle out of court.

Seems a little strange doesn't it?

Yetter said...

you clients are embarrassing. Why don't you spineless wonders start a whiners blog and sit at the feet of that pillar of wisdom, neo.

son of a prophet said...

WARNING!!! WARNING!!! WARNING!!!

DO NOT TALK ABOUT/GO SEE THIS MOVIE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, OR YOU WILL COME UNDER SUSPICION BY THE DHS FOR TERRORIST ACTIVITIES!!!


(google search-"V FOR VENDETTA")



Plot Outline: A shadowy freedom fighter known only as "V" uses terrorist tactics to fight against his totalitarian society. Upon rescuing a girl from the secret police, he also finds his best chance at having an ally. (more) (view trailer)

User Comments: Riveting and Exciting. (more)

User Rating: 8.3/10 (62,217 votes) top 250: #131

Cast overview, first billed only:

Natalie Portman .... Evey Hammond

Hugo Weaving .... V

Stephen Rea .... Inspector Eric Finch

Stephen Fry .... Gordon Deitrich

John Hurt .... Chancellor Adam Sutler
Tim Pigott-Smith .... Creedy
Rupert Graves .... Dominic
Roger Allam .... Lewis Prothero
Ben Miles .... Dascomb
Sinéad Cusack .... Delia Surridge

Natasha Wightman .... Valerie
John Standing .... Bishop Lilliman

Eddie Marsan .... Etheridge
Clive Ashborn .... Guy Fawkes
Emma Field-Rayner .... Guy Fawkes Lover
(more)


Also Known As:
V for Vendetta: At the IMAX (UK) (IMAX version)
V wie Vendetta (Germany)
MPAA: Rated R for strong violence and some language.
Runtime: 132 min
Country: USA / Germany
Language: English
Color: Color
Sound Mix: Sonics-DDP (IMAX prints) / DTS / Dolby Digital / SDDS
Certification: UK:15 / New Zealand:R13 / USA:R / Italy:T / Philippines:R-13 (MTRCB) / Argentina:16 / Australia:MA / Switzerland:14 (canton of Vaud) / Japan:PG-12 / Colombia:12 / Singapore:M18 (cut) (original rating) / France:U / Sweden:15 / Ireland:15A / Germany:16 / Singapore:NC-16 (edited version) / Singapore:M18 / Brazil:16 / Malaysia:18SG / Netherlands:16 / Chile:Y7 / Finland:K-15 / Canada:14A (British Columbia/Ontario) / Norway:15 / Portugal:M/16 / Israel:PG / Hong Kong:IIB / Switzerland:14 (canton of Geneva)

Trivia: V's pseudonym, "Rookwood", is the last name of another conspirator at the 1605 Gunpowder Plot. (more)

~~The Swami~~~ said...

Natalie Portman .... Evey Hammond



Would ya ?

This post has been removed by the author said...

"How much koolaide can one person drink before they throw up?"


drink too much of anything and you'll throw it up.

This post has been removed by the author said...

if you have sex with the same person over and over again, you'll get sick of that too.

son of a prophet said...

"...drink too much of anything and you'll throw it up. "



except one thing: you can drink all you want from the fountain of life and will never throw up; as yeshua said..."drink from the fountain of everlasting life..."


also known as "the gospel"

mogel said...

Tycob: How many false accusations without any proof must one endure before they throw up?

mogel said...

DG Wondering: Saying an act is "bad faith" & not backing up with the actions that constitute bad faith, is like calling someone a liar without providing any proof one is a liar.

mogel said...

DG Wondering said: "And Kurt saying "you don't get to make up your own story outside the guidelines," is really stupid because that's what he's done and still does."
_________________________________
Again it shows poor debating skills when you make a statement & don't back it up with anything of value to support your premise.

How has Kurt made up his own story outside the UCC rules & how is he doing that even now, Mr. Wondering?

mogel said...

DG said: "He and other Dorean clients tried these arguments in civil court and lost basically because the presentment was legal gibberish and not made in good faith."
_________________________________
The affidavit of truth in the presentment was not an issue point for point in the Civil trials. It should have been. The dorean bond was not an issue, and it should have been a major issue too. Judge Alsup in his prejudice mind totally ignored these facts of evidence. In fact Judge Allsups Court disallowed the fact that the debts of the lenders had not been validated according to the FDCPA, which is a huge violation after a request for validation had been legally made. Judge Alsup also ignored the default of the lenders too and all the paperwork that showed this. Instead Judge Alsup looked for his own justification to rule the way he did despite the evidence he already had which he biasly ignored.

Instead Judge Alsup ruled based upon a lie and 4 other previous court cases that banks don't "create money" in the lending process which goes totally contradictory to what the Federal Reserve publications in reality say. Who is a better expert on this subject than the Federal Reserve? Should you go to a Judge for advise about lending? Should you go to a bank for advise on legal matters?

Any court case based upon a lie is not valid in any real world & is subject to being overturned & in fact should be overturned, and since the civil rulings were based upon wrong information, and information obtained wrongfully by the Judge, the rulings of Judge Alsup lack subject matter jurisdiction as to his rulings & his rulings become void.

Actually Judge Alsup's ruling were not made in "good faith". Again, you have your facts backwards as usual.

habakkuk said...

Its not unusual for innocent, righteous men to be falsly accused....If we follow in our Lord's footseps and stand up for what is right then we shouldn't be suprised. The Lord did and so will we.

Matthew 5: 9-11

9"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

10"Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11"Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.

So let them talk....TRUTH will have the last word.

mogel said...

DG Wondering said: "Mogel, read the court's ruling in the civil trials. You know the part about "bad faith" and that it was one of the most blatant examples the judge had seen."
__________________________________
Yea, it was such a BLATANT example of bad faith that even Judge Alsup himself wasn't even aware of the 4 previous ruled upon cases WHICH HE LATER USED, in his own bias ruling, but that information was provided from the attorney for the banks which cases on the subject, even the Judge was UNAWARE of. Since when does a Judge become a witness & put information in the record as if he has a preference and bias towards one party. Isn't that a violation of his role?

If Dorean's bad faith was so blatant TO jUDGE ALSUP, why was the Judge unable to provide his own legal opinion based upon his vast knowledge he previously had AND HELD, based upon all his previous experience on this subject of lending & previous legal expertise? YOu CAN'T answer that any more than Judge Alsup can.

If something is blatant, it is IMMEDIATELY recognizable based upon past knowledge already obtained ON YOUR OWN & becomes immediately repugnant before any research is done.

Judge Alsup's incriminating words against the Dorean Group based upon his own nonsense, and HIS OWN actions and knowledge don't add up in a congruent manner to come across as being a credible and fair Judge. Why do you think that is the case? Could it be he has a HIDDEN agenda?

Judge Alsup in my opinion, is not even a convincing liar when it comes to the subject of how lending really works so if he uses inflammatory words based upon his own hypocrisy, then, an intelligent person should just consider the source and ignore it. Then again, you aren't very convincing either.

You both deserve each other since you share the same lies and the same agenda.

dgwondering said...

Byron, if all your lies were even half true, why aren't there any appeals?

Not wondering about that.

Still wondering why you haven't renounced your faith in favor of the Church of Kurt.

dgwondering said...

And Byron, let's not forget about the other judges who have ruled about the same things.

Lets see, one scam artist and former Dorean broker promoting BS with a record of lying versus the judges who have ruled it a scam.

Not wondering much who people should believe.

You're a liar, Gashler. Plain and simple.

oksurewhynot said...

Justice7s said:
"September 5th is now passed and again like last December/January has now passed.....and now these dates mean nothing."

FUNNY HOW THE WORD "NOTHING" KEEPS SURFACING IN THE COMMENTS!

neodemes said...

Is NOTHING sacred?

mogel said...

DG Wondering said: "Byron, if all your lies were even half true, why aren't there any appeals?

Not wondering about that."

THERE'S BETTER WAYS TO WIN.

Still wondering why you haven't renounced your faith in favor of the Church of Kurt.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONFLICT.

Seen it in Utah said...

Ohh, Byron. MAJOR conflict. Does the phrase "honest in your delaings with others" ring a bell? Well, buddy, scamming is NOT honest. And don't try to shove the responsibility away trying to compare relative honesty with the acts of the bankers...YOU are scamming and cheating...illegally. Tell you what--let's have a three way coall with your stake president. You get to talk, I get to talk, he gets to ask questions. I am pretty sure he would not find your actions very honest. Plus, you seem to have very definitely fallen under the influence of your "prophet" Kurt. Still not a good move. You seem to be sustaining Kurt as "prophet, seer and revelator". I doubt that one would float well with your local ecclesiastical leaders.

Bad Byron. Bad, bad, Byron,

son of a prophet said...

jim maccanney said...


September 12, 2006 posting ... in pre world war II germany the intellectuals were put on lists and removed ... this has been happening and now is becoming more public ... the latest evidence is with public ridicule of university professors who show evidence of government complicity with the 911 event ... they are singled out and attacked ... calls are made behind the scenes to remove them from effective positions ... seems they were doing fine until they breached this topic ... there are topics you just do not talk about in spite of so called tenure and academic freedom ... who really controls our colleges and universities and what they teach ??? ... like mostly everything i talk about ... but make no mistake ... their biggy is to keep the public from understanding the true history and scientific nature of items coming from outer space ... join me again thursday evening as i talk about these topics ... jim mccanney

mogel said...

Seen It in Utah: How is the Dorean presentment or the process not honest? Please be specific & prove the dishonesty. If you can't do that, I have no desire to have any three way call.

I never used the phrase: "prophet, seer, and revelator"; that was your phrase. A seer is one who can see in the past as well as the future. I never attributed that trait to anyone on this board.

It's sad how people like yourself love to twist the truth & form your own opinions that suit your own purposes.

mogel said...

Seen It in Utah: Ask your questions right now!!! You use the words, "scam", "dishonesty",
"illegal". Name the dishonesty specifically & PROVE IT. NO OPINIONS OR SPECULATION. The Church could care less about opinions or speculation or personal beliefs.

Seems kind of strange if those things were true, your accusations against me, you certainly could name people that have been excommunicated for their affiliation with the Dorean Group then. Ok, name them for me right now, all right?

Or maybe, you would like to quote a "church statement" or "church policy" on the subject. Bet you can't do that either. If you can't do that, then, how is a telephone conversation going to accomplish anything?

Tell me, do you think "Jesus was married"? And if you say, "yes", why do you think the Church won't make a stand on that issue and question? If you say, "no", then, explain why too!!!

Maybe you would like to explain the meaning of the scripture in the Doctrine & Covenants, a revelation by Joseph Smith for the latter days, that says "the Lord will overthrow the money changers in his own due time." Seems to me that the Title Companies are affiliated with the "money changers", A/K/A the Banks, etc. Maybe you should be the one that should be excommunicated for improper affiliation with your own ties? Maybe you & I should have a 3 way call with your stake president about your own questionable ties? That seems just as appropriate!

Funny, I had one clients bishop who recommended that she join the dorean process. How do you explain that Einstein? Was that bishop being dishonest for his recommendation, or would you like to suggest he just wasn't inspired????

If you can't answer any of MY QUESTIONS, than, that shows your own ignorancem, agenda and/or prejudice.

mogel said...

Seen It in Utah: Please take note of the last verse, which is verse 16. Explain to me how you'll feel when you'll be out of a job someday too due to your own dishonesty:

http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/117

Oh, & please explain how Kurt's process is in contradiction of that scripture too. Seems to me anyone that oppose the banks should be on the righteous side if the "money changers will be overthrown" in the last days.

Can't be a good Mormon if you don't believe everything in the Doctrine & Covenants.

Seen it in Utah said...

Mogel:

How about a promise made pursuant to a promissory note, and then a refusal to repay the note. Then, fraudulently attempting to record a bogus reconveyance to make it appear as if the lender had released the mortgage, and THEN, to top it off, going an trying to put another morggage on the property with no intent to pay it off, but to try to scam the lender again!

Total, total dishonesty.

whatdoyoumean said...

I don't remember any refusals to pay. I remember a challenge to the validity. The lender refuses to respond. The lack of response is an agreement. Companies do it all the time.

"Unless you notify this office within thirty days that you dispute the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid."

It's a standard term used in any collection letter. They act off their assumption and will use the "evidence" of a non response to get a judgement against you.

To me the banks are just spoiled children that want to cry when the tables are reversed. It's all fun and games until it happens to them. Then the FBI becomes their collection agents.

Seen it in Utah said...

Ask the clients who were told not to pay their mortgages. You know, the ones who have been foreclosed.

And no matter how you slice it, the cheap and slimy attempt to put on a second mortgage after the forged reconveyance on the first loan is just dishonest. No other word for it.

Yetter said...

SIU.The fraud has been detailed to the banks in every detail in the commercial presentment.The banks have ignored it. Silence is acceptance. If the IRS sent you an official document for payment and you ignore it, guess what happens. You owe it without recourse.The strategy for the dual refi worked. Utah and the feds took the bait.it is unfortunate that people were foreclosed on. I don't know about you but if a train is coming shouldn't you get out of its way?I don't mean to be insensitive, but there were those who were in massive problem's before they entered the program. The good news is that the fat lady has yet to sing and these people will be made whole after thr process is over.The main battle for Scott and Kurt right now is not giving their authority and rights over to Bill Alups juristiction so that he can make make up any damn ruling he wants to.He will not be fair and law will have nothing to do with his presumed decision.

mogel said...

How about a promise made pursuant to a promissory note, and then a refusal to repay the note.

NO REFUSAL TO PAY IN THE DOREAN PRESENTMENT. MOST DOREAN CLIENTS ARE STILL PAYING ON THEIR FRAUDULENT LOAN INCLUDING MYSELF. ONLY A DEMAND FOR VALIDATION OF THE DEBT & PROOF THAT THE LENDER RISKED THEIR OWN MONIES IN GIVING THE LOAN. THE DOREAN BOND PAYS FOR ANYTHING THE LENDER WOULD HAVE CLAIMED ANYWAY, TWICE OVER, ONLY IF THE LENDER PROVIDES FULL DISCLOSURE & HONESTY, WHICH NONE HAVE DONE TO DATE BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONE'S GUILTY OF BANK FRAUD, MAIL FRAUD, & WIRE FRAUD.

Then, fraudulently attempting to record a bogus reconveyance to make it appear as if the lender had released the mortgage,

THE RECONVEYANCE IS BASED UPON THE LENDERS SILENCE & LEGAL OBLIGATION TO VALIDATE THE DEBT. THE LENDER IS MADE AWARE THAT THEIR SILENCE OR DEFAULT TO ANSWER POINT FOR POINT THE AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH-- BECOMES THEIR AGREEMENT THAT THE DOREAN TRUSTEES HAVE BEEN GRANTED LEGAL POWER OF ATTORNEY FROM THE LENDER. THIS IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE TRUSTEE(s) TO MAKE THINGS RIGHT BY CORRECTING THE TITLE. SO BY AGENCY BY ESTOPPEL AND AS A NEWLY APPOINTED AGENT FOR THE LENDER, A RECONVEYANCE IS MADE & WITH FULL DISCLOSURE BEFORE ANYTHING IS RECORDED. NO SURPRISES OR DISHONESTY THERE. THERE'S UCC LAW TO BACK UP ALL OF THEIR ACTIONS YOU ALLEGE AS FRAUD.


and THEN, to top it off, going an trying to put another morggage on the property with no intent to pay it off, but to try to scam the lender again!

THE PROMISSORY NOTE IS THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS IN THE LENDING PROCESS. THE LENDER THROUGH THEIR CONVERSION OF THIS NOTE IS WHERE THE REAL FRAUD LIES. AT ANY RATE, THE LENDER HAS A LIABILITY TO THE BORROWER & NEVER RETURNS THE BORROWERS DEPOSIT, SO THERE ALWAYS EXISTS A DEBT THE LENDER NEVER PAYS BACK. HOW ABOUT THAT FACT?

THE LENDING PAPERWORK NEVER DISCLOSED THAT THE PROMISSORY NOTE WAS THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS & NOT THE LENDER. BIG FRAUD THERE ON THE PART OF THE LENDER SINCE A MATERIAL FACT IS NOT BEING DISCLOSED & NEEDS TO BE. THAT'S BASIC CONTRACT LAW 101.

THE LENDER WAS ENRICHED BY SELLING THE NOTE WHEN THEY NEVER GAVE A LEGITIMATE LOAN. SO THERE IS NO LOSS BY THE LENDER, SO THERE IS NO FRAUD.

Total, total dishonesty.

IT'S DISHONEST THAT THE LENDER SHOULD BE ENRICHED TWICE OVER. FIRST BY THE PROMISSORY NOTE, & THEN BY THE MORTGAGE, WHEN THEY DON'T RISK OR PUT UP ANY OF THEIR OWN CAPITAL IN THE LENDING PROCESS & ADVERTISE & LEAD PEOPLE TO BELIEVE THEY GIVE LOANS & TAKE A RISK. EITHER YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT, OR YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IGNORE THE FACTS. EITHER WAY, YOU'RE WRONG.

I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY, YOU'VE NEVER READ A COMPLETE DOREAN PRESENTMENT SENT TO THE LENDERS. IF THAT'S TRUE & I'LL BET I'M RIGHT, THAN YOU'RE ARGUING IN TOTAL IGNORANCE, WHICH MAKES YOU THE FOOL, NOT ME. HOW YOU CAN JUDGE SOMETHING IF YOU'VE NEVER READ IT COMPLETELY? DO YOU ALSO JUDGE BOOKS BY THEIR COVER & JUDGE PEOPLE BY APPEARANCE TOO? HOW CAN YOU KNOW THE HEART OF SOMETHING IF YOU IGNORE OR DON'T DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE?

IF YOU HAVE READ A COMPLETE PRESENTMENT, THEN TELL ME EXACTLY & SPECIFICALLY WHAT IN IT IS DISHONEST OR LEGALLY BOGUS?

YOU CAN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ARE FIGHTING AGAINST, AND CALLING TOTAL FRAUD, NOT EVER HAVING READ THE PRESENTMENT YOU CALL A SCAM. AM I RIGHT, OR AM I RIGHT? COME ON NOW, BE TOTALLY HONEST HERE!!!! I'LL ASSUME YOUR SILENCE TO ANSWER IF YOU'VE READ A COMPLETE COPY OF A PRESENTMENT IS PROOF I'M CORRECT THAT YOU'RE ARGUING WITHOUT KNOWING BOTH SIDES OF THE STORY. I AWAIT YOUR ANSWER.

YOU KNOW IT'S A FORM OF BRAINWASHING NOT TO LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF AN ISSUE & INVESTIGATE BOTH SIDES BEFORE YOU FORM AN OPINION. ARE YOU BRAINWASHED? I'LL ASSUME THAT YOU ARE IF YOU DON'T ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.

dejavu said...

"The main battle for Scott and Kurt right now is not giving their authority and rights over to Bill Alups juristiction"


Scott and Kurt have SSNs don't they? That's all Alsup needs to have jurisdiction. That's what happens to men with SSNs acting badly.

mogel said...

Seen It in Utah said: "Ask the clients who were told not to pay their mortgages. You know, the ones who have been foreclosed."

EVEN WITHOUT BEING IN THE DOREAN PROCESS, THE DEBT IS NOT LEGITIMATE & NO BORROWER SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY WHEN THE AGREEMENT HAS NEVER BEEN CONSUMATED. SINCE THE LENDER NEVER GAVE A LEGITIMATE LOAN,IN THE FIRST PLACE, THERE IS NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PAY. THE AGREEMENT BECOMES UNENFORCEABLE, AT LEAST IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING CONTRACT LAW.

And no matter how you slice it, the cheap and slimy attempt to put on a second mortgage after the forged reconveyance on the first loan is just dishonest. No other word for it.

ONLY ABOUT 12 CLIENTS WERE ABLE TO DO THIS ANYWAY, HARDLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 4,000 + CLIENTS IN THE PROCESS. ALL LOANS BY BANKS ARE BASED UPON FRAUD EVERYTIME. THE DOREAN PROCESS JUST SHOWS THIS FRAUD & PUTS THE LENDER IN A POSITION THEY DON'T LIKE.

HOW ABOUT THE SLIMY ATTEMPT BY THE BANK OR TITLE COMPANY TO FORGE THE PROMISSORY NOTE BEHIND THE BACK OF THE BORROWER. THE BORROWER ISN'T TOLD THAT THE PROMISSORY NOTE IS STAMPED WITH: WITHOUT RECOURSE, PAY TO THE ORDER OF XYZ BANK & THEN SOLD & THAT THIS SALE CREATES THE FUNDS FOR THE LOAN WITHOUT ANY FINANCIAL RISK BY THE LENDER PUTTING UP THEIR OWN FUNDS. THE LENDER DOESN'T TELL THE BORROWER THAT AN ACCOUNT IS OPENED IN THEIR NAME EITHER. THE LENDER DOESN'T DIVULGE EITHER THAT THEY HAVE A FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION TO HANDLE THESE FUNDS IN AN HONEST WAY EITHER & THAT A LIABILITY IS CREATED ON THE PART OF THE LENDER.

IF THE LENDER PUT UP THEIR OWN FUNDS, THEN, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOUR ACCUSATION, BUT THAT ISN'T TRUE.

IT'S UNFAIR THAT YOU ONLY WANT TO LOOK AT PART OF THE PICTURE. MAYBE YOU DON'T HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE TO SEE THE WHOLE PICTURE, OR MAYBE YOU'RE JUST TOO EVIL & YOU SEE THE FULL PICTURE BUT CHOOSE TO DECEIVE BECAUSE OF YOUR OWN SPECIAL INTERESTS BEING A LAWYER & OWNER OF A TITLE COMPANY IN UTAH.

IF THE FRAUD OF THE LENDERS WERE KNOWN BY THE PUBLIC IN MASS NUMBERS, A REVOLT WOULD SURELY FORCE A CHANGE & EAT INTO YOUR ILL GOTTEN PROFITS. NO WONDER YOU HAVE SUCH A SPECIAL INTEREST HERE.

Yetter said...

Dejavu. If you don't know your rights then you don't have any.

neodemes said...

whatdoyoumean said...

"The lack of response is an agreement. Companies do it all the time."

What companies, please? In detail.

Robert Yetter said...

Neo. How about the UNITED STATES gov't Corporation to start with.

wantobefree said...

Mogel how come your not settin on a white sandy beach in the bahamas yet hell i had your money i would be

dejavu said...

"If you don't know your rights then you don't have any."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Even if you know your rights you don't have any.

WillToFight said...

Yetter said.....

you clients are embarrassing. Why don't you spineless wonders start a whiners blog and sit at the feet of that pillar of wisdom, neo.
_________________________

I'm certainly with Yetter.
______________________

neo said.....

Kurt,

Your case is resting on aquiesence by silence being recognized by the court.

Good luck with that.
__________________________

Complete idiocy again and again and again....Neo. What is it that you don't get? When will you realize that there are checks and balances.

When will you see that we must, for the sake of the continuation of this country follow the law?

I don't expect an answer from one who can not see, one who refuses to look, one who is programmed in ignorance and following or doublespeak, instead of being bold in thought and study, erudition!

mogel said...

Pertaining to suffering & 911: Note the following government link to the so-called "conspiracy theories" that must be overcome.

Shortcut to: http://usinfo. state.gov/ xarchives/ display.html? p=pubs-english&y=2006&m=August&x=20060828133846esn amfuaK0.2676355


Problem is, they seem to have overlooked the important ones like why our planes were not sent up to bring the hijacked
planes down, why a "conveniently pre-planned military exercise" was in process far to the northeast of the area involved, how these planes could fly unimpeded through the areas they did, why the "short" sales of airline stock that day was not investigated, how the ownership of the building changed hands just 6 months prior and was able to acquire the precisely needed insurance package to protect against all damages including acts of terrorism, why Marvin Bush had responsibility for security of the Twin Towers and the two Airport areas from where the airplanes took-off, etc., etc.

Mr. Concha said...

hey everyone kaz4541 is pedo hes a pedo pedo pedo