Thursday, September 28, 2006

Class in Session: Lesson 4

I anticipate another 25 lessons or so. By the end you will be able to clearly see that Dorean was completely within the law and that amateurs like Pauligirl don’t know what they’re talking about. At least she is trying and I hope she learns from these. She is less trained than lawyers who themselves are idiots of the code.

I want to focus this time on the core issue. Is the alleged borrower an aggrieved party? If they have no grievance Dorean was a mere interloper on a settled matter. If there is a valid grievance that action becomes property. The property can be transferred by a chose-in-action or other assignment. If Dorean receives this property as trustee there comes with it a corresponding duty to prosecute the action to deliver the property to the beneficiaries. The right to this property is synonymous with remedy which can be sought through a tribunal or a self-help method, “self-help” which are among the most important body of rights under the UCC, remedial rights being those to which an aggrieved party may resort to on its own. Did the bank meet the standards of “good faith?” The subjective element of honesty in fact and the objective element of the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing, as a result, both the subjective and objective elements are part of the standard of “good faith.” We do not believe this standard was met creating a valid grievance. The UCC states affirmatively that the freedom to contract is one of its principles but never can one disclaim by agreement good faith, diligence, reasonableness and care. If in honesty of fact the lender is void of these standards there is no excuse, a damage that becomes a property right that can be handled by a self-help, non-tribunal remedy as long as it maintains the standards of good faith. You say not, prove it! I say so and will prove it!


princess said...

You can slow your lessons up a little..maybe you can do one a year for the next 25 years from the exact same place.

mogel said...

I can see why naysayers allege that the Dorean Group violated OTHER LAWS other than the UCC that justifies putting them in jail.

Naysayers obviously can't justify the banks bad faith through the UCC AND can't justify through the UCC, NONDISCLOSURE OF IMPORTANT MATERIAL FACTS AND CAN'T REALLY justify the banks silence to answer THE DOREAN TRUSTEES claims by the UCC, so they simply say that the bank was damaged because the house title was clouded by certain filings at the County Recorder done by the trustees, AND THEY ASSUME THIS action CONSTITUTES FRAUD and naysayers assume that there was a valid loan BY THE LENDER simply because money was transferred in the lending process.

The promissory note is "property" too. The lender doesn't want to discuss that in depth and honesty and how the alleged lender unfairly and illegally profited from the lender's forgery of that document.

Justice777777 said...

mogel; they are not even lenders, they are pure THUGS and crooks if you will, they never lend anything.

mogel said...

And the lender doesn't want to really discuss their lack of real consideration in the lending process that justifies their possession of the promissory note by being totally honest with their accounting records and show where the real monies came from to fund the transaction.

Because of these many things, the lender SHOULD HAVE no legal recourse because they have "unclean hands" and those with unclean hands can't use the courts for remedy.

Now the prosecution team wants to allege that lenders were damaged, so the prosecution team by alleging this lie as a fact, also come to court with "unclean hands" too, so the prosecution team has no remedy either, much less any real enforceable claim.

The prosecution team by filing their phony claims have used the courts to harass, injure, and lie, not only the Defendants in the action, but in essence by their filings are also injuring all dorean clients too by their false claims because the status of the clients mortgages in a sense, are still not fully resolved AND PROPERLY RECOGNIZED. Every month I pay my monthly payment under protest, I'm reminded of THE PROBLEM: "This over payment is expected to be returned upon SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACCOUNT."

I WANT MY ACCOUNT SETTLED BY THE LENDER ADMITTING THEIR FRAUD either through payment of punitive and compensatory damages and the Federal court to follow suit by releasing and also absolving all Defendants in this criminal action in the CA federal court. If in fact there are no damages to the lenders, why must the charade continue ANY LONGER IF DECENCY AND FAIRNESS EXIST AT ALL IN OUR SYSTEM?

partysecured said...

If I ask a question would you get mad or hate me?

Would the mere act of asking a question warrant a negative response? A positive response? A responsive response?

If these questions are too tuff would it make it simple to know that all you would have to do is answer them with a simple yes? no? or don't respond at all?

Would it be safe to say that if you can't answer these questions with a yes or no then it wouldn't be worth my while to even type such frivolous bullshit?

Or perhaps just a yes or no?

Is popular opinion fact?

If 1% of the population knows something to be true.......... and 99% disagree with that truth......

can this be considered now truth just because it is popular opinion? even though there is no facts in evidence to disprove this truth to be false?

In your opinion is the world flat?

In your opinion is the world round?

Do you have any facts to support your claim?

Are Kurt and Scott entitled to a fair hearin/trial?

Does the hearing/trial have to be based on facts in evidence? or someones arbitrary opinion? for it to be considered a fair trial/hearing?

Are arbitrary opinions facts?

Do people.... in order to be informed and in the know need to know facts? or will someones
' arbitrary opinions due?

Now here comes the opinion of partysecured......... I believe that if Kurt and Scott are already considered "guilty" and have to prove "innocence" or worse yet and impossible "not guilty" then you people reading this statement are a bunch of fucking dumbasses that don't know your ass from your toes and deserve every percieved evil and misfortune that comes your way because you can't even answer a few pointed and simple questions!

partysecured said...

fact :

That which is known about a specific subject or situation. Used in plural: data, information, intelligence, knowledge, lore. See knowledge
Something having real, demonstrable existence: actuality, event, phenomenon, reality. See real
One of the conditions or facts attending an event and having some bearing on it: circumstance, detail, factor, particular. See real
The quality of being actual or factual: actuality, factuality, factualness, reality, truth. See real

partysecured said...


Something believed or accepted as true by a person: belief, conviction, feeling, idea, mind, notion, persuasion, position, sentiment, view. See opinion

partysecured said...


Determined or marked by whim or caprice rather than reason: capricious, whimsical. See surprise
Based on individual judgment or discretion: discretionary, judgmental, personal, subjective. See opinion, surprise
Having and exercising complete political power and control: absolute, absolutistic, autarchic, autarchical, autocratic, autocratical, despotic, dictatorial, monocratic, totalitarian, tyrannic, tyrannical, tyrannous. See over, politics

partysecured said...


Absolute certainty in the trustworthiness of another: confidence, dependence, faith, reliance, trust. See belief
Mental acceptance of the truth or actuality of something: credence, credit, faith. See opinion
Something believed or accepted as true by a person: conviction, feeling, idea, mind, notion, opinion, persuasion, position, sentiment, view. See opinion

partysecured said...

Is belief opinion?

Is belief fact?

partysecured said...

Is belief worth fighting for?

partysecured said...

Is belief worth dying for?

partysecured said...


Correspondence with fact or truth: accuracy, correctness, exactitude, exactness, fidelity, veraciousness, veracity, veridicality, verity. See true
Freedom from deceit or falseness: truthfulness, veracity. See true
The quality of being actual or factual: actuality, fact, factuality, factualness, reality. See real

partysecured said...

Can you prove a belief?

partysecured said...

Can you prove a fact?

mogel said...

Princess said:

You can slow your lessons up a little..maybe you can do one a year for the next 25 years from the exact same place.

12:22 PM
And princess,.... that will benefit you HOW?

partysecured said...

Is the ever enough evidence of fact to prove to a non believer?

partysecured said...

Does a true believer need any facts of evidence?

partysecured said...

Are your answers fact or just your arbitrary opinion?

mogel said...

"If Dorean receives this property as trustee there comes with it a corresponding duty to prosecute the action to deliver the property to the beneficiaries."

Since when and how do DUTIES become criminal actions-- and where's the code of law that speaks of this--- would be a question I would ask the prosecution team. Where and when have the Courts ever sactioned and punished a person for carrying out their sacred duty and honor bound commitment.

Here's your choice Kurt: You can choose to be a slothful and an uncaring & non diligent trustee, which has it's own perils, or you can be falsely charged with fraud by diligently caring out your duty. Some choice, huh?

partysecured said...

If something contradicts a fact is this now somehow a fact?

partysecured said...


To refuse to admit the truth, reality, value, or worth of: contravene, controvert, deny, disaffirm, gainsay, negate, negative, oppugn. Law: traverse. See affirm
To fail to be in accord: clash, conflict, disaccord, discord, jar. Idiom: go (or run) counter to. See agree

partysecured said...

If someone tries by force or coersion to make you accept their belief as fact is this just or fair?

Would you consider this a tactic something that is deserving of a "free" society?

partysecured said...

Do you understand english motherfucker?

partysecured said...

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Motherfucker (also contracted forms mothafucka, muthafucka, mo-fucker, mofucka, mother, mofo, mafk, maafaka, muh fucka and countless others) is a common insult and profanity in the English language. The term is widely viewed as an obscenity, but may be used by some in a neutral or positive way (cf.nigga).

The term is literally an accusation of incest, although as with most insults, it is used pejoratively. When used in this way specifically in relation to a man, it may be intended as an attack on his masculinity. Many consider "motherfucker" to be one of the most offensive profanities in the English language. A study published in 2000 found that British people consider it second only to "cunt" in severity (Hargrave, 2000).

In the 1960s and 1970s, the initials M.F. became a common, less explicit substitute for the term.

partysecured said...


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The word dickhead is a common sex phrase in the English language. It is used to accuse someone of being either incompetent, foolish, contemptible or unpleasant by insinuating that the person has a penis for a head or brain ("dick" being slang for the male sexual organ), or a penis protruding from the head. In 1920s England, a slang term for head lice used to be 'dicks', so when a child would get head lice they would be called 'dickhead' by their peers.

Dick Smith's Dickheads matches.The term is considered a mild to vulgar profanity. In January 2006, UK local talk radio presenter Iain Lee called a caller named Jake Foreman a dickhead live on air. He was suspended for one day on Jan 7. He admitted to his misdemeanour live on air the following Monday.

Australian businessman Dick Smith released a brand of matches under the name "Dickheads" (a pun on the Redheads brand of matches) to the Australian public with little controversy in 1999. The word is considered less offensive in Australia.[citation needed]

For example Claire Everhart called Batman a dickhead because he is stupid

partysecured said...

Would you be offended if I called you an asshole?


(or arsehole outside of North America) is a slang term for the anus, the whole posterior or a (verbally abused) person.

Since ass or arse means anus, and hole is commonly used as a euphemism for the same organ, the word is technically a pleonasm in its literal use; however in common speech ass or arse is more often used as a pars pro toto for the buttocks (or even for the whole idividual), so the specification -hole effectively restores the original anatomical meaning anus. An analogous term in a Cognate language is Arschloch in German.

The word is mainly used as a profanity towards someone the speaker does not like or whose behavior is hurtful, self-centered or particularly abrasive. Usually, the term is directed at a male (in female anatomy, the focus is defelected to the nearby genitals). It may also sometimes be used to describe people who are viewed as stupid or useless or even meaningless.

partysecured said...

Would I be considered "hurtful, self-centered or particularly abrasive" if I called you an "asshole"

Would this be a fact in evidence or would it just be my arbitrary opinion"

partysecured said...

Are you a christian?

partysecured said...

What is a christian anyway?

partysecured said...

could what you mean by being a christian really mean hypocrit?

partysecured said...


is the act of pretending or claiming to have beliefs, feelings, morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practise. The word derives from the late Latin hypocrisis and Greek hupokrisis both meaning play-acting or pretence. The word is arguably derived from hypo- meaning under, + krinein meaning to decide/to dispute[1]

Truly believing in one's right to a behaviour whilst denying others the same right does not fit under the definition of hypocrisy, thus leads to the most common misuse of the word. Examples of behaviour mistakenly attributed to hypocrisy include issuing or enforcing dictates one does not follow oneself and criticizing others for carrying out some action while carrying out the same action oneself. This erroneous applicaton of the word, hypocrisy, leads some people to believe that most people, if not all, are hypocrites; they tend to criticize what they perceive to be bad behaviour in others, yet will justify it when they are inclined to peform the same action. Rather, this form of behaviour is closely related to the fundamental attribution error, a well-studied phenomenon of human psychology: individuals are more likely to explain their own actions by their environment, yet they attribute the actions of others to 'innate characteristics', thus leading towards judging others while justifying ones' own actions.

Hypocrisy is a deliberate pretence used to convey sentiments or ideas that are false (acting as if one likes something or someone or agrees with a belief or political position when in fact they do not).

partysecured said...

Are your opinions your beliefs?

partysecured said...

Are they based on facts currently within your knowledge?

partysecured said...

If you find it difficult to answer these stupid pointed questions with a simple yes or no does that in your opinion make you a dickhead, motherfucker, asshole, opinion maker, fact lover, christian, hypocrit, none of the above?

partysecured said...

Does jesus love those who ask questions? Those who already know the answer? or those that ask questions to try and find an answer?

partysecured said...

are we born with the answers to all questions? or must we try and get answers to our questions by dillegent searching?

partysecured said...

If we don't ever ask questions will we ever get any answers?

partysecured said...

If jezus says he hates you for asking too many questions would this be a fact or just his arbitrary opinion?

partysecured said...

What if you don't like the factual answers to your questions? will this make you mad? sad? glad? indifferent?

partysecured said...

Is it possible that you already knew all the answers to your questions?

partysecured said...

Is anyone offended by the mere asking of a question?

partysecured said...

Can it be possible for anyone to get or be offended by the mere asking of a question?

partysecured said...

Opinion by partysecured...........if the question seems frivolous or unpointed.. don't answer..... if the question aims to get to the bottom of something.. to draw a conclusion to something.. or to question one's accuser to show that they were factually mistaken on some subject matter then there shouldn't be any harm in answering a simple yes or no to a few pointed questions now should there?

partysecured said...

can you get to the bottom of "the truth" without asking questions?

partysecured said...

If I am asking questions only to opinion makers or believers will I ever get any factual evidence to answer my questions?

wantobefree said...


partysecured said...

1. Bullshit artist

Someone who likes to lie and practices lieing.

person1: Dude wanna hang out?

Person2: Cant gotta go with my mom to the store.

Person1: Bullshit artist

FollowJss said...

Why don't all of you drivelers be quiet and let the teacher speak, you might learn something.

To speak something stupidly.

~~The Swami~~~ said...

Partysecured, I don't read your shit! What's the deal? Is the teenager forum partysecured usually frequents not working?

son of a prophet said...

geez, i thougt i accidentally typed, but then i had to check, it was the dorean blog afta all....

son of a prophet said... i comes down to if someone says "hello" to you, you should ask them if you reply to their "hello", are you entering into a contract with them?

simplistic, for sure...but it gets the point across...any responding action you take on anything can be interpreted as entering into a contract, so you must make sure that you dont, or at least are aware of and agree to the terms and conditons of the contract.

son of a prophet said...

AND, of course, the contract must contain full disclosure (just like you mortgage cntract! lol)

son of a prophet said...


"Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"

John Perkins, Author

In this riveting personal story, John Perkins tells of his own inner journey from willing servant of empire to impassioned advocate for the rights of oppressed people. Covertly recruited by the United States National Security Agency and on the payroll of an international consulting firm, he traveled the world—to Indonesia, Panama, Ecuador, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other strategically important countries. His job was to implement policies that promoted the interests of the U.S. corporatocracy (a coalition of government, banks, and corporations) while professing to alleviate poverty—policies that alienated many nations and ultimately led to September 11 and growing anti-Americanism.

Perkins’ story illuminates just how far he and his colleagues—self-described as economic hit men—were willing to go. He explains, for instance, how he helped to implement a secret scheme that funneled billions of Saudi Arabian petro dollars back into the U.S. economy, and that further cemented the intimate relationship between the Islamic fundamentalist House of Saud and a succession of American administrations. Perkins reveals the hidden mechanics of imperial control behind some of the most dramatic events in recent history, such as the fall of the Shah of Iran, the death of Panamanian president Omar Torrijos, and the U.S. invasions of Panama and Iraq.

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, which many people warned Perkins not to write, exposes the little known inner workings of a system that fosters globalization and leads to the impoverishment of millions of people across the planet. It is a compelling story that also offers hope and a vision for realizing the American dream of a just and compassionate world that will bring us greater security.

KYHOOYA said...

Pauligirl said...
about the speedy Trial Act

"The court finds that for the reasons stated, for effective preparation of counsel and complexity of the case, time is excluded from Speedy trial Act."
Yes ,I understand that there has been many delays do to the judge stopping the clock for one reson or another. I also understand there are many case & point examples that show this.

My question was where the clock is at this point or has it been set aside altogether ?

I also asked you a question some time back that, that for some reson you or anyone else for that matter have yet to answer . The question was ……

The differences between the loan on a refi of your home and the loan you take on your 401-K plan ?

If one has the understanding of the two differences ,then I ask why can one be let to work to the borrowers benefit and the other only to their expense .

These two differences being shown on a (Home Equity / Cash out EQ Line )
And the (401-K vested equity loan) and understood , that one transaction causing the balance at it terms end to be notably increased by the payments and there application as set forth in the terms.
Yet when in the case of the other transaction it shows that exact opposite affect & has a cured there by causing the acct. to not only be reduced by the loan amount but a staggering 3-4 times the amount of the other EQ loan.

Now if you could tell me if I have something here that isn’t true or if there is something that I can answer for you that might better clarify these two examples. Assuming that you are of the understanding about the differences in these and I haven’t miss something that would cause a change in my position, I would like to here your thoughts on this:

1) How the two loans I have described above are different from (Purchase Home Loan) ?
2) Why the banks shouldn’t be let to lend on something that is your asset in the transaction ?
3) How the banks have taken the terms and such of the loan’s describe and then twisted them in a way as to create profitable gain all stemming from the general publics lack of understanding and their unwillingness to tell them?
4) These action be the case and the bank having the knowledge of the workings with out a doubt is this not a form of grand larceny or fraud and there by a crime by our laws?

The fact that the banks do things everyday to cause or enhance the onset of fees or any number of different think they do that strip more and more money from the public that they say they are there to service.

They are there for one thing only $$$$$$$$$$$ ….. try a little experiment the next time you get a chance see what kind of help you get when there is a lot of money in your acct and when there isn’t .
Also try to see about having a lager some of money take out in cash and see what kind of reaction you get (by large I mean $10 to 15K hardly enough to go out to the auction and by a boat or something ) the reaction will be that of interest I would hope and there by maybe the cause of your change about the bank. Oh yah there was a post some time back about the banks being told to not give you access to your safe deposit box and content in till they notify HLSecurity about it and incase of a complete closing or withdraw of content the HLS will only be letting you take papers and such no gold or silver or old fire arms from the box and in fact will be taking those away them self’s.. SURPRISE ! YOUR LOSS when and if that happens . I can state that this along with any other things have been changed at the bank and you will no longer be your money or things it will all be what they deem they want to give you and they do this with the governments backing and order so in fact they don’t care what threat you may have they have the gov. backing and so they not worried about court cases or the like .

Sound like another few cases in the fed’s hands and court that are no worry to them either.

Let’s hear what you got on these items ,but please don’t tell me the obvious I can go to the web site and read case log if that s what I wanted to what I'm asking for just say what it is and leave that text book answers for the courtroom . I already know the backing for the unjust is that goes on day tot day this is what I would like to hear the real truth you believe and feel to be right or wrong and why.


KYHOOYA said...

To whatdoyoumean:

same neck of the woods?

If you mean the "Bay area" then you would be correct in your assumtion.

Or for the redneck that could read Back Word's Bay Area Wood's.

Where they put the "uz" in "Cuz-in" & it's not always family, you kno0w what I'm say-in Cuzzy!
( *

~~The Swami~~~ said...

© John Spellman / Retna Ltd.
Scarlett Johansson
Esquire: Scarlett Johansson 'Sexiest'
Sep 29, 2:28 PM EST

The Associated Press

Scarlett Johansson's hourglass figure and plum movie roles have brought her many fans. Among them, clearly, the editors at Esquire. The magazine has just crowned her "Sexiest Woman Alive."

The 21-year-old actress poses in come-hither garb on the cover and inside pages of the magazine's November issue, on newsstands Oct. 18.

~~The Swami~~~ said...

With this picture, I rest my case.

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

What an absolute beauty.

dgwondering said...

The person allegedly posting as Kurt said: "By the end you will be able to clearly see that Dorean was completely within the law and that amateurs like Pauligirl don’t know what they’re talking about."

Sure. By the end.

By the end of what? Your prison term?

Where are the civil court challenges to your nonsense that would mean something? Anybody got any REAL SITES that would work in the REAL WORLD? Come on, cases people real world legal cases that somehow just never really seem to be there in REAL LIFE. Get real, eh? Did Dewey win? Oh, wait, he's in jail for another scam and trying to worm his way out of this too.

Kurt, your criminal trial will have nothing to do with your victims problems no matter which way it goes not matter if its over tomorrow or in the next decade, and you and your promoters haven't won a single civil case because your program is a legal FRAUD.

If it isn't, where's the appeal on the Kenney case? Got a real answer for that? Why isn't it being appealed if it was wrong?

Even if you screw around for two or three more years with your stupid phony legal BS, your clients are still holding the bag when a lender takes them apart in civil courts because you lost in court.

Your theories are bogus legally decided tripe that you keep posting just to try and promote another scheme down the road.

If they aren't bogus maybe you can get your dimwit Gashler who still isn't in jail to actually lead someone into court and win he seems to know everything you need to make the banks cower and go away right? Wonder why they don't? No I don't wonder because youre just another con man with the same old song and Gashler is just another liar promoter.

Come on, give your victims some hope they can win in the real world not in your fantasy.

Where's the beef? Not religious dogma crap, what will really work in the real world today?

If you don't have the answer, shut the (&^* up trying to be Jesus.

mogel said...

DG Wondering said: Did Dewey win? Oh, wait, he's in jail for another scam and trying to worm his way out of this too.
You don't even know why he's there in jail, so it shows what you know.

No Hassle Loans said...

Hey nice blog. Although it�s not what I was looking for. I am looking for info on Payday Loans or a Cash Advance so I can buy some Phentramine diet pills.. I found your blog very interesting