Monday, May 14, 2007

Our Goose is Cooked

I wanted to take a couple of quotes from the cites used by the prosecution in their in limine motion. I have quoted the actual text in context not the motion's pretext misquotes. If you read these I am wondering if you suspect our goose is cooked. If you do then you have been brainwashed and would not understand what your Trustees know or how it will benefit you. Let's have some meaningful conversation on these cases and see if any sense arises or will we forever be blessed with ignorance.

Demmler v. Bank One NA, No. 2:05-CV-322, 2006 WL 640499, at *3-4 (S.D. Ohio, March 9, 2006)

*3 Plaintiff alleges that the promissory note he executed is the equivalent of "money" that he gave to the bank. He contends that Bank One took his "money," i.e. the promissory note, deposited it into its own account without his permission, listed it as an "asset" on its ledger entries, and then essentially lent his own money back to him. He contends that Bank One did not actually have the funds available to lend him, but instead "created" the money through its bookkeeping procedures. He further argues that because Bank one was never at risk, and provided no consideration, the promissory note is void ab initio, Defendants' attempts to foreclosure on the mortgage are therefore unlawful.
*4 Plaintiff offers no authority for this patently ludicrous argument. Similar arguments have been rejected by federal courts across the country.

I agree with this opinion, his argument was ludicrous. Can you see it?

Carrington v. Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Assoc., 2005 WL 3216226, *2-3 (E.D. Mich. 2005); Rene v. Citibank NA, 32 F. Supp.2d 539, 543-44 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)

*2 Plaintiff is protesting the payment of his debt based on allegations that the nation's banking system created money by its ledger entries and that the money needed to be paid in gold and silver coins. This contention is patently meritless and has been universally rejected by numerous federal courts.
*3 Plaintiffs contentions relating to the validity of the United States monetary system and the way in which banks "create" money, arguments that have been found to be without merit. His presentation is fundamentally absurd and obviously frivolous.

I agree with this opinion that it is patently meritless. Can you see why?

Rene v. Citibank NA, 32 F. Supp.2d 539, 543-44 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)

The plaintiff's allege in their Complaint that they applied for a mortgage through Citibank for "lawful money of the United States." Instead of lending them such funds, the plaintiff's content, Citibank fraudulently, and in breach of their contractual obligations, gave them a check. The plaintiffs contend that this check did not represent legal tender because it was not backed by "lawful money" (i.e. gold, coins, Federal Reserve notes). In essence, the plaintiffs' claim is that Citibank did not have an amount equal to the face value of their loan in their vault, so that Citibank did not loan plaintiffs legal tender but merely "transferred some book entries."

This one is the most stupid. Can you see it?

US v. Schiefen, 926 F.Supp 877, 880-881 (D.S.D.1995); Strickland v. A Mortgage Co. 179 B.R. 979, 981 (N.D. Ga. 1995)

Schiefen also pleads insufficient consideration securing the promissory note which is the subject of this suit because Schiefen alleges Farmers Home Administration loaned funds by "creating money" of Intangible [sic] value by a bookkeeping entry.

Talk about cutting your own throat, would you make this argument?

Can you figure out the prosecutions strategy from these quotes? I can. Perhaps you should have kept your entrance fee into our program and faired better on your own. To me this strategy is a joke, adolescent at best and I'll bet most of you are overwhelmed. Perhaps I work too cheap. I have every intention of agreeing to the prosecutions motion but I don’t think any of you would except the few I see on here who are thoughtful.

22 comments:

mogel said...

In the first court case we read: " promissory note he executed is the equivalent of "money" that he gave to the bank"

The original promissory note is NOT equal to money since a regular person can't take his promissory note to the grocery store & expect the grocer to accept it as the store would accept a federal reserve note (dollar bills). Only the lender has the license to monetize debt or create money.

mogel said...

The first case reads: "He further argues that because Bank one was never at risk, and provided no consideration, the promissory note is void"

The bank takes some risks but does not take the risks they lead the borrower to believe. The bank does not lend out their own money. The bank does issue a check, and that could be construed as consideration.

The lender will argue that An "extension of credit" is considered a loan by definition. They will say that this extension of credit is their consideration. This is only part of the total picture however.

mogel said...

In the second court case we read: " money needed to be paid in gold and silver coins"

Since the Federal Reserve System was legalized by congressional vote in 1913, money doesn't need to be in gold or silver coins anymore to be widely accepted.
Even though the Federal Reserve notes may be unconstitutional, these notes are still recognized as a valid vehicle in commerce to pay a debt. A payment of debt is NOT a discharge of debt. Since 1913, debts are paid with another debt in it's place.

mogel said...

The third case reads: "The plaintiff's allege in their Complaint that they applied for a mortgage through Citibank for "lawful money of the United States." Instead of lending them such funds, the plaintiff's content, Citibank fraudulently, and in breach of their contractual obligations, gave them a check. The plaintiffs contend that this check did not represent legal tender because it was not backed by "lawful money" (i.e. gold, coins, Federal Reserve notes). In essence, the plaintiffs' claim is that Citibank did not have an amount equal to the face value of their loan in their vault, so that Citibank did not loan plaintiffs legal tender."
_______________________

I seriously doubt if the mortgage agreement said that the borrower applied for lawful money of the United States. I think the borrower is making a false assumption here, so the rest of his argument is thrown out by the Court.

Fiat money is still considered lawful money since it is widely accepted in commerce.

Citibank could have had an amount equal to the loan in their vault also. Banks do keep a percentage of their loans in their vaults.

mogel said...

In the fourth case we read: "Schiefen also pleads insufficient consideration securing the promissory note which is the subject of this suit because Schiefen alleges Farmers Home Administration loaned funds by "creating money" of Intangible [sic] value by a bookkeeping entry."
______________________

There is no "intangible value". In the lending process there are three things involved: (1) the promissory note, (2) Credits, and (3) the mortgage.

The unfairness of the process is that through "cooking the books", the lender ends up with two of the assets and only puts up one.

mogel said...

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

-James Madison

justice7777777 said...

Blah, blah, blah,

What is your strategy when people who lost homes tell their story on the witness stand how YOU marketed this process as a PROVEN process, but when people faced foreclosure they were told to either hire an attorney, or pay the back notes, because there was no relief to be provided to hold off the foreclosure?

The options that were communicated to clients certainly insist that you in fact did NOT have a PROVEN process, or your PROVEN process would have flaws that you had no rememdy to implement for prevention.

I anxiously await your response, and don't blame it on the big bad banks as their behavior should have been part of your PROVEN process marketing campaign.

mogel said...

Justice: Blah, Blah, Blah to you too. The remedy is in the paperwork already filed in the County records. You already know that though. Just because the lenders decided to cheat doesn't necessary make them winners, & clients losers. In a fair battle, the cheater ALWAYS loses by default IN ANY GAME OR WORLD OF FAIR PLAY. If you want to defend a cheater, what does that make you?

It's a fact that Scott's lien holder did not foreclose for about 2 years. Up until that time, it did seem that his particular case was a proven process or a success that would not be overturned. His case prompted many to join the process. I know of a client now where his lender has also allowed him to not make 2 years of payments & still hasn't bothered to foreclose or even start the process, but has in fact sold the debt to a collection agency, so now the original creditor/lender has lost all rights. Why do you think a lender might do that?

The fact that lenders foreclosed on people does not eliminate the remedy, it just shows that the banks are more than willing to "take the bait" and foreclose even though they in essence have been paid off TWICE over. The lenders are "still on the hook". As much as they want to get off the hook and make themselves have no liability, it's impossible. Even though some personal battles were lost, that doesn't mean the War is over with & that hope is lost for someone that lost their home.

It's going to be difficult or impossible for the prosecution to prove that the banks weren't paid by the Dorean subrogation Bond. It's just a matter where the banks got paid but want to get paid again due to their greed and power they believe they have. The validity of the bond and the legitimacy of the firm backing the bond has never been really given a fair and complete trial or debate, why is that? In a fair debate with full disclosure, this is going to make the lenders look greedy and corrupt.

Trampeling over a remedy, doesn't negate a remedy that was given in good faith. A remedy only ceases to exist when someone doesn't press the remedy to the very end or gives up his advantage by not pressing or using his advantage in every way. I still think it's going to be an uphill battle for the prosecution to show bad faith. If they can't prove bad faith, how are they ever going to prove fraud?

As far as the "proven process" is concerned that will always be a matter of debate. The process proved to take away legal title from the lender every time. If you want to argue semantics, it's a no win for either party. The "proven process" was something that agents marketed, when in reality the Principals always said the behaviour of the banks could not be predicted accurately. The agents and participants aren't on trial but the Principals are with the exception of a few Brokers.

Again, if the Principals are guilty, the agents and brokers and clients are also guilty of conspiracy too. Those hypocrites that testify against the Principals are only digging their own grave if they think they are dead in the water & only add "conspiracy charges" to themselves by furthering the process or participating in the process. Course these hypocrites that want to say the process is a scam now because it didn't work in the manner or time period they believed or hoped for, they also need to be honest and be asked if they believed the process was legitimate in the beginning & was backed by reasonable beliefs and law and information that the lender had no real reason to be on title. In all cases, I bet these hypocrites have to say YES, they believed the process had legitimacy in the beginning, and only lost faith when the lenders started to behave badly & the government joined in to stomp on the process. So to say that the Principals or participants had "bad faith" through their participation in the process is impossible to allege. The "intent" was always present to say that the mortgage challenge was legitimate & that clients believed it had merit.

When the Principals are acquitted & can't be convicted of any fraud & set free, the debate over a proven process will be finally settled once & for all. If the Principals did no wrong, than the process was wrongfully shut down & ignored with huge damages towards the lenders due to their actions.

When all is said & done, the lenders are going to look much worse than the prosecution can ever make the Dorean Principals look. That's the gamble they take by seeing a full blown trial to the very end.

If Pandoras Box is open, don't think that everyone is going to be safe and not sorry.

GYHOOYA said...

It was proven all the way up till the Gov'
t stepped in and gave the banks the power to deiregard the law's and do as they please. even reverse their chooses to reconvey or acceptence of it. ?I mean how long would a bank need to have their lawyers find and deal with something that was so called wrong and unlawful?

There are plenty of remedies for the person who finds themselfs behind on thier payments and the threat of foerclosure is felt. Infact there are laws that say the banks nave to take the back payments and give their customers a time of 5 years to pay the missed payments back along with thier reg.& they can also bring that amount to the rear of the loan letting the customer sesume the reg payments. They could do all sorts of thing wgen it comes th the customer and being fair but as you the bank are no help at alll they would rather take the property (The property we heard time and time againb from the banks they say they don't want back from a foreclosure because it cast them money remember?) instead of give ome opptions to help the customer keep it. Along with the fact that the Gov't pretty much gives the banks card blanche to do whatever they want just take a look at the term for a credit acct. tha the bank get's to change at will and mostly will right after they get you to take and use their card all in the hopes of traping you into years of interest payments that they never informed you about at the start . Know the oh so up front banks you like to cry about on here their form of fair play is to place adds everywhere claimimg one rate and trem and a bunch of other terms that they have know intention of every keeping and in fact have every intention of changing right after you onpe your acct.

So your point show of fair and truthfull play by both is what about anyone whom lost their home do to the missed payments and no why to stop the bank's , who by the way show their true colors when this happen and have alway been out to help know one but themselfs get you money or EQ from the home and then strat the hole thing again with a new owner The bank set out in thein intentions for you to fail or why would they set up credit and mortgages the way they do. It is insain to not think antother way when you look at the fact and see all that is done by the banks to hide and lie about the business transaction that you say is so on the Up & Up by they.

How is it you can sit there and condein one for not telling the hole stroy , yet you won't do the same when it comes to the bank hiding all that info from their customers in transactions they have with them? All under the "we can't tell them the hole truth because the customers won't understand it and there by they would'nt do a loan witch would hurt the industry an so on &so on....

poor bank's they have it real bad don't they? Yep they only get to hide facts about the real story and goings on with ne of the biggest transaction someone makes in their lifetime, por poor bank's.

Your such a jerk & full of your hand feed crap around the system that shows that once they have a customer that their intention to trap them into the highest possable amout of debt they can without breaking and then squezzzzzze them for as long as they can.

Tell me why do most credit terms set up people who may have fallen on haed times or health or what have you to fail instead of helping them with lower terms of interest and more selfrighting loans rather they set terms that their owm scoring models say will have their customers go bankrupt or some other thing that would lead to the creditor having a loss.

Now if you were a person looking from the out side at this load deal howwould you see it and would you think it fair or the banks trying to take the backing (like you home) for it?

If the banks were truthful and up front in their deals thenat least the customer would go into these loans with a better knowleadge of the outcome .

if the banks were heald mo accountable for heir deals and thing there would be fines or things that were set uptha made a impact on them for doing bad thing, not these bullshit 3- 30 mill. fines and go back to doing it crap that we see today. Again all say it when your making Billionsand your cought doing wrong and find only Millions then why would you stop doing the bad things ? I mean it just the cost of doing business or that witch you would spend to place adds for it.

Get a real veiw pal its very clear who has the bad intention here and it should be to eveyone

notorial dissent said...

Quoting Moogey making a further ass of himself
Only the lender has the license to monetize debt or create money.
Utter nonsense, there is no such license to begin with, and anyone can in fact sell a promissory note, assuming it is of any value.

The bank takes some risks but does not take the risks they lead the borrower to believe. The bank does not lend out their own money. The bank does issue a check, and that could be construed as consideration.
Nonsense, the bank is in the business of lending its depositor’s money as well as money the bank itself has borrowed, This is the way banking has been carried on since the beginning of the industry, and has not changed in all that time. The bank loaned the borrower funds from the bank.

The lender will argue that An "extension of credit" is considered a loan by definition. They will say that this extension of credit is their consideration. This is only part of the total picture however.
A loan and an extension of credit are two different functions. With a loan you walk away with cash in hand, with an extension of credit, you have a limit to draw against.

Since the Federal Reserve System was legalized by congressional vote in 1913, money doesn't need to be in gold or silver coins anymore to be widely accepted.
More of your nonsense and ignorance. The Federal Reserve wasn’t legalized, it was created, and we continued using bimetallic coinage until 1933 and silver until into the 60's.

Even though the Federal Reserve notes may be unconstitutional...
again, more nonsense, Federal Reserve notes are issued under the Congress’ authority to coin and set the value of money.

A payment of debt is NOT a discharge of debt. Since 1913, debts are paid with another debt in it's place.
Your ignorance and the falsity of the above state are proven by the fact that gold was still in circulation until 1933 and silver until into the 60's and the rest of this has no basis in reality.

they applied for a mortgage through Citibank for "lawful money of the United States."... and .... Citibank .. gave them a check.
a real loser here, considering that no mortgage or loan agreement is written in such fashion, and that funds issued are valid regardless of what form they are in

Fiat money is still considered lawful money since it is widely accepted in commerce.
nonsense again, legal tender and legal money is defined by statute

The unfairness of the process is that through "cooking the books", the lender ends up with two of the assets and only puts up one.
more nonsense, the mortgage and note are part and parcel, the lender issued funds in order to get them so the requirements were met

Scott's lien holder did not foreclose for about 2 years
yet another success story

The fact that lenders foreclosed on people does not eliminate the remedy
sure it doesn’t, and they didn’t lose their homes either did they? Just keep on dreaming Moogs, it’s all you have left now anyway.

It's going to be difficult or impossible for the prosecution to prove that the banks weren't paid by the Dorean subrogation Bond.
Actually, since there was never a dime paid out, and no money to have paid it in the first place, it is going to be a lot harder to prove they were.

The validity of the bond and the legitimacy of the firm backing the bond has never been really given a fair and complete trial or debate, why is that?
Sure Moogs, a nonexistent bond not backed by a defunct hosiery manufactury is really a solid financial backing, and considering they couldn’t seem to pay their registration fees doesn’t bode much likelihood of them actually paying off a mortgage.

Trampeling over a remedy, doesn't negate a remedy that was given in good faith.
To be a remedy it would have to have actually been able to do something, and this farce was a fraud from beginning to end, and there is no way this can be considered to have been entered into in good faith.

"proven process"
requires something that works and provably works, this doesn’t and didn’t

if the Principals are guilty, the agents and brokers and clients are also guilty of conspiracy too.
patience Moogs, your time will come, you just weren’t important enough to bother with to begin with, pretty much the story of your life

When the Principals are acquitted & can't be convicted of any fraud & set free
sure Moogs, just keep dreaming

When all is said & done, the lenders are going to look much worse than the prosecution can ever make the Dorean Principals look.
Sure Moogey, since that isn’t even going to be a part of the trial it is really going to be a big part of the trial.

f Pandoras Box is open, don't think that everyone is going to be safe and not sorry.
Moogs, the ship has sunk, you just haven’t figured it out.
It was proven all the way up till the Gov'
t stepped in and gave the banks the power to deiregard the law's and do as they please.

Sure Kahooey, and which law would that be?

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "funds issued are valid regardless of what form they are in"

Is that written in the mortgage agreement too that FORM OF PAYMENT to borrower or seller IS VALID BY THE LENDER AND CAN BE WHATEVER the lender deems? I don't ever recall reading anything like that in any lending documents.

If your statement is true, why does the lender argue that they must be paid back in dollars ONLY and that a subrogation bond for payment is therefore unacceptable, refused, and invalid. Seems like a double standard to me when a lender assumes a right he doesn't have, but yet refuses that right towards a borrower. Where is the equal protection under the law here? A bank is in the business of taking all forms of payment anyway, so why the discrimination towards the borrower when a borrower decides to pay off a debt in a certain way? It still equates to value for value, consideration for consideration.

If a lender issues a check, and that's their consideration, isn't a check basically a promise to pay? If a borrower pays the lender back in the same specie of payment, like a bond, which is also a promise to pay, where's the problem or unfairness or inequality here ?

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "the mortgage and note are part and parcel, the lender issued funds in order to get them so the requirements were met".

Is that also specifically written in the mortgage & lending agreement that BOTH parties signed? Again, you make assumptions that aren't seated in reality. The mortgage and promissory note are SEPARATE INSTRUMENTS. Each have separate functions and purposes and separate benefits to the lender. If the promissory note is part and parcel, the lender would only need to record one instrument all in one, and it would be called something like the "Note/mortgage". That creature doesn't exist.

The lender uses the promissory note to create the loan. The lender does not issue the loan (check) FIRST without possession & use of the signed promissory note & in fact can't issue their check without it. That is proof positive that the bank does not "loan from depositors monies" as you say.

To show that I'm right, how about if a borrower demanded that he keep the original promissory note in an escrow somewhere where the Title company or lender has no control over it initially, and the lender can have intially a COPY of the signed promissory note only until the lender's check is issued FIRST & then the lender can have possession of the original promissory note after a real loan is given or after the lender issues their check. Do you think that scenario could EVER happen or be entertained by any lender anywhere? If if not, how come? I don't see what the big deal would be if your theories are correct on how lending works. The lender still ends up with possession of the signed original promissory note at some point, but NOT in the order the LENDER DEMANDS. Do you think I could ever get a loan funded on those conditions? I rest my case. I think you are the one ignorant on the most important issues.

mogel said...

"It's going to be difficult or impossible for the prosecution to prove that the banks weren't paid by the Dorean subrogation Bond."

Notarial Dissent replied: "Actually, since there was never a dime paid out, and no money to have paid it in the first place, it is going to be a lot harder to prove they were."

We agree that there was never a dime paid out since no lenders bothered to follow simple reasonable conditions of the subrogation bond.

If I issue you a check for say a car purchase & you sit on the check for over a year & don't cash the check because on the back of the check I endorsed certain conditions like, "I'm buying the car on the guarantee that it actually currently runs" or other reasonable conditions of an implied bargain & purchase, you can't come back and sue me a year later & expect to win because you can't cash the check now due to the statute of limitations on checks & tell me I never paid you for the car, once you accept possession of my check which is a tender of payment. If your too lazy to take the check to the bank in the proper allotted time recognized by law & deposit it, that's you're problem, not mine. Good luck in your argument, I think you'll need it.

"No money to pay out the subrogation bond?" There's been no overwhelming proof by naysayers of that statement at all to establish that statement as a fact. I only hear stupid statements like "since the address of where the trust company was registered is a "flower shop", that it can't be a legitimate trust or financial entity". Thousands of legitimate business are incorporated in that same city and use post office box drop locations or other locations of privacy. A chosen place of address of registration is not the business itself nor a reflection of the assets it has. If I incorporate a business in Nevada, & use a post office box in Nevada for registration purposes only is this proof positive that my business has no assets & that I can't own real estate in the corporate name in other States? If I don't give you a financial statement of everything I own, will you assume that I'm bankrupt?

People like yourself who argue the prosecutions side, better hope and wish that you are correct, that the company backing the bond has no assets, because if you're wrong, you're all screwed because all your arguments will lose & hold no water. If the lenders were paid, there can't be any fraud period & the court's actions need to be defended for the circus they've created.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "considering they couldn’t seem to pay their registration fees doesn’t bode much likelihood of them actually paying off a mortgage."

Choosing not to reissue the registration fees in the same location, but another location, doesn't mean that a company is totally out of business with no assets.
How do you know that the registry wasn't done in another place for whatever reasons? There's enough evidence that at the time the bonds were issued, there was assets backing the issue. That's the only thing that needs to be shown.

Ever heard of Conseco or New Century Mortgage? They are bankrupt now. Does that mean they NEVER had any assets or licensing rights or legal standing ever?

notorial dissent said...

Moogies mouth opens and more nonsense issues forth
Is that written in the mortgage agreement too that FORM OF PAYMENT to borrower or seller IS VALID BY THE LENDER AND CAN BE WHATEVER the lender deems? I don't ever recall reading anything like that in any lending documents.
As a rule FORM OF PAYMENT is specified as a dollar amount, but there is nothing specifying what form it will take other than that a specific dollar amount will be paid to the seller and that good funds in dollar amount must be paid by the buyer. You really should read more carefully then.

why does the lender argue that they must be paid back in dollars ONLY
Because that is the legal tender modicum of exchange in this country, and they can go so far as to specify in what format they will accept dollar payment. The terms of the agreement specify the manner of payment, don’t like it, either change it at the time of signing, or don’t sign at all.

isn't a check basically a promise to pay? If a borrower pays the lender back in the same specie of payment, like a bond, which is also a promise to pay, where's the problem or unfairness or inequality here ?
A check IS NOT a promise to pay, it is an order to pay, as you should well know. A bond is not the same specie of payment, and unless the agreement allows it, it is not acceptable.

The mortgage and promissory note are SEPARATE INSTRUMENTS. Each have separate functions and purposes and separate benefits to the lender.
Separate instruments yes, but one must exist for the other to be valid and of value. The Note is the Promise to Pay, and the mortgage is the security for the payment. The Note is the evidence of the debt, the recorded mortgage is the public notice of the debt.

The lender does not issue the loan (check) FIRST without possession & use of the signed promissory note & in fact can't issue their check without it. That is proof positive that the bank does not "loan from depositors monies" as you say.
Again, more of your nonsense. The Note and Deed of Trust are exchanged for the loan funds at the closing. If the lender does not get the note and DOT there is no check issued to the seller. The funds come from the banks loan account.

long string of Moogey nonsense that doesn’t need repeating
Moogs, have you ever actually attended a real estate closing, obviously not from you dim witted exchanges here.

It's going to be difficult or impossible for the prosecution to prove that the banks weren't paid by the Dorean subrogation Bond."
Since the banks never got a dime from the so called bond it’s not going to be difficult at all, getting paid implies receiving funds, so that is going to be difficult to come up with.

We agree that there was never a dime paid out
Then how can you claim they were paid?

more Moogey nonsense too tedious to repeat
One teensy problem, Moogs, the lenders were under no obligation to accept the so called bonds as payment, and since they were not sum certain unconditional order to pay, they were nothing but poorly printed birdcage liner. Bonds are not legal tender, and as such there is no requirement to accept them.

No money to pay out the subrogation bond?" There's been no overwhelming proof by naysayers of that statement at all to establish that statement as a fact.
There has been no proof whatsoever that the so called trust company that wasn’t even existed on anything other than paper. They certainly were not licensed to do business in the US or any of the states where dim and dimmer tried their scams, which pretty much means they were a scam as well. Secondly, they were not legally a Trust company as the meaning is here anyway. A legitimate company does not use a tacky flower shop as a mail drop or not pay its registration fees in the country it supposedly is registered in. And lastly dear Moogs, a company of the size they claimed to be would show up in the financial registers, and they didn’t.

eople like yourself who argue the prosecutions side, better hope and wish that you are correct, that the company backing the bond has no assets, because if you're wrong, you're all screwed because all your arguments will lose & hold no water.
Whine on Moogs, I will take a state insurance commission’s statement that a company doesn’t exist over your bleatings of innocence any day.

Choosing not to reissue the registration fees in the same location, but another location, doesn't mean that a company is totally out of business with no assets.
Moogs, I wouldn’t expect you to know this, but when you get your company dissolved by the registering state, means it no longer has legal authority to carry on business, and so far there has been no evidence that they are even trying to do that. In fact, Kurt’s good buddy in Latvia seems to be curiously silent and missing of late, like maybe he doesn’t want to join them in their soon to be permanent federal home.

Ever heard of Conseco or New Century Mortgage? They are bankrupt now. Does that mean they NEVER had any assets or licensing rights or legal standing ever?
Oh so now you’re saying that First Mutual went bankrupt and disappeared, what happened to their 120 million dollars?

Nice try Moogs, but you are getting even more tired than you were to begin with, and your alibis are getting weaker and less inventive.

Just keep thinking about that nice comfortable little prison cell that you have waiting for you when they get around to your turn in the dock.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent:

Look at this link. This shows that the company was put in liquidation on 7-28-2006, so why would you pay a registry fee if you were liquidating? Also notice the capital it possessed in francs at the time. You don't liquidate a company that has no assets. You can't liquidate a non-existant company either. You need to stop lying saying the company NEVER had any assets and was a bogus company just on paper, or is not registered on any financial registries because then you are no beter than the other people that promote lies:

http://www.easymonitoring.ch/
handelsregister/first_mutual_
trust_18123.aspx

mogel said...

http://www.easymonitoring.ch/handelsregister/first_mutual_trust_18123.aspx

mogel said...

http://www.easymonitoring.ch/
handelsregister/
first_mutual_trust_18123.aspx

notorial dissent said...

Moogems, since I am the one that provided you with the link, you are not impressing me at all, and since I happen to know it says that they are in involuntary dissolution for failure to pay registration fees, I am even less impressed with your bit of very old news. Also, your ignorance is showing yet again, the stated capital is just what they declared when they filed, doesn’t mean they actually have any cash at all, any more than it meant they actually had a presence in Switzerland, in spite of the accommodation address, and even if they hadn’t been lying about their stated capital, it wouldn’t have been enough to have paid one of their so called bonds, let alone the lot of them. So wrong again, yet and still.

Show me a Dunn and Bradstreet or Lloyd’s Register or else give it up.

near the end said...

N.D. I heard you had a little one.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "Show me a Dunn and Bradstreet or Lloyd’s Register or else give it up."

Now your ignorance is showing. Dun & Bradstreet DOESN'T verify assets or financial information. They are more or less a reporting company. They list what they are given from companies, doesn't mean that the figures are even accurate. So you're still back at where you were before, wondering what and who to trust.

notorial dissent said...

Ah Moogs, your ignorance knows no bounds does it?

D & B is a little more than a reporting company by a long shot. They rate companies on a number of things, including their creditworthiness and financial standing, and a bad rating from D & B or Standard and Poor’s, which is another one I will accept, will sink you faster than the iceberg did the Titanic. If you ain’t real, you ain’t a gonna be in either of those registers, and Lloyd’s is even pickier. They verify everything in their reports, and they do it from independent sources who have no reason to lie.

So try again little Moogs, you are still grasping at imaginary straws.

Or, you can show me where in the US FMT was registered and licensed to do business, since regardless of what excuse you want to use, they had to be registered as either an insurance or some type of financial company to legally do business here. Whatever snake oil they were selling requires at the very least a state license, and probably a Federal one as well.

I am impressed that Dougy had the hutzpah to actually enter the country, since we still have an extradition treaty with Australia, and there are still warrants out for him and his good buddy Shane from both the Commonwealth and Hong Kong.