Monday, March 12, 2007

NOTICE OF TORT AND CONTRACTUAL REMEDY AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT

NOTICE
On 1-3-07 I received a summons and complaint making an unsupported claim of account/Case Number 06CV_______-10 upon my property. This claim is a trespass, a tort, upon settled and completed contracts of which performance and consideration has passed. I am willing and hereby offer a waiver of tort for damages as consideration for the self-help remedy afforded the aggrieved party under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) by the remedy contract contained herein. Please consider your actions. I do not want to do any business with you (all parties). If I am forced into a business relationship with you by your performance this expressed contract is the only agreement between the parties and it may not be amended accept by an agreement in writing.
The party served is not listed in the summons or complaint. I am the general trustee for the trust known as KURT F. JOHNSON©™ which is not the trustee for the ____________ FAMILY TRUST. I am also acting as a representative for the trust known as DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN©™. This NOTICE, CONTRACT, and AFFIDAVIT is inclusive of both parties and all rights, title, or interest trespassed upon is remedied herein.
This contract if performed upon is irrevocable and coupled with a security interest. This agreement is to include as though fully contained herein all the terms and conditions set out in the “Paramount Claim and Amended Cross-complaint” and other documents filed upon the record of CR 05-00611 WHA which claimants already have notice of as proven by their submitted unsupported claim.
All the parties are proven competent to identify, enter and execute upon their contracts by the course of performance taken in this instant. No remorse or excuse of lack of understanding shall function as a waiver or exemption from the terms herein.
The parties noticed are noticed individually and as agent/actors on behalf of their principals whether the principles are Natural or fictional persons. All agents/parties not yet identified but are active participants of the trespass and performance are hereby noticed and bound by the contract terms. The contract is a strict liability, strict foreclosure, with a waiver of notice. It is very serious and pause should be taken before acceptance. There will be exemptions or exits that should also be seriously considered.

CONTRACTUAL REMEDY

The known parties of SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY, DEKALB COUNTY, THE STATE OF GEORGIA, THE BANK OF NEW YORK, Clerk deputy DENISE INGRAM-PEARRY, THE CLERK, EQUI CREDIT CORPORATION, SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC., LVNU FUNDING LLC, EMMETT L. GODDMAN Esq., SHERMAN ACQUISITION LP, ELIZABETH WHEALLER Esq., NATIONS CREDIT FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, are offering trespass upon my property without having any rights, title, or interest or any agreement from the title holder. This damage is being offered as consideration under the following terms and conditions.

IT SHALL BE AGREED AMONG THE PARTIES:

• That this contract functions as a self-executing Security Agreement in the event of performance.
• That performance is equal to the intent of being contractually bound with full acceptance
• That Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ and Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ are Secured Party Creditors jointly and individually and the known and unknown parties are debtors.
• That all known and unknown parties agree to pledge all their assets, lands, and personal property, including their rights, title, and interest in assets, lands, and/or personal property individually and as a collective to match and equal satisfaction of the aggregate of the damages accepted.
• That all assets pledged are under strict foreclosure rights to the Secured Parties with a waiver of Notice to the debtors.
• That the damages authenticates this Security Agreement wherein Debtors pledge assets, lands, consumer goods, farm products, inventory, equipment, money, commissions, income, compensation, investment property, commercial tort claims, letters of credit, letters of credit rights, chattel paper, instruments, beneficial interest, equities, deposits, accounts, documents, security interest, licenses, privileges, retirement accounts, and general intangibles, and all Debtor’s rights in all such foregoing property, now owned and/or hereafter acquired, now existing or hereafter arising, and wherever located, as collateral for securing Debtor’s contractual obligations in favor of Secured Party(ies) for damages accepted as consideration. The above list not being all inclusive if a different type of property asset should become available it is included.
• That the Debtor(s) consent and agree to the Secured Party(ies) filings of UCC Financing Statements with the UCC filing office, or any public recording office wherein the known or unknown parties are named as Debtor and Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ and/or Dale – Scott : Heineman©™ are named as Secured Party(ies)
• That the financing statements are a continuing financial statement, and Debtor(s) further consents to the filing of any continuation statement made necessary to perfect the Secured Party(ies) security interest, until Debtor’s contractual obligations have been fully satisfied.
• That this Security Agreement/Contract may be filed or published anywhere necessary to perfect Secured Party(ies) interest.
• That Debtor(s) waive all defenses and are precluded from considering this agreement or the filings bogus.
• That Debtor(s) appoint Secured Party(ies) as authorized representatives to execute any business or authenticate any instruments, documents, or records on their behalf to assist in the satisfaction of contractual obligations to Secured Party(ies)
• That the appointment of Secured Party(ies) as authorized representatives is effective immediately upon performance/acceptance while being irrevocable and tied to a security interest.
• That Secured Party(ies) are free to use their sole discretion in the performance as Authorized Representative(s) as long as the action supports settlement of the contractual obligations.
• That the terms of the Secured Party(ies) publish copyright notice are incorporated into this agreement as recorded in the public record known as CR 05-00611 WHA.
• That the Secured Party(ies) are compensated Ten Million dollars for the trespass and twenty four million five-hundred thousand dollars for the 49 unauthorized uses of copyright and trademark property at Five-hundred thousand per use.
• That the assets/property pledged to Secured Party(ies) are the first to attach, first in priority, and first in perfection. Debtor(s) agree to have any paramount claim subrogated or extinguished within 30 days of the execution of this agreement.
• That Secured Party(ies) are free to use, pledge, liquidate, hypothecate or assign the assets herein pledged by Debtor(s) to settle any verified claims presented to them for settlement.
• That the Debtor(s) cannot claim any public interest in the assets pledged to avoid their contractual obligations. Execution of this agreement is evidence of Debtor(s) knowledgeable consent as to the priority and interest of Secured Party(ies).
• That any conflicts of interest among the Debtor(s) created by their entrance into this agreement are the sole liability of the Debtor(s) and in no way effect the interest of Secured Party(ies). That Debtor(s) are to remain in possession of the pledged property until invoiced by Secured Party(ies). When invoice is due and payable Debtor(s) are to submit a ledger accounting of assets pledged with their fair market values along with payment.
• That failure of Debtor(s) to settle invoice timely or submit a ledger of pledged assets will be a default that invokes immediately any and all strict foreclosure remedies afforded the Secured Party(ies) including their authorized representation.

EXEMPTION PROVISIONS
• That the Debtor(s) can be exempted from this contract by the cease and desist of damages and the withdrawal of the unverified unsupported claim. If the claim should be withdrawn and resubmitted again at a future date it will be as though this exemption had never been executed and all the terms and conditions are fully reinstated.
• That if the Debtor(s) wish to invoke their debtor/creditor right under the bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES via House Joint Resolution 192 June 5, 1933, Public Law 73-10 they can return this NOTICE AND CONTRACT with the statement “Accepted for value, returned for value, discharge and settlement in accordance with but not limited by HJR 192 June 5, 1933, Public Law 73-10 and Public Policy.” If Debtor(s) do not invoke this exemption within the 72 hours of commercial acceptance it is forever waived.
• That the Debtor(s) may exempt themselves for cause upon a showing of just cause by a complete point for point rebuttal (ANSWER) of the Affidavit in Support verified by oath under the pain of penalty of perjury within 5 (five) days of receipt of NOTICE. Unknown parties have 30 days from notice filed upon the Public Record.
• Exemption from this contract does not affect the separate Copyright infringement damages pursuant to the Copyright contract if it is binding among the parties.

PERFORMANCE EXECUTION

• Failure to cease and desist and to persist in damages will be acceptance by performance to all the proceeding terms and conditions. Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ and Dale – Scott: Heineman©™, Secured Party(ies) offer these damages as consideration. Creditor’s rights herein obtained are exempt from lien or levy, first in priority.
• Retaliation by Debtor(s) as a response to this notice upon Secured Party(ies) by the imposition of inapplicable codes, rules, regulations or statutes without their consent or agreement obtained by full disclosure in fair dealing is a form of argument which is acceptance.



PERFORMANCE IS ACCEPTANCE
SILENCE IS ACCEPTANCE
ARGUMENT IS ACCEPTANCE
DISHONOR IS ACCEPTANCE
TARDINESS IS ACCEPTANCE

CAVEAT: At no time did Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ and Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ intend, desire, or consent to doing business with these parties or their agents. This contract is a remedy for being coercively forced against our will to the subjugation of damages.

NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPLE
NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT

Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ and Dale – Scott : Heineman©™ by the agent Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ swear by the affixing of their signature that this is the only agreement between the parties and that any and all implied contracts are void, and quashed by this expressed.




By: ___________________________________________
Me, Kurt-F.: Johnson©™ Sovereign
General Trustee for KURT F. JOHNSON©™
Agent for DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN©™
Subscribed under reserve without recourse

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

State of _________________
County of _______________

On this ____ day of ___________, 2007, before me personally appeared __________________________ (name of signer), whose identity was proved to me on the oath of ________________________________ (Name of credible person), a credible person by me duly sworn, and acknowledged that the signer signed the above/attached document.





_______________________________
Notary Public Seal







FURTHER STATEMENT

I, _______________, Notary Public am acting as a witness to the originality of this document and that it was sent by my hand. Further I Authenticate the originality of the documents by the placement of my seal on the original and each copy and will act as a witness to the responses to the offer made herein. All responses are to be mailed to:

Kurt – F.: Johnson©™
c/o _________________


AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT

Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ and Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ in support of NOTICE OF TORT AND CONTRACTUAL REMEDY.

Dale-Scott: Heineman©™ and Kurt- F.: Johnson©™ in Support of NOTICE OF DEFECTIVE PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF SEARCH WARRANT AND SEIZURE WARRANT NUMBERS 05-70050, 05-70051, 05-70052, 05-70053, 05-70054, 05-70055, 3-05-70276 DATED JANUARY 27, 2005 AND NOTICE OF CONTRACTUAL REMEDY.

IMPORTANT – Non-rebuttal, silence, argument, or tardiness to the times prescribed herein is a stipulation among the parties to the [ANSWERS] provided herein.

1. Dale-Scott: Heineman©™ and Kurt-F: Johnson©™, hereinafter Affiants, natural beings, free men on the land, living breathing souls in correct public capacity as beneficiaries to the Original Jurisdiction, self realized entities, our yes be yes, our no be no, state that the facts contained herein are true, correct, complete, and not misleading. [ANSWER- It is agreed.]

2. Affiants are of majority in age, have sound minds and are competent to testify. [ANSWER - It is agreed.]

3. Affiants declare and aver that for the purpose of clarity, communication, and resolution a GLOSSARY OF TERMS, herewith attached, applies to the words, word meanings, terms, terms and conditions of contracts and/or agreements and establishes a limitation and/or boundary of those specific words and terms, without subjective interpretation. [ANSWER - It is agreed to by all.]

4. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that a matter unexpressed can be resolved and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - An unexpressed matter cannot be resolved.]

5. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that implied penumbra contracts supersede or have precedent over expressed contracts and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - Implied penumbra contracts do not supersede or have precedent over expressed contracts.]

6. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that in commerce truth is not sovereign and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The truth in commerce is sovereign.]

7. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that as natural sovereign men upon the land that they are subject to any code, regulation or statute except that which can be reconciled within the common law and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - As natural sovereign men upon the land that they are not subject to any code, regulation or statute except that which can be reconciled within the common law.]

8. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that an act of congress does not regulate creations of the government and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - An act of congress does regulate creations of the government.]

9. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that a Banking institution is not a creation of government and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - A Banking institution is a creation of government.]

10. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that an act of congress that has not been repealed or amended is ineffectual and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - An act of congress that has not been repealed or amended is effectual.]

11. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that Revised Statute 62 has been repealed or amended and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - Revised Statute 62 has not been repealed or amended.]

12. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that truth in commerce is not expressed in the form of an affidavit and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - Truth in commerce is expressed in the form of an Affidavit.]

13. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that a common practice is evidence of a lawful practice and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - A common practice is not evidence of a lawful practice.]

14. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that an affidavit in commerce subscribed and sworn without possessing first-hand knowledge is superior to an affidavit in commerce subscribed and sworn by one who is actually in possession of first-hand knowledge and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - An affidavit in commerce subscribed and sworn without possessing first-hand knowledge is not superior to an affidavit in commerce subscribed and sworn by one who is actually in possession of first-hand knowledge.]

15. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that an affidavit in commerce not rebutted after the time prescribed herein does not become the judgment in commerce and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - After the time prescribed herein an un-rebutted affidavit in commerce becomes the judgment in commerce.]

16. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that this Affidavit in commerce un-rebutted after the time prescribed herein does not stand as the uncontested truth in the matter and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - This Affidavit in commerce un-rebutted after the time prescribed herein stands as the uncontested truth in the matter.]

17. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that the answers provided in this Affidavit in commerce are not the answers if un-rebutted after the time prescribed herein and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The answers provided in this Affidavit in commerce are the answers if un-rebutted after the time prescribed herein.]

18. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that the first in time first in line filing of a financing statement does not place the Secured Party in the paramount creditor position and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The first in time first in line filing of a financing statement places the Secured Party in the paramount creditor position.]

19. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that the natural man is not endowed the right to contract by his Creator and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The natural man is endowed the right to contract by his Creator.]

20. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that the natural man cannot enjoy the benefits of his contracts and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The natural man can enjoy the benefits of his contracts.]

21. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that trespassing upon private contracts is permissible at law and does not create a liability for the trespasser and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - Trespassing upon private contracts is not permissible at law and does create a liability for the trespasser.]

22. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving the financing statement identifying the cestui que trust DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ as Secured Party does not reflect the truth of a binding agreement between the parties and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The financing statement identifying cestui que trust DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ as Secured Party reflects the truth of a binding agreement between the parties.]

23. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving the financing statement identifying the cestui que trust KURT F. JOHNSON®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ as Secured Party does not reflect the truth of a binding agreement between the parties and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The financing statement identifying the cestui que trust KURT F. JOHNSON®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ as Secured Party reflects the truth of a binding agreement between the parties.]

24. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving the financing statement identifying the cestui que trust DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ as Secured Party was improperly filed and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The financing statement identifying the cestui que trust DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ as Secured Party was properly filed.]

25. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving the financing statement identifying the cestui que trust KURT F. JOHNSON®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ as Secured Party was improperly filed and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The financing statement identifying the cestui que trust KURT F. JOHNSON®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ as Secured Party was properly filed.]

26. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving the financing statement identifying cestui que trust DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ as Secured Party is bogus and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The financing statement identifying cestui que trust DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ as Secured Party is not bogus.]

27. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving the financing statement identifying KURT F. JOHNSON®™ as a debtor in commerce and Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ as Secured Party is bogus and believe that none exists. [ANSWER - The financing statement identifying the cestui que trust KURT F. JOHNSON®™ as a debtor in commerce and the living soul Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ as Secured Party is not bogus.]

28. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that they are subject to liability by statute O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91(4) and believes that none exists. [ANSWER - Affiants are not subject to liability by statute O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91(4).]

29. Affiants have neither been presented with, nor shown, any evidence demonstrating or proving that any of the claiming parties have sworn out an oath of verification that affiants are liable to O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91(4) or any other part of their claim and believes that none exists. [ANSWER - Claiming parties have never verified by oath any liability of Affiants.]

30. Affiants hereby pledge all assets, holding, accounts, beneficial interest, income, revenues, and exemptions to compensate, or reimburse any cost, damages, or expenses that occur to the claimants if they should produce evidence of a valid claim under oath.

SILENCE IS PERFORMANCE, NON-REBUTTAL IS PERFORMANCE,
ARGUMENT IS PERFORMANCE, PERFORMANCE IS THE ACT OF
BINDING INTENT OF AGREEMENT

VERIFICATION

We Kurt – F.: Johnson©™ and Dale – Scott: Heineman©™ declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the States United that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at arms length, on the ____ day of the first month in the year of our Lord, two thousand-seven at the county of Alameda.







By: _____________________________________
Me, Kurt-F.: Johnson©™ Sovereign
General Trustee for KURT F. JOHNSON©™
Agent for DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN©™
Subscribed under reserve without recourse



§ The States United, the perpetual
§ union of sovereign states combined
§ to form a constitutional republic

47 comments:

sxwwdfox said...

hello! A Good News,google introduce a very user-friendly browser,Free download Quickly,Please visit my blog thank you

son of a prophet said...

look lik the "code" has been cracked.

<><><><<<<>>><><<<|>>><<><><><><>
<><<>><<><><<><<>|>>><<<><><><<><>
><><<<>>><><><><<<|<>><><><<>><<>>

Stillwaiting said...

What does all this mean?

son of a prophet said...

it means....10100111010101001010101101010101001011110101000101010101010101001101001010101000101010101010101010101010010101010101011010111010011101010100101010110101010100101111010100010101010101010100110100101010100010101010101010101001110101010010101011011010101001110101010010101011010101010010100111010101001010101101010101001011110101000101010101010101001101001010101000101010101010101010101010010101010101011010110101010101111010100010101010101010100110100101010100010101010101010101010101001010101010101101011010101001110101010010101011010101010010111101010011101010100101010110101010100101111010100010101010101010100110100101010100010101010101010101010101001010101010101101011010101010100010101010101010100110100101010100010101010101010101010101001010101010101101011010101001010100101111010100010101010101010100110100101010100010101010101010101010101001010101010101101011010101010101010100101010101010110101101010100101010...................

son of a prophet said...

it meens yo never read "CRACKING DA CODE"


whats crackin'?

Ured13 said...

SOAP, you're an idiot!

near the end said...

son of a prophet, Your weird!!!!

mogel said...

I agree with SOP. I don't think he's an idiot at all. "Cracking the code," kind of sums up the point of everything. I think within all of the legalese in this latest post shows the defenses that the Dorean Group has against all entities that want to infringe upon the administrative judgments that exist for all dorean clients, whether it is a bank that is sueing the Dorean Group or Judge Alsup's court which is encroaching or trying to encroach upon already settled matters.

This "notice of tort" basically stops the banks lawsuit or puts the lender/debtor in a worse situation by trying to pursue their unmerited claim against the secured creditor, which is the Dorean Group.

Everyone should know that the lender that filed this lawsuit against the Dorean Group, won't answer any of the points in this post just like they didn't answer the original Dorean presentment sent out in behalf of the client.

near the end said...

The lenders and CA. are digging such a BIG hole for themselves.

They had better get out of this before the media takes hold and they will take hold it's comin.

GR82BMOI said...

Near the end said…”The lenders and CA. are digging such a BIG hole for themselves.”

No they’re not. In fact, I doubt if there is a “lender” in the land that even cares about this silly case. But, just in case they do, the Government is asking the Court to order the following:

The government respectfully requests that this Court: (1) order the defendants at the outset of trial not to argue their legal interpretations to the jury; (2) not admit such argumentative materials into evidence; (3) before the defendants mention or quote
from materials upon which they allegedly relied, place the defendants on voir dire, outside the presence of the jury, in order to show actual reliance upon the material; and (4) give the jury appropriate curative instructions if the defendants make inaccurate statements or interpretations of law.
Dated: March 5, 2007 Respectfully submitted,
SCOTT N. SCHOOLS
United States Attorney
JAMES E. KELLER
Assistant United States Attorney

Read the Governments filings in this case – I’m no lawyer, but they seem awfully coherent and logical to me. Then, read Heineman and Johnson’t stupid legal gibberish. Do you really think stupid is going to win?

son of a prophet said...

"The government respectfully requests that this Court: (1) order the defendants at the outset of trial not to argue their legal interpretations to the jury;


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!!!!


wouldnt it just be easier to lock them up in quantanamo???


they dont get to argue they case in front of a jury either and its a lot cheaper then keeping them in the fedpen.

habakkuk said...

" Read the Governments filings in this case – I’m no lawyer, but they seem awfully coherent and logical to me. Then, read Heineman and Johnson’t stupid legal gibberish. Do you really think stupid is going to win? "

Do you really think Kurt Johnson is stupid??? CMON!! He's probably one of the smartest men i know.

Wait a minute..... does,nt it make you stupid since you gave a "stupid" man $3000 of your money?????

LOL!!!!

habakkuk said...

The government respectfully requests that this Court: (1) order the defendants at the outset of trial not to argue their legal interpretations to the jury;

DOESNT THAT SAY IT ALL

Tony Tuba said...

GR82BMOI said...

The government respectfully requests that this Court: (1) order the defendants at the outset of trial not to argue their legal interpretations to the jury;




Come on man!!!!! Great to Be Moi.......you have got to be smarter than that. Common sense!!! If Dorean's case is so weak, futile, scammish, without merit, based on kooky theories, ect, ect, ect........wouldn't the government WANT Kurt and Scott to show the holes in their case? Since when has the government ever thought of doing anything for ANY defendents anywhere or especially Kurt and Scott.

I know several years ago some guy went into a court house in Fort Worth and shot up some lawyers, and that guy had been killed by the death penalty just over a year later. Yeah.....the lawyers made damn sure law was followed once one of their own had been killed...............JUST A YEAR LATER AND THEIR JUSTICE HAD BEEN EXECUTED. Now if this was the slam dunk case the government leads us to believe.........why haven't we had a trial within two years ?????? Why doesn't the government want Kurt and Scott to argue their proof of broken laws in front of a jury..........oh I don't know......could it be because THE GOVERNMENT's CASE IS BOGUS!!!!!!!!! Don't give me the garbage they're waiting on Bill Julian. If Dorean WAS fraudulent.........Julian isn't going to turn on on Kurt. Julian is the government's ACE??????? PLEASE!!!!!! Waiting on him is a bogus excuse. If the government has got the goods on Dorean.......they don't need Julian!!!!!!!

Thanks Mr Goverment, but you can keep your offer to sit quietly, roll over and play dead while you stick it to us!!!!! Dumb Ass doesn't live here anymore.

neodemes said...

You mean D-umb:.Ass©™, don'tcha?

LOL

'frickin' 'tards

mogel said...

"Why doesn't the government want Kurt and Scott to argue their proof of broken laws in front of a jury."
__________________________________

I think it's more they want to "stack the jury pool", "prejudice the jury pool", "control the courtroom" by motions being upheld, what legal arguments can be brought up in the court in the first place. And foremost the prosecution doesn't wan ANY ARGUMENTS OF THE UCC The prosecution wants total control of what the jury hears. That's a form of brainwashing, but oh well, it's what the prosecution wants in the name of justice. LOL

notarial dissent said...

What a monumental load of codswallop.

A long winded agglomeration of legally meaningless gibber followed by a set of affidavits that can be easily summed up under the heading of who cares and so what!!!

This is a criminal prosecution, so whether the dim duo wants to do “business” with the “parties” is irrelevant in the extreme. The banks and the list of people they listed are not party to the action, although they may be witnesses against the dim duo. The UCC is legally meaningless in a criminal prosecution and is legally useless in this matter, so they can rant all they want to about it and it will avail them not.

So far as I have been able to determine, there have been no civil actions filed against the Dorean Group or the Dim duo to date, probably for lack of anything to get, since the gov’t has ceased all their assets, and once they are convicted they will go towards restitution to the injured parties. The "notice of tort" is just so much more blather, again to be filed under the so what and who cares file, since they are not in any position to do anything about it even assuming they actually had any standing to do so, which they don’t. Their actions have been civilly ruled as fraud, so there is no way for them to go into another court and claim otherwise as the first judgement will be defense enough to have the suit thrown out.

As to the “administrative judgements” there being no such thing at law, they too are as legally meaningless as the rest of the Dorean blather.

Nice try Moogie, but you’re still batting zero for all.

The big problem is that you have to have something that is legally meaningful and legally valid that will stand up in court before you can do anything, and the Dorean ding dongs didn't don't and still haven’t got a thing. It is all blather and dross, and just because they call it an “administrative judgement” doesn’t make it anything other than what it is, a worthless piece of paper to go along with a worthless and fraudulent process.

papa_dont_preach said...

NO-Taurus, your wiley statements are FALSE again. The "administrative judgement" PLUS the UCC-1 Lien filed against the bank made them WALK AWAY from the table 2 years ago. Once again you ARE A LIAR!!! Carry on.

near the end said...

NEO'WHY DID YOU FILE

"BANKRUPTCY"?

COME ON BRUCE TELL US ALL.

son of a prophet said...

"As to the “administrative judgements” there being no such thing at law, they too are as legally meaningless as the rest of the Dorean blather.

--------------------------------


not really true since AR are controlled at the BIS in sweetsinland, and are out of the jurys dick shin of the USA©



K and S may in fact get railroaded but this will have no effect on the AR other than if they are cleared completely to increase the AR

near the end said...

gr82bmoi; I'm sure your a great guy but; I have spoken to a friend of mine who is a local judge and he said;

If a judge were to grant that motion he would basically be signing his walking papers.

near the end said...

Also if it did'nt cause him to quit the bench;

He'd have huge Law suits to deal with. Think hard about this and you will see the light.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "This is a criminal prosecution, so whether the dim duo wants to do “business” with the “parties” is irrelevant in the extreme."
____________________________________

You can call it a "criminal prosecution", but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, is it a pig?

Where in the court record is (1) any and all documents that contain the testimony OF ANY WITNESS or party that professes that the Defendants have liability to 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1344, 1349, 401 (3) 981 (a) 1) (c) and 28 U.S.C 2461 UNDER OATH

(2) Any and all documents that establish as fact on their face that the Defendants have DIRECT LIABILITY to statutes 18 u.s.c. 1341, 1344, 1349, 401 (3) 981 (A) (1)(c) and 28 U.S.C 2416 and

(3) Where are the documents in the court record used to VERIFY THE LIABILITY that led to the issue pf probable cause, seizure warrants, indictments, the subsequent detainer warrants, and the current no bail incarceration."

Just because you call it a criminal prosecution, doesn't make it so.

You can file your blather and assumptions under the file, "Who cares, so what & what relevance is it, and who wants to do business with liars and crooks."

mogel said...

Great to be Moi said: "In fact, I doubt if there is a “lender” in the land that even cares about this silly case."
____________________________________

I'll just assume you're correct and file that under more proof that the lenders weren't damaged at all through the Dorean Process. "no harm, no foul, no caring." Good point Great One!!!!!

mogel said...

Near the End said: "He'd have huge Law suits to deal with."
__________________________________
Speaking of lawsuits or complaints, look what some of the major players still have to answer to according to the charges by the Dorean Group, and maybe this is just the tip of the iceburg:

"Criminal complaint/Indictment charging conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1005, 4 and 2, 1341 by defendants Kevin N. Ryan (sic), Eumi Choi, James Keller et al., CR-5-90261 MISC (RS) (June 2, 2005)."

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "since the gov’t has CEASED ALL their assets, and once they are convicted they will go towards restitution to the injured parties."
___________________________________

You do mean "seized" don't you? Or are you just illiterate too? And what proof do you have that ALL assets were seized? Who are the injured parties and what is the nature of the injury? From what I've seen in instances like this, the government always takes the lion share of the assets and according to their long timetable at some point returns but a paltry sum back to the people. Can one conclude from this scenario, that the government will consider themselves as the most injured party here?

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "The UCC is legally meaningless in a criminal prosecution..."
_________________________________

So do you truly believe if there was overwhelming evidence that a lender willfully and purposefully altered and forged a promissory note for their sole gain at the detriment of another party, that the UCC Code couldn't be used at all in a criminal prosecution against the lender and UCC Code is totally irrelevant in a criminal matter such as this? Are you also saying and suggesting that the UCC has NEVER been used EVER on any court record in any criminal prosecution too?

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: As to the “administrative judgements” there being no such thing at law,
____________________________________

Answer me this then, is an arbitration judgment an "administrative judgment", or is it a "judicial judgment"?

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "Their actions have been civilly ruled as fraud, so there is NO WAY for them to go into another court and claim otherwise as the first judgement will be defense enough to have the suit thrown out."
_________________________________

So I take it then, you've heard of NO case that was ever brought into another court with 'NEW EVIDENCE' and the court wouldn't hear it, even though there was new evidence?

So I also take it that you believe if the previous ruling was based upon error, & it could be shown that, that even in that scenario the higher court or different court, would STILL turn a deaf ear to the evidence too without a hearing?

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent: I'm just waiting for you to the tell the truth at least one time!! Will it ever happen?

I do agree with you on the batting score though:

Lies told:

Notarial Dissent Mogel

1000 0

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "So far as I have been able to determine, there have been no civil actions filed against the Dorean Group or the Dim duo to date,"
____________________________________

Go back to Nemo's forum. You'll find at least one case that was posted. Where were you when that was discussed?

Maybe you were at the 5th Grade Spelling Bee championship when that was being discussed, you think?

GR82BMOI said...

Mogel jabbered..."I'll just assume you're correct and file that under more proof that the lenders weren't damaged..."

Or, more likely, they just don't give a rat's ass about the criminal trial of two sleazy con men.

GR82BMOI said...

near the end said..."If a judge were to grant that motion he would basically be signing his walking papers."

Betcha he does it anyway. Betcha double he doesn't get his walking papers.

mogel said...

Great to be Moi said: "Betcha he does it anyway. Betcha double he doesn't get his walking papers."
___________________________________

You're probably right!!! More proof that the Dorean Group were never intended to get a fair trial. Alsup will more than likely sign & validate any motion the prosecution presents.

GR82BMOI said...

D-umb:.Ass©™

Ok, Neo...now THAT's funny!

Almost as funny as the word of the day, submitted by SOP:

"jurys dick shin"

Here's the word of the day used in a sentence:

not really true since AR are controlled at the BIS in sweetsinland, and are out of the jurys dick shin of the USA©

If that don't put a smirk on your face, I don't know what will.

mogel said...

Subprime loans are in trouble & expected to cause lower home values in many states:

http://biz.yahoo.com/cnnm
/070313/031207_new_real_estate_
reality.html?.v=1&.pf=loans

Seen it in Utah said...

I haven't laughed this hard in a long time. What an amazingly official-sounding pile of crap! Oh, man, it almost makes me cry I am laughing so hard. And sadly, you folks who find this tripe anything but gibberish are truly hopelessly ignorant.

dgwondering said...

Weeks and months go by and liars keep on keeping on.

Even if any of that BS from somebody claiming to be Kurt (duh! he doesn't have access to the net!!!!!) meant anything the victims of the Dorean scam are still be out what they paid to the agenets like the liar Byron Gashler.

Hello liar!! I'm back to out you for what you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why aren't you in there with Julian and Sarah whatsername? Are you too small a fish? You already rolled over and testified to save your sorry ass?

After weeks we can see he still wants to put out how his bullshit lies are going to win.

Hey Gashler you know what? You still haven't answered the question about whether you can get your Mormon temple recommend because of your lying scheme. So the real question is if you got one did you lie to get it. So if you did you lied to get it which you had to because you'd have lie about the scam liar!!!! so will your lie make anything you did in the temple worthless? Or didn't you go any more? Inquiring minds want to know buddy (are you a high priest yet?) I've been away from here too long and you're still preaching bullshit lies.

Hey liar there are people in your church who do know you for what you are.

near the end said...

Utah; If your laughing at this you must be a really boring LOSER!!!!!!!!

mogel said...

DG Wondering: I'm just wondering, is English your first language? Or maybe you're really an immigrant illegally residing in this country struggling with the English language?

"I'm here to OUT you for what you are."

Is there a reason you use prepositions as verbs? Or is your sentence structure just a reflection of your I.Q.? I'm sorry to inform you, but that job was given to "Fruit", not you.

"Why aren't you in THERE with Julian and Sarah whatsername"?

Are you referring to the country of Panama, or the country of Canada? I can't really tell? Sarah has never been incarcerated, so I'm sure you weren't talking about prison. Course since you don't even know her last name, it doesn't appear to me you're very informed at all, or made any effort to be informed, so I find it really ironical that you are so inquisitive. An inquiring mind, YOU ARE NOT, so you just give me more reason to ignore your silly questions.

Maybe if you can form a coherent question, I could give you a coherent answer, but all of your questions are so vague and undeterminate, I'm at a loss of what you are talking about most of the time.

mogel said...

DUH Wondering said: duh! he doesn't have access to the net!!!!!
___________________________________

What exactly was your point again?

Are you suggesting that Kurt can't write a letter to someone that does have internet capacity who can then subscribe Kurt's words on this blog?

Yea, that sums it up well: Duh!!!!!!!

mogel said...

Seen It in Utah said: And sadly, you folks who find this tripe anything but gibberish are truly hopelessly IGNORANT.
__________________________________

Utah: Please tell us all again, what you learned in your Title Company meeting? How much money did the Dorean Group take in that you posted once on the blog and how many clients did you believe there were based upon what you were told in your cult like Title company meetings? Tell me, did you do the arithmetic in your head when you first heard the figures or did you just accept what you were told?

You must have thought that most clients did a successful refinance! Course than again, since you own a title company, how could you really believe the financial figures that you were told because you were aware of what was going on to stop the refinances. You got the memos from the Fed about the Dorean Group, didn't you?

Unless OF COURSE, you TRULY ARE IGNORANT YOURSELF & BELIEVE THE TRIPE THAT YOU ARE FED or maybe you simply can't do 3rd grade arithmetic? Either way, you're ignorant, so it really doesn't matter to me to know all of the facts about you.

I'm still laughing at your ignorance based upon that one post. Some of your other posts are classics too by the way.

You really need to leave your business job more often & get some real entertainment in your life. I understand Las Vegas isn't too far from where you are.

mogel said...

Seen It in Utah: Can you please explain your laughter specifically, because I've known people like you that laugh at just anything without reason, and for some reason, I find that kind of funny myself.

Humor can be explained! Would you like to give it a try so others can laugh too? Or maybe you're just the type that likes to laugh at their own jokes alone?

notarial dissent said...

Moogs, as usual, you are dim and confused. Currently the only thing that will be in the court record are the court’s orders, the assorted bits of the dim duo’s attempts at legal levity, the govt’s responses, when they weren’t laughing themselves silly, and the grand jury indictment.

I don’t call it a criminal prosecution, the gov’t does, I am just repeating the obvious.

Your knowledge of legal process it seems is right on par with your knowledge of real estate law, a dead flat zero, the testimony will come at the trial, not before hand, the assorted documents, affidavits, exhibits, and whatever else the gov’t chooses to present, will be done at trial, not before hand, so no, they are not in the record.

Sorry, meant seized, was thinking one thing and typed another, you’ll get over it.

You don’t seriously think the gov’t left anything lying around when they got around to SEIZING the dim duo’s ill gotten funds do you? I have no idea what the gov’t will do as regards to dealing with the funds they SEIZED, I suspect a good deal will depend on circumstances, one thing I am certain about is that none of it will be going back to anyone connected with Dorean, and I will be willing to bet that any of the Dorean clients who actually participated in the fraud will be lucky if they themselves are not prosecuted at a later date, and won’t be getting anything back.

The UCC does not apply to anything having to do with real estate transactions, and that includes the PN’s involved with them. First and foremost, there has been no evidence presented whatsoever that there has been any alteration or forgery involved in any of the PN’s either in the Dorean cases, or anywhere else for that matter, so that argument is so much bilge. Secondly, if you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know that the UCC is not about criminal actions in the first place, but about how business transactions are to be carried out in commerce, actions under the UCC come primarilly under civil procedures, but then again if you knew what you were talking about you would know that. If there were fraud with the pn’s, that would have to be prosecuted under state or federal fraud statutes depending upon the case at hand, but then you’d know that too if you knew what you were talking about.

An arbitration “decision” is just that, a decision, it is a quasi judicial function, that to be enforced must be taken to civil court. You can get all the arbitration decisions you want, but unless a civil court recognizes and enforces them, they are like your so called "administrative judgments", just another piece of worthless paper, except that, an arbitration by a recognized arbiter is actually worth something, since it can be enforced by a court unlike your "administrative judgments" which have no legal validity and will be tossed by the court if ever presented.

Again Moogems, your legal ignorance is astounding, you still don’t know the differences between civil and criminal court. Once a civil court rules on a matter, unless and until that matter is appealed and overturned, the decision stands, regardless of what happens in any other court since they are not ruling on that particular matter, and since the matter we are speaking here is of the great honking fraud variety, it ain’t a gonna happen. If it could be shown that there was an error and the appeals court accepted it then that is one thing, but it isn’t going to just magically go away.

I wasn’t aware, as I stated, of any current civil cases, if there is one then I stand corrected, what is it in regard to?

Sorry Moogs, the only one around here with an aversion to the truth, or reality for that matter, is you. I will admit to stating a good deal of fact, and a certain amount of opinion. I think, and the U S Dist Court, has declared civilly that the dim duo are fraudsters and con artists, I also think they are particularly inept and pathetic con artists, and incredibly sad excuses for human beings, your unhumble self being next in line.

With regard to the rest of your blather, the govt’s current motion will most likely be signed in it’s current form, or only slightly modified, since the requests are within the realm of reasonability and will prevent dim and dimmer from straying off into la la land the way they have with all their pointless motions the last few months. They are being charged with very specific crimes, and that is what the gov’t will have to prove, or conversely, that the dim duo will have to prove they didn’t commit, and it is going to be really hard to defend against charges like falsifying documents when your signatures are on the documents in question. Pro se or not they will have to stick to the rules of the court and won’t get to play by their own rules.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "Once a civil court rules on a matter, unless and until that matter is appealed and overturned, the decision stands,"

So where is the ruling that overturned all the court rulings that ruled in essence a "national bank cannot lend it's credit"? I listed scores of court cases that proclaimed this legal doctrine previously on this blog. There is a difference between accepted public policy and legal precedence. It has been accepted practicing policy that banks can do things against Supreme Court rulings. Why is that?

Also the Dorean administrative judgments do have legal backing of law. See "Notice of International Commercial Claim within the Admiralty Administrative Remedy"
28 U.S.C. 1333, 2461, 2463.
Also the lenders "notice of default" is filed in public real estate records pursuant to Government Code 272D1 (b) (1)
27279 (b) (1) and 27280 (a) and 27324.

calima said...

i need instructions to remove my property from trust.

calima said...

can i be given Dr Fred Johnson email address...so i can be given instructions.....my email is calimaelectric@earthlink.net thank you