Friday, May 04, 2007

The Gift (04-14-07)

I think the spirit of rebellion is really one of thanklessness. If one would truly pay attention to their existence they would notice they are sustained by gift. God has a fundamentally giving nature. Life, environment, sustenance, reason and eternity all were extended offers from our creator. Do you acknowledge the value of your health before you lose it? Do you covet things not given to you? Learning more about my God has me more and more aware of the precious gifts that permeate my existence. This may seem like a strange comment from one incarcerated against his will and sense of justice but it is true. How much more should it be true in your life? Do you in a trial of losing your house thank God that you have a family or life to concern yourself with? Could you be going through this alone without Scott and I putting our lives on the line for your vindication? Could God allow you to suffer without a hope? Look into the love of God and see if you can find anything but gifts emanating from it.

These last two weeks have been very frustrating for my wife and I because the things we must do keep getting what appears to us needlessly delayed by situations out of our control. In this frustration though is the gift that God is in control. That our love is intact. That revelation and wisdom are still flowing. That my case is better than I could of ever hoped for before trial. That the spiritual is overpowering the material temporal problems. My trial is a great gift. Through it I discover the depth of my wife’s love, the power of God over my enemies, the endurance of faith, the joys of eternity, the knowledge of evil and the end of it’s strength, wisdom that can only be garnered by experience, and the authenticity of Christ and all His promises. I can tell you these treasures are not discovered by the cowards who run from trouble or blame others. There is one truth ingrained in your soul. A desire in your relationships to be trusted and loved. God shared His desire with you. The test of real love and trust is the trial. There is no better gift than their appearing.


provb1022 said...

thank you thank you thank you Kurt Scott and Wife......And as Kathern Kulhman used to say ... "A million thanks dear Jesus"

GYHOOYA said...

notorial dissent said...
quoting Kurt: Now having about 95% of the discovery it has become clear that the lure of “vapor money” has been swallowed hook, line, and sinker and has set so deep in their jaw they cannot

Yet again another big mouth who can't seem to do much more that throw around their O.P. and who can't even offer up facts to say how and why their mines are made the way they say.

Come on now, With all of your slinging on how you say thing are in the real fact based world then you should have no problem to answer the simple question I have posted below . Again as it has yet to be by anyone with anything of fact.

Why is it that the two have had their right over looked in this by way of the court not following he law when it coimes to them not waiving time and their right to a speedy trial.
with oct being the new date for expected trial start date that will have this running close to 2-1/2 to 3 year when the law states that their were to be brought to trail within 45 day from their hearing and reading of the charges against them?

Thats a bit of a strech don't you think 45 days to 2- 3 years.

There isn't enough motions in the world that the two could have come up with that would have delaied the court that long and yet still there is that little statement by the judge on the record that said he was stoping the clock to wait for Bill J to be brought back from Panama to be added to a already in progress fed case so now how the hell do you do that and up hole the two s right ?

Never heard of such a thing so please big mouth inlighten me as to the facts that say their rights have not been stomped .

Oh and by the way just because the judge or the cops say smethiong is not to say that it is true there are plenty of cases on the record that show the feds to over steep their legal meansd and such to get their way in a case and then to say what "were sorry" so why don't you grow up and try someything else for a change to show how the truth is in this case and how thing you say are more back with something other than your O.P. and that big mouth cause friom where I sit I doon't hear anythinhg but that with nothing backing it.

and the rest who come here and spout off with nothing but pulling their ideas out of thin air to match the money that was done the same way in their pocket .... thin air and nothing backing it.

I have ask a few question here for some time that go unanswered and along with the those and if any one took the time to seek out the truth they could quikly see thatthe way this has been plaied out the feds are not playing fair and are useing their power to try and get their way.

If you can't see that then you are beyond hope or just plan stupid.

What they have tried here work 90 % of the time the one thing they did'nt count on was this blog keeping people from fading with time dumb ass again if you can't see that simple thing then I'm sure the rst is out of you reach so why bother to debate with you any more unless you can steep up and show your of the mined to look and see when thing are not right and say so .....

will see this is I'm sure as the rest just type words on two ears with air space between them.

but will see! I mean how long can you keep your head in the sand and still yell out bull shit with out a mouth full of sand that gags you.

near the end said...

Well said. N. D. is not the sharpest knife in the kitchen.

I.P.Freely said...

I found this in a local paper. Could this man in this story possibly be the swami that use to frequent this blog?

I thought I had heard everything until this week. In the wake of all the uproar in the Hispanic community of paying for pizza with pesos, a new hot topic emerges. A local man is selling what he calls "The Poor Man's Celantro". Sure you say, "What's the big deal about that"? Well it turns out this local man is selling Poison Ivy as the "Poor Man's Celantro". That's what I said - POISON IVY! The man behind this "service to the poor man" as he calls it, is harvesting Poison Ivy and selling it as Celantro at a reduced rate to the local Hispanic population. When confronted about the dangers of such a product, the owner offered assurance that he does offer med kits at a reduced price if certain clients find the affects of the poison ivy to be problematic. Yeah, an irritated throat ,stomach with holes ,and burning rectum I'm guessing might be problematic. Is this guy serious? His answer is cheap med kits? Someone needs to shut down Swami Selantro before someone gets seriously hurt. Swami Selantro has agreed to accept pesos for the med kits.

notorial dissent said...

kahooey, one of the reasons no pays any attention or responds to you is that you seem to be incapable of making (1) a coherent statement, and (2) not blathering around for pages and pages of nonsense. Try concise and coherent for awhile, it won’t improve anything you have to say, but at least we won’t have to wade through so much drivel to know that you didn’t have anything worthwhile to say.


KAHOOEY, just so you’ll know, the speedy trial time period is 70 days per 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174., but per 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) Certain pretrial delays are automatically excluded from the Act's time limits, such as delays caused by pretrial motions. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). In Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321, 330 (1986), the Supreme Court held that § 3161(h)(1)(F) excludes "all time between the filing of a motion and the conclusion of the hearing on that motion, whether or not a delay in holding that hearing is 'reasonably necessary.'" The Act also excludes a reasonable period (up to 30 days) during which a motion is actually "under advisement" by the court. 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(1)(J). Other delays excluded from the Act's time limits include delays caused by the unavailability of the defendant or an essential witness (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(3)); delays attributable to a co-defendant (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)); and delays attributable to the defendant's involvement in other proceedings, including delay resulting from an interlocutory appeal. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(E). (Note, however, that the 30-day defense preparation period provided for in § 3161(c)(2) is calculated without reference to the Section 3161(h) exclusions).

So, until dim and dimmer quit filing nonsense filings, and all the parties are in place, this can drag on for a very long time, or until the judge gets tired of it.

So you can quit whining about poor Kurt and Scott's rights, they got where they are by their own hand and they have managed to delay things to this point all by their wittle selves.

mogel said...

All by themselves??????

Let's not forget all of the motions that the prosecution has filed too in order to prolong the trial.

Notarial Dissent, you forgot to mention that Bill's attorney is involved in a capital murder case, & the attorney's conflict of time interest, has prolonged things also. That has nothing to do with Kurt & Scott's doings. Let's be fair here.

Notarial Dissent, I'd be unwilling to trust someone like you because you obviously carry an extreme prejudice to present all of the facts.

Kurt & Scott got to jail all by themselves??? They arrested themselves and turned themselves in?

All they did was present a written challenge to the banks which by the way, the banks miserably failed at. They're in jail for looking after the best interests of all of the clients. They're in jail for being the best trustees that clients could ask for & that money could buy. They're in jail for doing their job. It's a messy job, but someone needs to do it.

You're own username, "Notarial Dissent", sounds like "Notarial Protest dissent", shows your disgust and opposition to any administrative process, which by the way, is a right of anyone to use legal remedies outside the court room & in fact, one should do that & exhaust all of his remedies before one takes issues to court & that should be shown first before a Judge even allows a trial.

The prosecution by alleging all of these fraud charges have basically said by their actions & accusations that the lenders have been damaged, and that the damaged parties have done their best outside of court to settle all of these issues out of court first. Have the banks done this? No, they haven't. The banks silence to the Dorean Presentment, not in one case, but IN ALL CASES, never providing ANYTHING that was asked, shows that these fraud charges don't belong in court & aren't even appropriate & also aren't legally sound or believable. There's mounds of evidence that the banks/lenders are the one's hiding the facts and committing fraud.

Please don't use the excuse that the banks "don't have to respond" to any complaint logged by the trustees. An indepth response even by one lender would only show good faith & if the lenders are so righteous and willing to settle all of these issues, they would have done so by now. The bottom line is that the lenders/banks don't really care and do what they want. They're the ones that don't want to play by the rules and be fair. When a lender says something like "I don't have to"; it makes them sound like the crying immature selfish babies that they are.

A real mature adult wants to settle things by answering every question, issue, or doubt by providing full disclosure, and nothing becomes private in order to remove all doubts and fears and to create real trust. By the banks thumbing their noses to the Dorean Presentment, this only creates the picture that the presentment was exactly true in all of their allegations against the banks. In that scenario the banks are in fact guilty of all of the charges they have lodged against the Defendants.

Wouldn't it have been simpler and cheaper to taxpayers and to finally answer the issues once and for all, if even one bank decided to answer the Dorean Presentment and go overboard by provding everything that was asked for just once? If the banks are so honorable, certainly this would have been done at least once just for public relations and credibility. What did Jesus say? If anyone asks you to go a mile, what do you do if you truly love Him & want to "let your light so shine"? You do MORE than what the person asked you for!!! You don't go one mile. You take the person two miles, maybe even three. You do more than what the person asked for, so you come across as righteous. I don't see the banks as righteous in this scenario by ignoring totally what was fairly & righteously asked. If you have something to hide, of course, you aren't going to entertain someone & the banks are HIDING MUCH .

near the end said...

Notorial dissent, How come you don't comment on the banks bad behavior?

Your an Attorney, but sounds like your a piece of bad shit Attorney because your one sided.

Your not real bright are you?

mogel said...

Counseling help for those
in foreclosure:

GYHOOYA said...


Your info being correct in part the facts that my question being base on are

The judge stated for the record last Nov. that he was stoping the clock do to the time needed to extradite Bill J from Panama.
Now this being all well and good the act of adding a defendent that was know by the state from the time this started to a case of someone thats well in volved in theres and being a fed case you have not shown that there is any case history that has been upheld to this fact and the rights of the two being so upheld to

If you are someone who is involved in the legal system and so much so as to lic. them you Sir are fully aware of the deeds being carried out here and the motions that you speek of by the two locked up are for use to do one thing and that is to stop their rights from being abused in some way with the limited powers they have to their avail.

So please try not to sound so much the expert when spouting off with case log that is nothing more than just cases that did not get upheld or were throw out or have no real reavence to this case.

The facts arout the way the FEds and the courts are playing this out are becoming more clear with everyday they keep carry on as they have the locking up of two for this amount of time without hope of bail and a judge who is more biest than yourself being the one in charge is seen clearly and will get seen by many vary shortly that you may ne for certain .

You I'm sure will fade as quick as you appeared here as soon as that happend that is another thing I'm certain of no doubt shake your head is disbelif to what and why it all happened.

You know there is not a doubt in my mine that the two and dorean could noy of gone on for ever and that the corse of action to stop then would be brought about by the Gov't to do so other wise there would be a break down in the money system we have and the onset of many more problems in large and way more than this we speek of now with only the two being the most at risk but the facts that suround the use by the Gov't to gain this end and their powers of over stepping or twisting the law's to get their need end is more the problem in my eye.

Just as the banks who put a wrong charge on you acct. then make you spend the better part of an hour to have it corrected if it ever is with out you giving up and paying the wrongful charge not wanting to take the tinme to go through the process of their making of calling or writing and being put on hold or the many other way that are used bt the banks to get you to quit .

The fact is that the banks get 60% of all wrongful charges they put on customers statements and acct. out of people giving in or just not seeing them in my eyes and anyones that is a LOT OF MONEY and they do this in full knowledge of it and what it brings them

Is this wrong ?

By anyones mind it would be and is the bankers you so want to protect by your twisted facts Sir are no better thab the common crook who hold a gun to your back and forces you to give them your money in the same as they do as the want knowing that for thew mere $35.00 charge you will not take them to court as that would be more time you would have to spend or you wont even go through the act of changing your acct. to another bank s whats the point they are all the same but they will get your mioney and know its wrong in so doing and keeping.

When was the last time your back gave you back soem money they had for there pas gain of wrong billing ?

I would say never

Again they get 60% of all wrong charges placed on customers accts. why don't you look those numbers up and tell me what you see ?

The amount is staggering to say the least and why would any business guive that up.

untill you have first hand knowledge of how the banks work and see the inside working of what they do to keep it producing the same at the cost of us all you will stay in your disbelief this I have know doubt .

you Sir are either the workomg part of the banks or have the gain from them in soem manner for acting as if you can not see the wrongs being carried out even in this case there are so many that it boggels the mind to think that anyone would stand there and dispute the act done by the Gov't to stop these two and so to say 'put a cork in it before it gets out of hand'

Know if you insist to say that you are not able to reinder a fair mind about this than gio on with your postings the one you have don't hold water and there only something you found and posted part of when it is seen the truth will be along with it.

2 years kocked up with no chance of bail

Trial date being move ever farther away by the Court not by motions of the ones locked up

the right to a far trial and due process not upheld for now the new trail date of Oct we se as the time being 2-1/2 years
70 day how is that fit in here and just how mant motion do you know of that the two filed tha have this carring on this long?

the act from the start

the Raids w/o charges
the feds taking the money from acct.s w/o charges
the arrest and extidition to Utah for 9 months then back as if the group involved was'nt aware of what they were doing and if that were so true then they are nothing more than the bumbling fools for not knowing their own doing.

the no bail offer in a non violent case and all is w/o a doubt only to cause the two hardship and stop them from keeping the one who would want any info from getting it

the placement of restain to stop any and all help that could possably be given tow anyone by the two by the courts haneds

the judge who without a doubt should have steped down and is way to close to this personaly by anyone ones mine .

the sepperation of the two and removel of any materials to help in their defences by the court and jail.

when you speek of the motion do you are you refering to the act of limited resorces the two have used to show or to stop the jail or court from impeeding their right to mount a fair and resonable defence?
as in when the jail was withholding their mail for great lenths of time
or where theyr presented a draft to the court in their resopnce the direct action of the court ?

these thing that you and other come on here and bost with only telling half the story is the same as your posting of only half of the fact that you used to some how support your side and thing about the time delays they are only half or cases that were throw out or overturned so how do they relaye to the fairness being domne here they do they do they show how like you thecourts need to use lies and twisyed fact to get their deeds sone cause if they let things stand on the writen law and all had to play by the same rules and fairness they know they would lose .

the facts the case s that wee used to say proven in this marketuing dorean were true they had clodse to 100 not 1000 as soem have made it up rto be I never saw and posting taht said that many proven cases but the ones that were done were quickly turned around by the bank after rthey had gotten the feds in to it and new they were free to go do as they wanted in this .

as they do every day

How you can sit there and act as if the banks don't do things everyday that are wrong underhanded and outright a slap in the face of their customer to say 'we will do as we wantand you can't stop us'

they keep 60% of that 100% wrongfull fees posted to their customes acct. and that my good Sir is nothing less than a river of money that by and business would be crasy to not keep and support it workings by what ever was at their ise to do even when they are fully aware of the facts they do this with knoledge of its wrong and to profit by so doing.

your support is only to say you are one who must profit by its doing as well and anything you offer is no more credibable than their actions so please go on with your posting these thing you have they only show thatthe banks and Gov't will stop at nothing to get their way as you will do as well.

Lies and more act that are done in this will be seen by the people of this country I will promise you that and will be sen by large nimbers not put in some small town new on the back page nope it will be in a large very well seen paper for all top judge it doing and anyone who is the one doing it for the people to make their chose on what if fair and whats not here thas howthis needs to be and will so keep up you posting and as sure as I say this you will disapear when the truth is seen by them and there will be no disputing the facts that will go along with it that I'm for sure.

Good day Sir. may you be the party to the same justices you support here in come your day in court is my hope for you actions.

Bankers and their lies these men in suits who smile and hold their hand out to greet you, use a word that most have no understanding as is ment to do only one thing.

That being to hide the truth of transtactions they carry out for their customer to keep their true aggenda in some secret club like faction the steel from you every day as the these bankers shake your hand and look you in the eye to say 'I'm here to help you thats my job "TRUST ME"


I have yet to see a more misplaced trust than that of a customer who without any knowlege of their doing dose with their brokers and bankers

why is the banks and brokers so in need iof these secret words and back room acts they use tose carry out the busiiness of percuringyour interest into as useable currency why is this needed I would ask you

the money system of this country is not that hard to understand that there is some need to keep te common man from its knowing why the banks have need for these hidden acts with you money I will never support there is no need for the secrets they do other than to keep you from nowing the truth about how they steel from you

notorial dissent said...

Moogels, I could care less what Julian’s attorney is or isn’t doing, however, it does impact the proceedings so they’ll have to deal. Quite frankly Julian is of next to no interest to me, however as he was part and parcel with the dim duo’s escapades, they will have to bear the brunt of it. Besides, if it was such an inconvenience to them they could have petitioned to sever, and they didn’t.

Moogs, what you do or don’t do, like or don’t like, trust or don’t trust, is of no interest to me. As to my “extreme prejudice”, I don’t have to do anything other than report the facts, and keep you from making too many lies. The facts speak for themselves, despite your efforts to bury them.

Dim and dimmer are in jail by their own actions, they could have chosen to take the path of honesty and legality, and instead chose one of deceit and fraud, and are now sitting in a jail cell because of it.

Fraud is still fraud, Moogs, no matter how you dress it up, and that is what they intended, and that is what they did. They defrauded their clients by promising them something they couldn’t deliver on, and they defrauded the lenders with fraudulent instruments. They are in jail for committing multiple counts of fraud.

And the world shuddered, Moogs almost got one right. “shows your disgust and opposition to any administrative process” I find the use of deceit and abuse of reality offensive. There is no administrative process that does any of the things you and the dim duo prattle on about, and your deluding people into thinking otherwise is the lowest form of deceit. If you have a dispute of this magnitude, our system of laws requires that it be taken before a judge and heard in that forum, not in making up a bunch of legally meaningless papers and pretending to do something you cannot lawfully do.

Yet and still you prattle on. If there had been any kind of legitimate complaint against any of the lenders, the proper venue for it would have been the court system. There is otherwise no legal requirement for a lender to respond to the silly drivel presented to them, and their lack of response carries no penalty. You have a complaint you take it to court or to the appropriate state agency.

It is not an excuse, Moogs, it is a fact, there is no requirement for them to respond to that kind of nonsense. The bottom line here is that the lenders were doing what was legal and correct, and that is all that they are required to do.

Prattle on Moogs, nonsense remains nonsense, and in this case, legally meaningless nonsense.

In any event, the lenders didn’t do anything until the idiots/suckers/clients quit making their payments, and even then, they could have redeemed their properties by catching up, but they chose not to do so, or allowed fraudulent documents to be filed on their properties, at which point the lenders were fully within their rights to take the actions they did.

near the end blathered...
Notorial dissent, How come you don't comment on the banks bad behavior?

And what bad behavior would that be, lending the idiots the money in the first place?

near the end blathered...
Your an Attorney, but sounds like your a piece of bad shit Attorney because your one sided.

While you on the other hand sound more like an illiterate fool.

Kahooey, try reading the earlier part of the post, you know, the part where I posted the actual law.

Do you ever just come to the point, or do you just mindlessly gibber on? I’m sure that somewhere in that morass of gibber there might have been a thought or two, but it was so hopelessly buried as to be unfindable, and I have far too many other things to do to waste time trying to decipher your aimless maunderings

near the end said...

N. D. your not very bright.

paying_my_dues said...

From The Horses Mouth: Former Federal Reserve Attorney of 20 Years Comes Clean About Bank Fraud in Michigan Credit Card Case Affidavit


Now comes the Affiant, Walker F. Todd, a citizen of the United States and the State of Ohio over the age of 21 years, and declares as follows, under penalty of perjury:
1. That I am familiar with the Promissory Note and Disbursement Request and Authorization,
dated November 23, 1999, together sometimes referred to in other documents filed by Defendants in this case as the “alleged agreement” between Defendants and Plaintiff but called the “Note” in this Affidavit. If called as a witness, I would testify as stated herein. I make this Affidavit based on my own personal knowledge of the legal, economic, and historical principles stated herein, except that I have relied entirely on documents provided to me, including the Note, regarding certain facts at issue in this case of which I previously had no direct and personal knowledge. I am making this affidavit based on my experience and expertise as an attorney, economist, research writer, and teacher. I am competent to make the following statements.
2. My qualifications as an expert witness in monetary and banking instruments are as follows.
For 20 years, I worked as an attorney and legal officer for the legal departments of the Federal Reserve Banks of New York and Cleveland. Among other things, I was assigned responsibility for questions involving both novel and routine notes, bonds, bankers’
acceptances, securities, and other financial instruments in connection with my work for the Reserve Banks’ discount windows and parts of the open market trading desk function in New York. In addition, for nine years, I worked as an economic research officer at the Federal
Reserve Bank of Cleveland. I became one of the Federal Reserve System’s recognized experts on the legal history of central banking and the pledging of notes, bonds, and other
financial instruments at the discount window to enable the Federal Reserve to make advances of credit that became or could become money. I also have read extensively
treatises on the legal and financial history of money and banking and have published several
articles covering all of the subjects just mentioned. I have served as an expert witness in
several trials involving banking practices and monetary instruments. A summary biographical sketch and resume including further details of my work experience, readings, publications, and education will be tendered to Defendants and may be made available to the Court and to
Plaintiff’s counsel upon request.
3. Banks are required to adhere to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). GAAP follows an accounting convention that lies at the heart of the double-entry bookkeeping system called the Matching Principle. This principle works as follows: When a bank accepts bullion, coin, currency, checks, drafts, promissory notes, or any other similar instruments
(hereinafter “instruments”) from customers and deposits or records the instruments as assets, it must record offsetting liabilities that match the assets that it accepted from customers. The liabilities represent the amounts that the bank owes the customers, funds accepted from customers. In a fractional reserve banking system like the United States banking system, most of the funds advanced to borrowers (assets of the banks) are created by the banks themselves and are not merely transferred from one set of depositors to another set of
4. From my study of historical and economic writings on the subject, I conclude that a common misconception about the nature of money unfortunately has been perpetuated in the U.S.monetary and banking systems, especially since the 1930s. In classical economic theory, once economic exchange has moved beyond the barter stage, there are two types of money:
money of exchange and money of account.. For nearly 300 years in both Europe and the United States, confusion about the distinctiveness of these two concepts has led to persistent attempts to treat money of account as the equivalent of money of exchange. In reality,
especially in a fractional reserve banking system, a comparatively small amount of money of exchange (e.g., gold, silver, and official currency notes) may support a vastly larger quantity of business transactions denominated in money of account. The sum of these transactions is the sum of credit extensions in the economy. With the exception of customary stores of value like gold and silver, the monetary base of the economy largely consists of credit instruments.
Against this background, I conclude that the Note, despite some language about “lawful money” explained below, clearly contemplates both disbursement of funds and eventual repayment or settlement in money of account (that is, money of exchange
would be welcome but is not required to repay or settle the Note). The factual basis of
this conclusion is the reference in the Disbursement Request and Authorization to repayment of $95,905.16 to Michigan National Bank from the proceeds of the Note. That was an exchange of the credit of Bank One (Plaintiff) for credit apparently and previously extended to Defendants by Michigan National Bank. Also, there is no reason to believe that Plaintiff would
refuse a substitution of the credit of another bank or banker as complete payment of the Defendants’ repayment obligation under the Note. This is a case about exchanges of money of account (credit), not about exchanges of money of exchange (lawful money or even legal tender).
5. Ironically, the Note explicitly refers to repayment in “lawful money of the United States of
America” (see “Promise to Pay” clause). Traditionally and legally, Congress defines the phrase “lawful money” for the United States. Lawful money was the form of money of exchange that the federal government (or any state) could be required by statute to receive in
payment of taxes or other debts. Traditionally, as defined by Congress, lawful money only included gold, silver, and currency notes redeemable for gold or silver on demand. In a banking law context, lawful money was only those forms of money of exchange (the forms just mentioned, plus U.S. bonds and notes redeemable for gold) that constituted the reserves
of a national bank prior to 1913 (date of creation of the Federal Reserve Banks). See, Lawful Money, Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d ed. 1950). In light of these facts, I conclude that Plaintiff and Defendants exchanged reciprocal credits involving money
of account and not money of exchange; no lawful money was or probably ever would be disbursed by either side in the covered transactions. This conclusion also is consistent with the bookkeeping entries that underlie the loan account in dispute in the present case. Moreover, it is puzzling why Plaintiff would retain the archaic language, “lawful money of the United States of America,” in its otherwise modern-seeming Note. It is possible that this language is merely a legacy from the pre-1933 era. Modern credit agreements might
include repayment language such as, “The repayment obligation under this agreement shall continue until payment is received in fully and finally collected funds,” which avoids the entire question of “In what form of money or credit is the repayment obligation due?”
6. Legal tender, a related concept but one that is economically inferior to lawful money because
it allows payment in instruments that cannot be redeemed for gold or silver on demand, has been the form of money of exchange commonly used in the United States since 1933, when domestic private gold transactions were suspended (until 1974).. Basically, legal tender is
whatever the government says that it is. The most common form of legal tender today is Federal Reserve notes, which by law cannot be redeemed for gold since 1934 or, since 1964, for silver. See, 31 U.S.C. Sections 5103, 5118 (b), and 5119 (a). Note: I question the statement that fed reserve notes cannot be redeemed for silver since 1964. It was Johnson who declared on 15 Marcy 1967 that after 15 June 1967 that Fed Res Notes would not be exchanged for silver and the practice did stop on 15 June 1967 – not 1964. I believe this to be error in the text of the author’s affidavit.
7. Legal tender under the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), Section 1-201 (24) (Official Comment), is a concept that sometimes surfaces in cases of this nature.. The referenced Official Comment notes that the definition of money is not limited to legal tender under the
U.C.C. Money is defined in Section 1-201 (24) as “a medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government and includes a monetary unit of account
established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more nations.” The relevant Official Comment states that “The test adopted is that of sanction of government, whether by authorization before issue or adoption afterward, which recognizes the circulating medium as a part of the official currency of that government. The narrow view
that money is limited to legal tender is rejected.” Thus, I conclude that the U.C.C. tends to
validate the classical theoretical view of money.
8. In my opinion, the best sources of information on the origins and use of credit as money are in Alfred Marshall, MONEY, CREDIT & COMMERCE 249-251 (1929) and Charles P. Kindleberger, A FINANCIAL HISTORY OF WESTERN EUROPE 50-53 (1984). A synthesis of these sources, as applied to the facts of the present case, is as follows: As commercial banks and discount houses (private bankers) became established in parts of Europe
(especially Great Britain) and North America, by the mid-nineteenth century they commonly made loans to borrowers by extending their own credit to the borrowers or, at the borrowers’
direction, to third parties. The typical form of such extensions of credit was drafts or bills of
exchange drawn upon themselves (claims on the credit of the drawees) instead of disbursements of bullion, coin, or other forms of money. In transactions with third parties, these drafts and bills came to serve most of the ordinary functions of money. The third
parties had to determine for themselves whether such “credit money” had value and, if so,
how much. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was drafted with this model of the commercial economy in mind and provided at least two mechanisms (the discount window and the open market trading desk) by which certain types of bankers’ credits could be exchanged for
Federal Reserve credits, which in turn could be withdrawn in lawful money. Credit at the Federal Reserve eventually became the principal form of monetary reserves of the commercial banking system, especially after the suspension of domestic transactions in gold
in 1933. Thus, credit money is not alien to the current official monetary system; it is just rarely
used as a device for the creation of Federal Reserve credit that, in turn, in the form of either
Federal Reserve notes or banks’ deposits at Federal Reserve Banks, functions as money in the current monetary system. In fact, a means by which the Federal Reserve expands the money supply, loosely defined, is to set banks’ reserve requirements (currently, usually ten percent of demand liabilities) at levels that would encourage banks to extend new credit to
borrowers on their own books that third parties would have to present to the same banks for redemption, thus leading to an expansion of bank-created credit money. In the modern economy, many non-bank providers of credit also extend book credit to their customers
without previously setting aside an equivalent amount of monetary reserves (credit card line of credit access checks issued by non-banks are a good example of this type of credit), which also causes an expansion of the aggregate quantity of credit money. The discussion of money taken from Federal Reserve and other modern sources in paragraphs 11 et seq. is
consistent with the account of the origins of the use of bank credit as money in this paragraph.
9. Plaintiff apparently asserts that the Defendants signed a promise to pay, such as a note(s) or credit application (collectively, the “Note”), in exchange for the Plaintiff’s advance of funds, credit, or some type of money to or on behalf of Defendant. However, the bookkeeping
entries required by application of GAAP and the Federal Reserve’s own writings should trigger close scrutiny of Plaintiff’s apparent assertions that it lent its funds, credit, or money to or on behalf of Defendants, thereby causing them to owe the Plaintiff $400,000. According to the bookkeeping entries shown or otherwise described to me and application of GAAP, the Defendants allegedly were to tender some form of money (“lawful money of the United States
of America” is the type of money explicitly called for in the Note), securities or other capital
equivalent to money, funds, credit, or something else of value in exchange (money of exchange, loosely defined), collectively referred to herein as “money,” to repay what the Plaintiff claims was the money lent to the Defendants. It is not an unreasonable argument
to state that Plaintiff apparently changed the economic substance of the transaction from that contemplated in the credit application form, agreement, note(s), or other similar instrument(s) that the Defendants executed, thereby changing the costs and risks to the Defendants. At most, the Plaintiff extended its own credit (money of account), but the Defendants were required to repay in money (money of exchange, and lawful money at that), which creates at least the inference of inequality of obligations on the two sides of the transaction (money, including lawful money, is to be exchanged for bank credit).
11.To understand what occurred between Plaintiff and Defendants concerning the alleged loan of
money or, more accurately, credit, it is helpful to review a modern Federal Reserve description of a bank’s lending process. See, David H. Friedman, MONEY AND BANKING (4th ed. 1984)(apparently already introduced into this case): “The commercial bank lending process is similar to that of a thrift in that the receipt of cash from depositors increases both its assets and its deposit liabilities, which enables it to make additional loans and investments. . . . When a commercial bank makes a business loan, it accepts as an asset the borrower’s debt obligation (the promise to repay) and creates a liability on its books in the form of a demand deposit in the amount of the loan.” (Consumer loans are funded similarly.) Therefore, the bank’s original bookkeeping entry should show an increase in the amount of the asset credited on the asset side of its books and a corresponding increase equal to the
value of the asset on the liability side of its books. This would show that the bank received the customer’s signed promise to repay as an asset, thus monetizing the customer’s signature and creating on its books a liability in the form of a demand deposit or other
demand liability of the bank. The bank then usually would hold this demand deposit in a transaction account on behalf of the customer. Instead of the bank lending its money or other assets to the customer, as the customer reasonably might believe from the face of the Note, the bank created funds for the customer’s transaction account without the customer’s permission, authorization, or knowledge and delivered the credit on its own books representing those funds to the customer, meanwhile alleging that the bank lent the customer
money. If Plaintiff’s response to this line of argument is to the effect that it acknowledges that
it lent credit or issued credit instead of money, one might refer to Thomas P. Fitch, BARRON’S BUSINESS GUIDE DICTIONARY OF BANKING TERMS, “Credit banking,” 3.
“Bookkeeping entry representing a deposit of funds into an account.” But Plaintiff’s loan agreement apparently avoids claiming that the bank actually lent the Defendants money. They apparently state in the agreement that the Defendants are obligated to repay Plaintiff
principal and interest for the “Valuable consideration (money) the bank gave the customer (borrower).” The loan agreement and Note apparently still delete any reference to the bank’s receipt of actual cash value from the Defendants and exchange of that receipt for actual cash value that the Plaintiff banker returned.
12.According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, money is anything that has value that banks and people accept as money; money does not have to be issued by the
government. For example, David H. Friedman, I BET YOU THOUGHT. . . . 9, Federal Reserve Bank of New York (4th ed. 1984)(apparently already introduced into this case), explains that banks create new money by depositing IOUs, promissory notes, offset by bank
liabilities called checking account balances. Page 5 says, “Money doesn’t have to be intrinsically valuable, be issued by government, or be in any special form. . . .”
13.The publication, Anne Marie L. Gonczy, MODERN MONEY MECHANICS 7-33, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (rev. ed. June 1992)(apparently already introduced into this case), contains standard bookkeeping entries demonstrating that money ordinarily is recorded as a bank asset, while a bank liability is evidence of money that a bank owes. The bookkeeping
entries tend to prove that banks accept cash, checks, drafts, and promissory notes/credit agreements (assets) as money deposited to create credit or checkbook money that are bank liabilities, which shows that, absent any right of setoff, banks owe money to persons who deposit money.. Cash (money of exchange) is money, and credit or promissory notes (money of account) become money when banks deposit promissory notes with the intent of treating them like deposits of cash. See, 12 U.S.C. Section 1813 (l)(1) (definition of “deposit” under Federal Deposit Insurance Act). The Plaintiff acts in the capacity of a lending or banking institution, and the newly issued credit or money is similar or equivalent to a promissory note, which may be treated as a deposit of money when received by the lending bank.. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas publication MONEY AND BANKING, page 11, explains that when banks grant loans, they create new money. The new money is created because a new “loan becomes a deposit, just like a paycheck does.” MODERN MONEY MECHANICS, page 6, says, “What they [banks] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers’ transaction accounts.” The next sentence on the same page explains that the banks’ assets and liabilities increase by the
amount of the loans.

14. Plaintiff apparently accepted the Defendants’ Note and credit application (money of account)
in exchange for its own credit (also money of account) and deposited that credit into an
account with the Defendants’ names on the account, as well as apparently issuing its own
credit for $95,905.16 to Michigan National Bank for the account of the Defendants. One reasonably might argue that the Plaintiff recorded the Note or credit application as a loan (money of account) from the Defendants to the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff then became the borrower of an equivalent amount of money of account from the Defendants.
15. The Plaintiff in fact never lent any of its own pre-existing money, credit, or assets as consideration to purchase the Note or credit agreement from the Defendants. (Robertson Notes: I add that when the bank does the forgoing, then in that event, there is an utter failure of consideration for the “loan contract”.) When the Plaintiff deposited the Defendants’ $400,000 of newly issued credit into an account, the Plaintiff created from $360,000 to $400,000 of new money (the nominal principal amount less
up to ten percent or $40,000 of reserves that the Federal Reserve would require against a demand deposit of this size). The Plaintiff received $400,000 of credit or money of account
from the Defendants as an asset. GAAP ordinarily would require that the Plaintiff record a liability account, crediting the Defendants’ deposit account, showing that the Plaintiff owes $400,000 of money to the Defendants, just as if the Defendants were to deposit cash or a payroll check into their account.
16. The following appears to be a disputed fact in this case about which I have insufficient
information on which to form a conclusion: I infer that it is alleged that Plaintiff refused to lend the Defendants Plaintiff’s own money or assets and recorded a $400,000 loan from the Defendants to the Plaintiff, which arguably was a $400,000 deposit of money of account by the Defendants, and then when the Plaintiff repaid the Defendants by paying its own credit
(money of account) in the amount of $400,000 to third-party sellers of goods and services for the account of Defendants, the Defendants were repaid their loan to Plaintiff, and the transaction was complete.
17. I do not have sufficient knowledge of the facts in this case to form a conclusion on the
following disputed points: None of the following material facts are disclosed in the credit application or Note or were advertised by Plaintiff to prove that the Defendants are the true lenders and the Plaintiff is the true borrower. The Plaintiff is trying to use the
credit application form or the Note to persuade and deceive the
Defendants into believing that the opposite occurred and that the
Defendants were the borrower and not the lender. The following point is undisputed: The Defendants’ loan of their credit to Plaintiff, when issued and paid from their deposit or credit account at Plaintiff, became money in the Federal Reserve System (subject to a reduction of up to ten percent for reserve requirements) as the newly issued credit was paid pursuant to written orders, including checks and wire transfers, to sellers of goods and
services for the account of Defendants.

18. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is using the Defendant’s Note for its own purposes, and it
remains to be proven whether Plaintiff has incurred any financial loss or actual damages (I do not have sufficient information to form a conclusion on this point). In any case, the inclusion
of the “lawful money” language in the repayment clause of the Note is confusing at best and in fact may be misleading in the context described above.

notorial dissent said...

More correctly From The Horses A**

Other than being an exercise in flatulence and an immense waste of bandwidth the foregoing is of no probative value. Walker never testified to any of this in court, and it was rejected in this case for the simple reason that was hearsay, and the case it was involved in lost rather disastrously for the filers.

Further, Todd is a fraud, when asked to verify employment for Todd, the Fed Reserve banks he supposedly worked for responded with “Who?” Not a ringing endorsement.

Also, if Todd is such the great expert, why has he refused to appear before a judge and make his cockamamie statements? Possibly for the reason that he wants to continue pretending to be a competent lawyer, which would end abruptly if he got up in front of a judge and issued this nonsense in person.

paying_my_dues said...

Walker Todd is legit. Just Google him or go to Any Federal Reserve site and do a search. Regardless if the case was won or loss , his affidavit is in the record, and his background is impeachable. Not surprising that the Feds would disavow him, he tells the truth.

notorial dissent said...

What part of Walker Todd is a fraud don’t you get? His credentials are false and his so called affidavit is a crock. They attempted to introduce it at the referenced trial and it was tossed out as being worthless. Little hint, if he won’t appear in court to defend his so called “expert testimony” then it is neither expert or testimony. He has never yet appeared in court, and never will. It is a work of mediocre fiction and worthless legally.