Friday, May 25, 2007

A Real Reality Check (05-09-07)

Client’s can be idiots and believe any hogwash they desire. My performance is not dictated by their foolishness. What are these fools going to do? Take an invitation from the prosecution and cry foul? Bring all your tears and sad stories. You are not relevant or have you failed to understand that in 18 1344 you are not the victim. Oh you think you are relevant for the mail and wire fraud? Bank fraud has to be real before these stick. I could even have been delusional and truly injured the victim lender but if there was no mens rea (intent) I am still not guilty. You all imagine a case that doesn’t exist. If you read the indictment and believe it than every client committed the crimes in conspiracy with us. Keep wishing my demise you retards and perhaps you will get the prize you deserve. Come testify but you better get immunity or hope I’m on my game. You ungrateful bastards wouldn’t understand a loving sacrifice where I’ve laid my life on the line to protect all of you. You ridicule me because I trust Christ who taught me to perform this service for people who will hate me for it. You want what you deserve? Well I’m not going to let you have it. I’m going to give you what you don’t deserve. Trustees who always had your interest before theirs, the equity of your home, the damage caused by every deceiver, and removal of your cynicism and lack of faith in humanity. Shame on all of you who abuse your friends. You foolishly think the civil case is settled yet hearings are still on the schedule. Check for yourself C-04-03724 WHA. Do you really think all the foreclosure cases that used our indictment, fraud alerts, the Frances Kinney case, and newspaper clippings are not going to be a fraud upon the court? The claimed fraud is settled by this trial. What if we expose the fraud presumed a valid loan? Is this res ajudicata to all those foreclosure cases? Does that also add malice to the fraud upon the court? Still you guys don’t know my intent or understand the why’s of my behavior. Only if you took the time to study would you begin to understand. I know where my feet are planted on contract law, trust law, commercial law, banking regulations, agency, estoppel, trial, and various torts. All your stupidity on this blog is unpersuasive. I have been honest about our procedure, did the work we claimed within our power, told you about the FBI raid, my prior felonies, my faith and this trial. If I did not know we were going to win I would have told you. Yes they will cheat but I’ve been trained for this. Look I wish there could have been an easier path to victory but reality had a different plan. I can say now near the end that this was the fastest and surest path to take. God is brilliant and made sure we were prepared. Did your God abandon you? Maybe he was the god of your lender and wasn’t what he appeared to be. Wake up people! Fight for yourself and don’t allow yourself the reality TV retard to be your label. Read the indictment carefully and then LOL! For those living in reality see you at the top. Blessings await you.

54 comments:

drherbman said...

Hi Kurt and Scott
I think of you guys everyday...
its a great calling you are bearing.and I love you like brothers..the people that are hurting you with there comments...have lost their minds, they possess no ability to think cognitively, with reason, certainty, logic, or creatively..they have been and are brainwashed...there is not much hope at all for them...dont let them feed off of you...by your comments,,by your postings, you are exposing to them that there beligerent ranting is having some effect on your heart and emotions..
I pray everyday that Kurt and Scott will remain strong and at peace through this stressful time in your lives ,that you will both come out on top and be rewarded for your great sacrifices....
sincerely

zz top said...

.......TOP COAT......TOP HAT.....


........I AINT WORRIED CAUSE MY

WALLETS PHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



THANKS TO DG!!!!!!!



....WHITE GLOVES....I AINT CRAZZZZZZZZY....JUST LOOKIN FOR LOVE......

neodemes said...

"Client’s can be idiots"
"these fools"
"You are not relevant"
"every client committed the crimes in conspiracy with us"
"you retards"
"You ungrateful bastards"

DOREAN VICTIMS UNITE

notorial dissent said...

Quoting Kurt
Client’s can be idiots and believe any hogwash they desire.
Saints deliver us. A first, an honest statement, and so true, they bought your hogwash and are now gagging on it.

My performance is not dictated by their foolishness.
No, you performance is dictated by ego, greed and a gross lack of character and morality.

What are these fools going to do? Take an invitation from the prosecution and cry foul?
The bets are they will be lined up to tell how you lied to them and defrauded them.

Bring all your tears and sad stories. You are not relevant or have you failed to understand that in 18 1344 you are not the victim.
The truth comes out. Your clients were never relevant other than for the money they could put into your hands.

Oh you think you are relevant for the mail and wire fraud? Bank fraud has to be real before these stick. I could even have been delusional and truly injured the victim lender but if there was no mens rea (intent) I am still not guilty. You all imagine a case that doesn’t exist.
You are a liar and a fraud, your intent the entire time was fraud and your own enrichment, you just happened to be incredibly inept as well.

If you read the indictment and believe it than every client committed the crimes in conspiracy with us.
Whatever your “victims” intent was, you were the instigator and it was your actions that began this debacle, and so you will be the main one to pay, as it should be. Your clients have all paid in one form or another, and many of them continue to pay for their mistake, and will continue for many years to come.

Keep wishing my demise you retards and perhaps you will get the prize you deserve. Come testify but you better get immunity or hope I’m on my game.
Getting a bit nervous and bitter are we now that the clock is counting down. You should be. Thirty years a pop for 68 counts.... And we’ve seen your game, how many times is it now that you were supposed to be out and rolling in money, and how often has it been just all but over, and where are you still???? Yep, we’ve seen your game alright, like your lies and scams, truly pathetic.

You ungrateful bastards wouldn’t understand a loving sacrifice where I’ve laid my life on the line to protect all of you.
The only sacrifice you made was your family on the alter of greed and ego, and of course, all the money you thought you would get away with, and gee, it’s all gone now too, isn’t it? For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? And you have lost both.

More Kurt B.S. clipped, not worth bothering with.........

Kurt you lost at the civil trial, you didn’t appeal, it’s dead, you lost. You lost at every hearing where you BS was presented, and you have yet to stop one foreclosure, YOU LOST, and kept on losing. You are facing a criminal trial on criminal charges that have nothing to do with the civil case, and you are going to lose there as well. And no matter how much legalistic blather you cobble together, it is going to end up the same way. You are going to lose, and by your big, foul, mouth, and then evidence given of your own hand. You and your buddy are going to spend the rest of your miserable, insignificant, and wasted lives in a Federal penitentiary where all your lies, illusions and delusions will count for nothing, and where you will find that even in the criminal world, you are and remain a total insignificance.

GYHOOYA said...

Oh look who's back it's Neotripe. Did your pea brain finaly figure out the Blog posting codes and get past the Govoogles delay trap?

You know the one that intended to cause just enough problem with regard to Log-on's and postings that it would have some give up thus reducing the numbers on this Blog as seen.

The plan all along know doubt but having taken longer than expected and with the numbers still higher than exceptable for the Gov't to go ahead and play their hand once more with fix and altared law practices dishing out facts for fiction for the writen law. This all to have the scale tipped unfairly in their direction so they can claim a victory.

You my distracking piece of shit can only be back here to try and gather some of the fools hear willing enough to follow you back to your site so you can again to claim some kinda popular flock of belivers that you shepard down that road you twist and lie with fales statements and misquoted exserps from this Blog and any other that suits your need to at any cost be right when it's very clear and can only get more so in time that there is wrong from the system and that they are not playing fair to try and stop this legal process.

Your little sad sad sad waste of man how low you must have to sink to come running back over hear and recruite any person that might do who is foolish enough to lissen and follow you to that ghost town you call a web site that was all but abandon for lack of interestand was having so many problems you could'nt work out that everyone that was your lackys went else where.

as you have done here to boost your self by taking the quotes from kurt and twisting to say what you would hear in stead of the real message and proper wording arrangement that was set by him in the posting.

you must be so very desperate to get someone to come to that page of your you'll do anything to get them there won't you? as is shown here by your lieing ways.

Face it dumb ass your a looser and will never have what it would take for some one to follow you let alone to trust your advise and such for money or the workings there in.
but I guess you'll get someone that will want to follow you and believe your crap for fact posting's you like so much.

What a joke! Are you sure you don't have a badge under that mask of your's?

Oh by the way just to help get the question out there a little more and help Near the End get you to respond to it, I'll ask it again for your thick head to hear it

Why did'nt you find another way to get the person off your back other than to file a BK and in so doing let all of those credit cards and company's eat the money you spent why oh why oh why did you do that Neofraudster?

We will wait for you to create your answer rather then just admit your wrong and then quit telling everyone else how they are the bad ones for trying to cheat the banks or any and alkl of the other crap you like to throw around to others.

You might want to think about what an ass hole you are being when you tell people not to do the very thing you were rewarded for doing your self.

'Hipo' and that's not some new code word used by the mortgage industry to keep the customer in the dark when their stealing from them

Thats just the begaining of a word that fits you to aratickcal Tee!

Go point your stubs for fingers somewhere else for a change. How about at your self and then maybe you can start to see your fraud and such as clear as I do.


l8r

Most businessmen & women use the mainstream ways of getting people to come to them to hear their sales pitch. They don't run around trying to ride the wave of someone else like this Blog and the vast amounts of people that visit here. On top of that they would never think to condeim the very site that feeds them when doing such.

I mean it's clear you have know expertise when it comes to how things work in the world of business and what it take to keep the doors open on it from your past and have to file a BK and have your creditors you so like to uphold as the one's being wronged by Dorean here when you made then EAT THEIR TRUST IN YOU AND ALL THAT MONEY YOU OWED THEM.

WHAT DID YOU SPEND IT ALL ON NEO?

I'm sure it was'nt on the defence of you poor poor misguided trust as you claim that your were taken advantage of by this one person but yet you were a hole family business and not one of you had the good thought to know when to stop this guy?

What that must look like next to your BK and all the rest of the free advise you like to hand out to everyone all the time your to dumb to see the real writing on the wall about your own afares.

SAD SAD SAD LITTLE MAN YOU ARE SAD SAD SAD.
Now taht I think about it if anyone is so moved to follow this guy by all means go right ahead i would have to think that they are not much of a help or thinker for them to see the truthand learn to fright for them selfs here anyway.

as they say " don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on your way out, but if it does let it be with enough force that it sweeps your ass all the way down the path to the street"
That way I won't see your ass back with a law suit for the fall you took when the screen door hit you.

Know doubt with so many lawyers fighting to get tthe chance for the case it is just one more show of how it pales in comparision to finding a lawyer to go against the bank and get any real payment fro damages they cause ie: False reporting to a credit reporting company a forclosure (with full knowledge of not being true and done with the intent to extort the peron and cause damages witch they did by so doing) or how about a nice fat extra kick back that was'nt in the customers best interest and it show's when looked at that the brokers only reasone for getting it was because the lender paid him for brong yet another sucker that they could charge a much higher rate and get ten times whatthey paid the broker for there effort to get them there without their knowing the real deal. how about that being the $5,000 add to the already over $13,000 they were getting in fees and points some of witch were cost for BS apperasal review or that title extra cost to remove a old credit account that should as owing 0.00 one all reports and the loan was over 6 years old anyway with two loans after it up to date so why the big deal now (Must be the MONEY) there must be a song title like that some where Did it for the money must be the money everybody sing come on now! everyone ) ya right! trying to get a group of people to see the wrongs of what is nop less that 30 to 50 years of brainwashing and the backing of everything in this country that has power to say it all good! how about that for a trick like pulling a rabbit out of bullwinkles hat right? It just isn't going to happen! But hey I 'll be there with eye's wide if and when it does CUZZZZ I'll never let go the thing's that have been told to me and the ones that I have found to be more than just true that are the direct result of Kurt and Scott




Let your time not go on without knowing that you have made the difference in at least one person and how they will always bethere when they can to show the facts around this big cover up and game the GOV't and banks play along with about more than my hand can cout other they do to you and me every day .


all for your own good that is.

If you so want to buy that then your a good little lemming and you can rest tonight with the knowing they won't dig one of those closet secrects out cause your doing what your told to like a good boys and girls but watch out if you want to make a stand


Right ?


I think they call that being a Pus*&^Ywhere I'm from just taske what your feed and you'll like it Bit&^%ch


thats right bit strong but nevertheless the same thing when you step back and look at it.

l8r

GYHOOYA said...

Het Kurt & Scott
You know what when you have Dumb and Dumber out here there is sometimes a dimming of the ones who carry on the true light but don't let it get you down or mad they live for that and their nothing more than a Nat to be swated away or crushed when they get to bold and in your face so breath brother and know your not alone in you plite that there are those who get it and are working on what they can to set the record staight.

You know it's not hard to see how you 'stand' and anyone who's can't or won't is a waste to spend your time on, save that for bigger thing that you will be needed for.

These lost ones you can rest assured they have little or know effect and are let knoen the truth at every turn till either they se the light or are driven away out of their own doing.

neodemes said...

Scrolled on past.

;-)

Railman said...

Kurt and Scott, Pay no attention to those stupid, stupid souls, who have no idea of what they are even saying, much less knowing how to spell. Stay strong and kick but for all of those who still believe in your goals.

near the end said...

BRUCE W. MACOMBER/NEODEMES;

WHY DID YOU FILE "BANKRUPTCY"?


WHY DO YOU THINK YOU ARE GOD?

~~The Swami~~~ said...

Near The End, you couldn't be more right about that deadbeat Bruce Macomber. Not only did he file Bankruptcy and stick all those creditors, banks, and small businesses with the a load of debt, but when I was thirteen he was on my paper route. Well......you guessed it.........he stuck me too......just like all those other people with that bankruptcy. I must have gone by his house ten times trying to get October's money due for my paper route. One night he called my house at ten and said I could "Come get my money", but when I went over there he wouldn't answer the door. Then another time he answered the door wearing a french maid's outfit and said I could come in and collect the money, but I ran away as fast as I could.

You've got some nerve Bruce. You PERVERT! What kind of jerk would screw a thirteen year old out of paper route money? Oh I remember........Bruce Macomber...........that's who.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "You are a liar and a fraud, your intent the entire time was fraud and your own enrichment, you just happened to be incredibly inept as well."
__________________________

I think you are inept when you argue "client fraud," when that isn't one of the many charges logged in Federal Court & hence isn't relevant in the trial. Ineptness & YOUR OWN irrelevancy, goes hand and hand. So that makes you the liar, Mr. Notarial Dissent. You are arguing non issues as usual.

You have argued that the government has taken all the client's monies anyway that was taken in through bank garnishments of bank accounts & you have argued that the Dorean Group is bankrupt, so where's the personal enrichment? There can't be any, so you are lying once again.

You speak out of both sides of your mouth whenever it's convenient to argue your irrelevant issues, however, you keep changing your stance, why is that?

If the Principals were truly concerned about only committing fraud from the very beginning & personal enrichment, wouldn't it have been easier to take all of the clients properties in the beginning & put a blanket mortgage on all of them & get an equity loan as trustees & leave the country & hide with this newly found money? That would have netted maybe 50 million at least, instead of the paltry 5 million that you say is nonexistant since it was taken by the government seizures, according to your allegations.

Anyway you look at it, according to your own testimony if the government ends up with the money, than that makes them the criminals, because you "always follow the money trail & see where it ends up."

If the government was interested in justice, why wouldn't they immediately give back to the clients this money if any of this was about the clients, since you keep saying it's the clients that were injured. If that is true, where's the compensation for the clients & who has the money? Even you are smart enough to see the injustice there but you are more interested in talking about non issues because your arguments are silly.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent prophecies: "you will find that even in the criminal world, you are and remain a total insignificance."

Yet in another paragraph you speak of Kurt's "ego" as his main motivating desire of action. You & many like you, have used the term "narcissistic" to describe Kurt. If a man is motivated by ego, selfishness, or reputation solely, you surely wouldn't initially set out a path that you know would end in aninimity, would you? Your rationale makes no sense.

Which is it, Mr. Dissent? Can't make up your mind, or are you again speaking out of both sides of your mouth whenever it's convenient for you to make a point that has no substance.

If intent can show that Kurt believes in his cause & also believes in the end he will be victorious, than all of your accusations are meaningless & even slanderous.

neodemes said...

Golly, Walter, I expected better than that from you.

Life is a series of disappointments.

Hey, moogie! Rave on!

Happy Memorial Day everyone.

:-)

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "Your clients have all paid in one form or another, and many of them continue to pay for their mistake, and will continue for many years to come."
______________________________

Here we go again with a "universalism". Most universalisms are untrue or fallacious by definition. So great one, how have I SUFFERED & PAID ? Please no more of your stupid prophecies OF FUTURE EVENTS. I don't want to hear that I will be wearing orange soon because that is only your speculation. I'm only interested in the past to the present because you can't see the future, even though you are deluding in thinking so.

Can a person be a victim when he feels he is not one? Or is that only true in your world?

Kind of funny how you can speak for all clients and the feelings they exude and the sufferings they have partaken or will partake, when you are in fact an "outsider" and have been an outspoken advesary of the process from the very beginning, so your lack of objectiveness and position you are coming from, disqualifies you to tell clients how they have suffered or will suffer. Even the village idiot should see that.

mogel said...

Which man would you want to believe or follow in the battle of life?

Contender # 1: "As we march back with God’s provision our goal is a CERTAIN accomplishment." Kurt J.

Contender # 2: "Life is a series of disappointments". BS Macomber.

Gee Golly Walter, this is a tough choice. One leaves me with hope, and enriches my faith, and the other is just a pure depressing bummer of a choice which leaves me with no perspective, hope or purpose.

I'd hate to believe that's ALL life is about, just a series of disappointments!!! I guess if you spew crap, you're obligated to believe it. Yea, I'll have a good Memorial Day with an attitude like that. :o)

mogel said...

If it makes you feel any better Bruce, I can "rave on" with pure "disappointment" & depress everyone that comes in contact with me?

Maybe that type of attitude wouldn't disappoint you, but then again, I would always know you would be disappointed because you would always EXPECT MORE FROM ME, and everyone else, being the hypocrite that you are.

Don't these statements go together in the hypocritical mind:

"I expected better than that from you."

"Life is a series of disappointments".

neodemes said...

Thanks for butting in, moogie.

Only the 'rave on' was intended for you, and you did, so there ya go.

Speaking of disappointments:

Since we're now having an enlightened discussion, Byron, enlighten us as to why you use such a misleading photo on your many dating pleas scattered throughout the 'net.

Oh, have you figured out how old you are yet? 39? 51? Other?

Which of you does the lucky lady get?

Date Byron

Byron 2006

notorial dissent said...

GYHOOYA another validation for thorazine, and lots of it.

notorial dissent said...

Rant on Moogs, rant on, you at least do that well.

You do know, don’t you, that you get to sounding really hysterical and shrill when you start running out of BS to push????

I never said they were charged with defrauding their client’s, but I was agreeing with the great loser when he said that he was guilty of “client fraud”. It just happens to be a fact. It is also a fact that he will fry for bigger crimes than petty fraud. The fact remains, that they did defraud their “clients”, by promising them something they couldn’t provide, as well as everyone else they came in contact with.

I haven’t argued anything. I have stated that it appears that the govt has seized what assets they could find in the US, but I have no idea how much that is. I never said the Dorean Group was bankrupt, I may have said it was toast on several occasions, but other than being morally bankrupt I don’t believe I ever used the phrase. Dum and Dummers intentions were to get away with what they could after it was all over and done with, but being dumber than even below average rocks, they stayed around too long and got caught, that ego thing again, so NO, there was no personal enrichment, but not by intention, just pure dumb, well dumb.

I haven’t changed my stance on anything that I am aware of, other than possibly what I think is the more fitting punishment for our darling duo, but then most of what I had in mind isn’t legal any more............. If you would care to point out anything that comes to mind I would be ever so much obliged.

I am not privy, thankfully, to the alleged mental process of dim and dimmer so I have no idea what they may or may not have intended, but your scenario would certainly have gotten them where they are now much sooner. What they did do, however, speaks for itself.

Strange, I don’t remember being in court, and your logic as usual is what logic?

Since I have no idea how much money the govt is actually holding at this point it is pointless to second guess what they will be doing with it. Since the money was the result of an ongoing criminal enterprise, they will certainly hold it until after the criminal prosecutions are completed, it after all is evidence in the criminal proceeding, and then I suspect it will be up to the victims to file for restitution. In any fraud case, the victims will not get anything back until after all the judicial proceedings, so it will take time.

Putting your words in my mouth, Moogey? While I agree with the term, "narcissistic", I never used it. “If a man is motivated by ego, selfishness, or reputation solely, you surely wouldn't initially set out a path that you know would end in aninimity, would you?” I’m not sure what the term you are trying for is, but when someone is as motivated by ego, and self centeredness as his dimness, they believe that they can do no wrong, so therefore whatever path they choose is right, and they are usually the ones who end up just where dim and dimmer now are. So the answer to your question would be YES!!!!

I said exactly what I meant in this case.

Kurt can believe to the very core of his being whatever he wants, and it will not make him any less of a fraud or a cheap two bit conman. Believing that you can float in the air will not make the landing any softer when gravity proves you a fool.

Moogey, I wasn’t speaking to you or on your behalf, I was speaking of the “clients” who lost their homes, and screwed up their lives, as in suffering a loss, and possibly an ongoing loss. As to I don't want to hear that I will be wearing orange soon that is your nervous guilt coming through, not that I disagree, and I’m quite sure you don’t want to hear it, but then the question comes back around of just how guilty are you in all this, or are you like your heros, just so much hot air.

Since a person can be pathetic without admitting it, the answer to your question is yes, in your case the question is more one of how much victim and how much victimizer that you need to worry about?

Again, putting your words in my mouth, Kind of funny how you can speak for all clients and the feelings they exude and the sufferings they have partaken or will partake, I have only ever referred to the “clients” suffering the loss of their homes, and what may yet be waiting for them as a result of this error in judgement. This too is obvious.

I have been perfectly object as far as the “process” is concerned, I looked at it, and I call a crock of BS, a crock of BS when I see it, or in this case smell it. The fact that I have 30 years experience in real estate and finance, just makes it easier to see a cow patty when it comes plopping out. I’m telling no one anything except what my opinion of the dim duo and their great process is. Even the village idiot should see that. Speaking of which, have they noticed you’re missing yet?

If your faith is based on deceit, lies and fraud, then I guess you would go with No. 1, oh wait, you did didn’t you?

Rave on Moogey, rave on. If this is all you have left, you truly have a pathetic little life.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent admits: "I am not privy, thankfully, to the alleged mental process of dim and dimmer so I have no idea what they may or may not have intended,"
____________________________

Isn't "intent" the standard measuring stick to prove fraud or any criminal behaviour? If their intent was to do a simple challenge to the lenders & challenge the lender to prove a legitimate loan, then where is the ill intent or fraud in doing so? Just in case they may have been mistaken, they went so far as to bond their offer and agreement in the amount of twice the client's mortgage.

The ill intent of the lender is shown by their lack of full disclosure and no proof where the funds came from for the loan after a demand is made. There's more proof of the lenders fraud than anyone else through their silence on this subject. The lenders silence created an agreement and agency relationship. The Dorean Group completed that agreement by the papers they filed at the County Recorder. Their basis for what you call fraud has the law backing and supporting their actions. If one has an implied agreement with another party, you can't cry fraud when the other party exercises it's remedies contained in that agreement that are clear and spelled out. YOUR TYPE OF THINKING GOES AGAINST CONTRACT LAW. Was their something illegal or criminal in the intent of that challenge of the Dorean presentment. Wasn't everything spelled out clearly in the challenge/presentment? Wasn't the real intent to discover truth? When is discovering truth, suddently fraudulent behaviour?

Yet you have judged the Dorean Group to be fraudulent in their deeds, everytime you open you mouth, yet you admit to know NOTHING ABOUT THEIR MENTAL STATE OR THEIR INTENT. Thank-you, that admission adds volumes to the lack of your credibility on your judgments against them. Course, I shouldn't be too harsh on you, because all that criticize the Dorean Group do the same with the same outlook and same measuring standard. They read something in the news and think they know it all & know the intent of their hearts and their character.

All those that have condemned the Dorean Group have no idea of their intentions but are ready to give them a life sentence. How pragmatic and fair is that? At least even Nemo says to "let things play out".

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "Kurt you lost at the civil trial, you didn’t appeal, it’s dead, you lost."
________________________________

Here's your same type of reasoning. The banks didn't appeal the Dorean Presentment by any answer whatsoever. They lost. It's a settled matter through default and a paper trail acknowledging that default through a Notary. Everything that was alleged in the Dorean presentment is therefore true and a dead issue. The banks lost, so why do we have a trial where the banks are portrayed as victims of bank fraud by the prosecution? The banks never appealed by giving any evidence whatsoever, therefore, the actions of the trustees stand forever. We won FIRST.

Who wants to fight in a territory or venue or court where the Judge is bias?

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "I never said the Dorean Group was bankrupt".

So you admit that they could have arranged for assets backing their subrogation bonds, not being bankrupt themselves? You said that FMT had no assets, & have alleged it was a sham company with no assets, did you not? FMT were financially backing the trustees actions were they not? Seems to me that the prosecution doesn't want to involve FMT in any of these so called bank fraud counts, otherwise, they would have. Seems that the prosecution doesn't want to go there because it would only hurt their case.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissetn said: "It is also a fact that he will fry for bigger crimes than petty fraud."

Are you referring to "bank fraud" here? The same so called "bank fraud" of many counts where the prosecution decided to drop many of these BIGGER CRIMES BY FILING A MOTION TO DO SO in Federal Court because they were such a slam dunk for them to prove? :o) Isn't the prosecution motion to drop many of the bank fraud charges in essence saying that mail fraud & wire fraud are more important & that bank fraud is redundant, because the Defendants actions are really shown in their other lesser counts, however, if there is no bank fraud at all & no injured party & no scam, there can't be any mail or wire fraud either. You need injured parties first in order to maintain fraud. It can't be the clients who paid monies because the clients so called loss or entrance fee they paid, has nothing to do with bank fraud. As a matter of fact, the government stole those entrance fees & has no intention of returning them to the clients. If there is no bank fraud that can be proven, their certainly can't be any mail or wire fraud either since the foundation of the alleged scam is bank fraud. If there is no bank fraud that can be proven, than the actions of the trustees were totally justified and right & need to be recognized by the Courts & the banks.

Does this bank fraud involve loss of income or loss of assets to these so called victim lenders that were in fact theirs to begin with? If the civil courts support the Dorean filings as bogus, have the banks lost an asset or really lost anything through the Dorean filings if they have no legal effect & if most clients are still paying on these mortgages?
Even if a client stops paying, guess who gets the house due to foreclosure & who gets the benefits of the sale of the house; again no loss to the lender. If there is no loss, where is the fraud & how are the lenders injured and how are they the so called victims here? Can you have fraud & no injured parties with no true loss?

If the lender in fact never risked their own assets in the lending process, no bank fraud can ever be maintained successfully in criminal court against the Dorean Group.

Since the Dorean Group provided a remedy to the banks through the subrogation bond, the intent of the Dorean Group shows their honor and credibility. Again, fraud can't be maintained against them unless it can be shown without a doubt that the bonding was a complete sham.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "In any fraud case, the victims will not get anything back until after all the judicial proceedings, so it will take time."

Since none of the charges seem to be trustee fraud, or anything about THE INTERESTS OF THE CLIENTS, but only alleged bank fraud, it appears that the only victims can be the lenders as far as the prosecution is concerned, so you have admitted the clients will get nothing back have you not? What justification would the court ever make to give back money to the clients since they aren't listed as any injured parties? The prosecutions case is about the so called loss of the banks due to the alleged fraud of the Dorean Group. How can you say otherwise?

If clients felt they were damaged, they still have that right to file anything they want in Civil court for alleged redress, do they not? So aren't your latest postings just more of your own nonsense? The Court doesn't care about the clients interests.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said clearly:

"Your clients have ALL paid in one form or another,

"Moogey, I wasn’t speaking to you or on your behalf, I was speaking of the “clients” who lost their homes, and screwed up their lives, as in suffering a loss".
_________________________________

May I remind you I am also a client!!! I am a subset of "All". Maybe you & I speak a different language. I speak English, and I believe I understand the term, "All" and the meaning of that. Since you were speaking of ALL CLIENTS at first, it's not fair for you to change your story to fit your arguments when you said to refer to only "injured clients." I don't see the term "injured clients" in your first statement.

The only injured clients are the one's where the banks overstepped their legal bounds by the way. My lender hasn't had the audacity to do such a thing to date in my case.

mogel said...

What Kurt said: "I know where my feet are planted on contract law, trust law, commercial law, banking regulations, agency, estoppel, trial, and various torts. All your stupidity on this blog is unpersuasive. I have been honest about our procedure, did the work we claimed within our power, told you about the FBI raid, my prior felonies, my faith and this trial. If I did not know we were going to win I would have told you."

Notarial Dissent, where do you get that the Principals can't tell the truth ever from that previous statement of Kurts? Are you saying that Kurt wasn't honest about his previous jail incarceration & other things since you say that "he is incapable of telling the truth ever & that he only believes his own lies."

Where do you get the conclusion that they can't ever provide anything that was promised to clients if the whole process is based upon the laws and hopes previously stated:
(1) contract law, (2) trust law, (3) commercial law, (4) banking regulations,(5)agency, (6) estoppel, (7) trial, and (8) various torts

I would say that there are at least 8 things that were honestly given to clients to show that there is hope and that not all is lost. You're about as pessimistic as your Buddy Bruce.

Tell your Buddy Bruce, no one cares how old I am anyway or anything that involves my personal life or alleged personal life. Posting alleged personal information on a totally unrelated topic is
quite tacky anyway. It is a
strange & perverted fascination or enlightenment that only
Nemo shares. No one else is really interested in such stupid things. Nemo get a life please before it's too late.

neodemes said...

moogie says: "No one else is really interested in such stupid things"

Judging by the overall stupidity of this blog and the free bandying about of my name, while hiding their own identities (as best they can), I'd say there is a lot of interest in stupid things here.

Funny, I don't see you criticizing the childish stupidity of your fellow wing-nuts. Why is that?

In any event, it goes back to your credibility, Byron. If you cannot be honest with your potential future bride, right from the get-go, who can trust you at all?

Like someone said recently, "I guess if you spew crap, you're obligated to believe it."

Or expect others to.

Anyway, do the right thing and update your dating photo.

Find a nice Christian girl to set you on the right path.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "when someone is as motivated by ego, and self centeredness as his dimness, they believe that they can do no wrong, so therefore whatever path they choose is right,"
________________________________

THEY BELIEVE THEY CAN DO NO WRONG? Come on now, that's a little too harsh & judgmental, don't you think? That statement is no where even close to being true for a fact. Are you a professional psychologist too? You certainly pretend to act like one. How pretentious are you? You must think you have more training in human behaviour than you do in real estate and law to just listen to you.

Show me someone who truly believes he can do no wrong & I'll show you a pathological narcissitic person who thinks he's God. Has Kurt declared to be God ever? That's basically what you are saying, or you are saying that Kurt is delusional, but then again, you have admitted, you don't know the state of his mind, or his true intent, but judge him anyway. How fair & merciful is that?

A person motivated solely by ego makes plenty of mistakes & a humble person acknowledges his mistakes & Kurt has acknowledged his humaneness, or is your reading comprehension on this blog really that dense?

When a person fasts & prays & sincerely asks for divine guidance this is not motivated by ego or narcissism, so your arguments don't really fit in describing Kurt. Is Kurt also lying about his relationship with his Maker & his quest to understand his Maker's will in all of this & his perceived calling here to his clients?

Besides what do you know, Mr. Notarial Dissent, since you admittedly say you don't understand Kurt's intent or mental state at all, but you continually call him names, as being "dumb as rocks" & being a "scam artist". That's certainly being less than kind & you are clearly in jeopardy of being judged yourself for "with whatever judgment ye judge, you shall also be judged". If you lack mercy, and righteousness, mercy won't be shown to you either at the great judgment day that we all must face. Your own words will condemn you & show the measure & value of the integrity of your own heart.

I still think that the best is yet to come, yet the naysayers like you are too deep in judgment and pessicism to see the light & victory to come for clients. You're just blind hypocrites. All the bad karma that you have thrown out unfairly, will come back to you.

mogel said...

Nemo said: "In any event, it goes back to your credibility, Byron"

If there is an age disparity since one profile is incorrect now or needs to be changed because one was filled out at an earlier date, or if the administration made an error, or it's a typo, or if one photo is one age, & another photo is another age, I don't see the huge issue that you are trying to allege or don't really care. I have not visited these websites for quite some time anyway. Thank-you for bringing this to my attention, but there could have been a better way to bring this up. You know I don't hide in incognito ways by different usernames. You know my name. If you have a personal suggestion in kindness about my personal life, that you want to give me, you can email me directly in private:

mogel007@safe-mail.net

Even you haven't given me the honestly of giving me your personal email.

Besides, I think I may just delete what is there because I'm not interested in dating right now, & haven't for some time, so you're personal advice is really not needed & is not even relevant. Let's keep this blog on discussion of the important issues at hand.

Besides, isn't it you & others like you that have said & consider me a "little fish", & that I should have mixed emotions about being a "little fish" anyway, so my credibility is not important anyway according to what you have said to me in the past. I don't know what has changed now? It's only that you make it an issue now when you want to throw out your own irrelevant nonsense or show your own hypocrisy. How old I am NOW, is about as relevant as "bank fraud" is in the Dorean trial. Both are non issues when it comes to the important issues.

The only real issue is if the Dorean Process has a legal basis to win & obtain their objectives. It isn't about me. Sorry to disappoint you, but it's not about me or my credibility. I'm not any more narcissistic than K&S are. This is not a dating blog or whether I should find a Christian girl or not, or whether I should condemn all that have marred your reputation. Who am I anyway? Well, in your mind I'm just a "little fish" of no relevance. Notarial Dissent believes I have no credibility anyway. So what? Let's keep it that way. I'm comfortable with that.

I suppose people have said what they have said about you due to your own actions and words & offenses you have given towards others in the past is my guess. What goes around, comes around is my best guess.

Course wasn't it you that posted personal things about Flecompte & his wife on your real estate blog & his wife had to kindly tell you to stay out of their own personal business since it was disrupting to their family life, but you thought it was somehow appropriate? Didn't you also acknowledge your mistake & said you wouldn't do that anymore. Or maybe you just weren't serious & sincere in what you said.

Course I don't really know & don't much care about such silly things anyway. These things are none of my business, but I find it odd that you make issues of such things. You can dish it out, but you certainly can't take it. Maybe people don't genuinely like you for good reason? Again, I don't pretend to be an expert in these matters.

~~The Swami~~~ said...

Bruce since you're throwing out pictures around here, I thought I would show an amazing picture of how drugs, plastic surgery, sun tanning, and porn don't mix.

Check this out. WHAT THE HELL DID JENNA JAMESON DO TO HERSELF?????????????????????? The link below shows what she used to look like and what she looks like now. Get ready!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=27-150538L&rand=9442&t=jpg&m=02&y=2007&srv=img4

~~The Swami~~~ said...

Fur - 3.14159265 - duz - knot - cell

~~The Swami~~~ said...

By the way.........I P Freely!

neodemes said...

moogie asks:
"Course wasn't it you that posted personal things about Flecompte & his wife on your real estate blog & his wife had to kindly tell you to stay out of their own personal business since it was disrupting to their family life, but you thought it was somehow appropriate? Didn't you also acknowledge your mistake & said you wouldn't do that anymore. Or maybe you just weren't serious & sincere in what you said."

Actually, moogster, as I recall, someone else had posted some stuff she took offense to. Perhaps it was me, I truly don't recall and can't seem to find the exchange. In any event, we worked it out. How thoughtful is it of you to drag their names back into THIS blog, now, to make whatever point it is you think you are making?

Try to keep the facts straight, moogie. I was happily minding my own business at my forum, when you Dorean promoters came along trying to pitch your wares to my members.

I voiced my opinion of the process and was invited to that free-for-all over at Psites, where I was met with the filthiest, vilest, inane blatherings anyone could ever imagine possible from supposedly grown men and women.

The truth of public records and the revelation that Dorean's promises were just so much hooey was just too much for the promoters to bear.

I can see where, having solicited or attempted to solicit folks into this allegedly proven process you must try to save face rather than admit you, too, were duped, at best, or knowingly promoted a scam, at worst.

Go for it. Rave on.

As far as your pictures, or anything else goes, if you don't want folks to see 'em, don't put them on the world wide web, for goodness sake.

TTFN

notorial dissent said...

Mogel blathered yet again
Isn't "intent" the standard measuring stick to prove fraud or any criminal behavior?
It certainly is, and whether the intent was to commit a big fraud, or a little one, it still remains that fraud was the intent. And dressing a lie up in a pretty package doesn’t make it any less of a lie.

Same old drivel Moogs, didn’t fly the first time still doesn’t fly now. If there was fraud on the part of the lenders, then we have courts to deal with that. The actions of the Dorean group violated every tenant of contract law and was fraud from beginning to end.

I judge nothing, I state a fact, that the actions of the Dorean group were fraud from beginning to end, and that they violated every law they came in contact with.

One does not have to know the intentions to see the end result and work backwards, and the results speak volumes, or in this case years in jail.

The banks were under no obligation to respond or otherwise pay any attention whatsoever to the “presentments” since they were legally and factually meaningless.

So you admit that they could have arranged for assets backing their subrogation bonds, not being bankrupt themselves?
No, I said they were toast, if I said anything at all. I did say that FMT was a sham with nothing backing it, and a sham company backing a fraud company is just so much smoke and mirrors. In fact the govt has already determined that FMT was a fraud, and if it existed on anything other than paper, and in this country they would be on trial as well.

I have no idea why the prosecution filed the charges they did in the way they did, not really my concern. They charges they will be tried on are sufficiently heavy that they will still never leave prison alive, so it really doesn’t much matter. Thirty years a pop on how counts is it now, is more than several lifetimes.

The fraud charges are based on the actions of the company and its principals, so any assets of the company are therefore tainted. So, until the trial is completed they will be frozen. Afterwards, who knows what other legal actions may be filed. Like the funds from the sale of the “Administrative Judgements” that Kurt keeps promising I wouldn’t bet on anything coming back anytime soon. How has that been going by the way Moogs, I thought all those judgements were supposed to have had scads of money coming back months and months ago? Or did Dougy get laughed at so badly that he just backed out on the boys, like he cut and ran when things started to fall apart in CA? You know what they say about no honor among thieves.

The clients are free to file anything they want to in Civil Court, but until the Criminal Proceedings are completed they will get no where.

So you finally admit you were a client, going to admit you were a broker as well? Did you lose your home as well? The clients who lost their homes are paying a price for their involvement with the dim duo, so they have been injured, whether by the dim duo or their own hands remains to be seen. I was merely repeating what Kurt said.

where do you get that the Principals can't tell the truth ever from that previous statement of Kurts?
The fact that every word of it is a lie and out and out BS might be a start, the only part of it that is partly true is that he admitted to the conviction once someone found out about it and challenged him on it.

Where do you get the conclusion that they can't ever provide anything that was promised to clients if the whole process is based upon the laws and hopes previously stated:
Oh, the fact the entire process is based on BS, lies, and out and out fiction for a start, and the fact that it failed, and failed miserably, and that dim and dimmer are currently sitting in jail.

Moogs you can say anything you want, but it doesn’t alter the fact that it was a lie intended to defraud from beginning to end, and only the fact that dim and dimmer are so totally inept prevented the damage from being worse than it was.

Moogs, I am not in the least interested in your alleged personal life, if it is anything like your public life it is too depressing to consider.

GYHOOYA said...

notorial dissent said...
Mogel blathered yet again
Isn't "intent" the standard measuring stick to prove fraud or any criminal behavior?
It certainly is, and whether the intent was to commit a big fraud, or a little one, it still remains that fraud was the intent. And dressing a lie up in a pretty package doesn’t make it any less of a lie.

The banks were under no obligation to respond or otherwise pay any attention whatsoever to the “presentments” since they were legally and factually meaningless

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


Where is it writen that the bank's don't have to answer question about the accounts they hold?



Your stsements are of course only your OP right ?

Because if your trying to say that this crap you post is fact based and the law or legal, Well then you would be grossly mistaken and in fact very delusional in you right.

Fact: the bank at the start of the Dorean process that were given the presentment had seen the legal right's that were in it and in fact had not even challaged up to 100 of these cases intill after the Gov't steped in some time later in some cases it was well past a year later and even to the point that some of these had sold the property and move on. So when looking at the reality of what was offered as proff to this process it would be true that there were cases that had been completed and were deemed successful (there may have been some exaggeration by the marketers on the number) That could be true but I have heard people on here claim that the marketers were claiming over a 1000 success and myself had never seen anything of the sort that was that high and I think I hit just about every site there was in this process on the net.

2 The fact that number one being the truth then when the principals made there claim to then they were indeed stating thetruth as we have seen with the courts and the Gov't team in this case over time thing get changed and twisted to suit the need of whom ever it suit's so to say that anyone was if fact stating a lie about the process cout is just a lie init's self.

You seem to throw around all sorts of little self endorced statements as facts when in FACT I have yet to see to give anything but your OP or what ever other lavky statment that you post.

You know like I said before it's a easy job for the Gov't to disprove some one or thing because al we have to do is look at your statments here to see how the hole system of Fair play andd Right of law are thrown out the window IF THE person is put in jail before a trial is connducted and the Gov't runs a smear campain on them the lemmings of this country will fall right in line as you have and beleif it withouty any facts or without any effort to check and see if what's being said is realy the truth.



Like you most people are to lasy or lack the knowleag to find the info that would be the real truth about a subject. If thy did they would soon find out the truth and the laws that surround this case and how many thing have been put into play to cause the masses to give up their persute in this Bank Fraud and any hope of have the unjust equiled.

It is simple to see how the Gov't has take two guy's and locked them up to try and stop something that was for all intents legal and a loophole that could cause havic on the monetary system in this country and the world teh facts are clear for anyone that wants to see them that once their process hit the 'Net' it went billistic and gather more people then eventhey had thought into it.
Up to that point it along with others like it (that to date have not been brought up on charges for different reasons) were let by the Gov't to go about there business and in fact had made the banks hands tied to do anything about the recourse and there by the loss of there fraud gained assets as was the case in many properties that were let go by the banks (The banks did'nt come back to take back anything intill the Gov't stepped in and changed the rules of the game here) Why was that do you think?

Here let me help with that one. It was because theyt new that a loophole in their condusion and disclosuer paperwork was found and that it was perfectly legal on which it was processed thats why the only way they were goiung top get it back was if the rules were cjanged and the only way that was going to happen was if the Gov't stepped in and mad ethe game onesided and unfair as they seem to do in many things that are the same

Let's face facts here and srtop all the bullshit

The process was baced on a loophole that was found in the bank's over stepping their given right to convert Paper to Money (I hope we can agree on that because it's very easily seen if you just go to the trouble to look through the laws and all of the papers in a loan or mortgagae at the time)


That being the case what the Doeran gruop did was take that and add to it the needed items that would keep the average process from being legal and they added the bond and a few other items to meet with the law. Now being that there atre many different law around for the many areas from banking to credit to commerce and so on, it become a hat trick to try and cover all of them
(Hence the state of Delaware and the reason for the banks wanting to listed there as Corp headquartares other than the Taxs breaks that are offered in it)
So that being the case then one has to find the one that fits their deal and go with that (the one with that has the most in any give areaand or with the most impactive inflences)
that done then you have the group that took everything put it togetther and made the papers to offer the needed persentment.
Why do you think the group went to all the trouble of getting you into a trust? and if as the Gov't and court has said is "the trust goes against the contract of the mortgage agreement and then is worthless" if that were true then why is it that the bigg problem insuied when persons wanting to get out of it had all of these sepping stone to go through if it's no good it's no good Right?

The fact on that are still abit blurry but how I see it the court has over steped it athority in granting anything about this trusrtand the title companies have set out tpo use it as some kinda wipping board for the clients when they try and clean up and refi (as in making them write a letter saying there sorry.... to be contiuned .....

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "The banks were under no obligation to respond or otherwise pay any attention whatsoever to the “presentments” since they were legally and factually meaningless."

If that were true, it makes me wonder why NO lender would ever answer the presentment & do what was asked knowing that is was meaningless to repond, meaning no implications AND REMEDIES against the lender could be maintained whatsoever BASED UPON A LENDER'S HONEST RESPONSE. The lender financially had twice as much to gain from their response to a "meaningless & illegal presentment".

Apparently it was more than greed that stopped all lenders from responding. Somehow your blanket answer doesn't ring true to me as the real reasons.

If the "affadavit of truth" in the presentment was "factually meaningless", it would be no skin of the lenders back to come clean and answer each point. You would think from a service point of view and for good will purposes, the lenders would want to remove all doubts about the lending process & answer all 50+ points, unless of course the lenders still have secrets and facts they want to hide.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent: What is specifically "legally meaningless" or "fraudulent" about the affadavit below? Here is the simple affadavit that was asked that each clients lender's acknowledge and sign with the only exception the clients specific bank was named is the only difference in form.

If the presentment is "legally meaningless," as you allege why couldn't even one lender sign a simple affadavit like the one below, or perform their own affdavit in their own words & supply the facts how lending really works to clear things up or to fully disclose? What's the big deal really? Is this or is this not how lending works as explained in the affadavit below? What does a lender have to be afraid of by signing the simple affadavit below? Or in the alternative if lending is somehow different than the below affadavit explains things, why didn't any lender supply their own affadavit as factual on how the mechanics of lending works? The fact is that no lender would sign an affadavit like the one below because they are holding material facts which would nullify the entire agreement between lender & borrower.

Here is the affadavit demanded to be signed in my own presentment below:

Affidavit of Officer of Bank

The undersigned Affiant, being duly sworn on oath, deposes and says:

1. That he/she is an officer of World Savings Bank engaging in the business of collecting on promissory notes or loan agreements acting in the capacity of a "bank".

2. That, as an officer of World Savings Bank, he/she has authorization in executing this affidavit on behalf of World Savings Bank, binding World Savings Bank under its provisions and said officer will have this affidavit notarized upon signing this affidavit.

3. Any policies and procedures of the Federal Reserve Bank and its member banks and major banks in America over the past eight (8) decades have NEVER had any policy regarding loans to CREATE NEW MONEY
or credit and lend out the new money or credit and the policies of said banks have never created the economics similiar to or like stealing, counterfeiting, and swindling.

4. That the policy of the bank is any party who funds a loan, per the bookkeeping entries, is the creditor and is repaid the money.

5. A bank loan with World Savings Bank holding said loan agreement agrees that generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) ARE ALWAYS FOLLOWED at all times regarding the promissory note(s)/loan agreements(s).

6. Under and through discovery should I fail to be completely truthful in any statement or withhold any material facts that any and all loans or alleged loans issued, purchased, assigned or reassigned by World Savings Bank are forgiven, without recourse, and shall immediately be considered null and void.

7. World Savings Bank is not a broker/loan originator/servicer and is the sole owner of said promissory note(s) and will, in good faith, provide any and all documentation, evidencing and supporting ownership.

8. World Savings Bank is subject to revised statue 62 chapter 4 and the current Federal Reserve Act.

9. That being duly sworn on oath, I now apply my wet-ink-signature below and am performing such under penalty of perjury.

Acknowledgement

_________________________
Signature of Bank Officer

neodemes said...

Byron, are you really as naive as you sound? I mean really?

Why in the world would any lender even consider a serious response to your so-called presentment? With all the wing-nuts out there studying the 'net for fool-proof methods of negating their debt, your boys' packet-o-paper was undoubtedly snickered at as just one more received for a brief instant before being tossed unceremoniously in the circular file.

But if it makes you feel better...rave on.

Ciao

mogel said...

The lenders to the dorean presentment MUST ANSWER the presentment or agree to fraud through their default and silence to answer the accusations in the 52 points of the affidavit of truth.

Either way, the silence of the lender is their affirmation of the truths containted in the affidavit signed by the trustee, if the lender chooses to ignore the presentment since: "An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth."

Lender is warned:

"You, have ten (10) days in which to rebut this affidavit, point for point, from receipt of this certified mail, UCC1-204. Absent response, on or an incomplete response, on lenders bank part compels lenders bank to assent to this affidavit and a fault exists UCC 1-201(16), creating fraud through material misrepresentation which vitiates all forms, contracts, agreements, etc. express or implied, from the beginning, UCC1-103. Any and all correspondence must be completed in writing and performed by a person with commercial capacity and under oath."

mogel said...

Nemo said: "Why in the world would any lender even consider a serious response to your so-called presentment?"

Maybe the lender would want to come off as "credible" or legitimate or truthful or one that fully discloses the complete loan agreement. Maybe the client really wants to know what he is really getting from the lender & how the lending process works in reality? Does that sound like a familiar argument of yours that it's important to have "credibility" and have credibility proven?

Why would I want to divulge to you my true age? Is my personal life relevant to you? You certainly make it your business to know, do you not? How ridiculous is that when I have no agreement with you? What does that have to do with anything of relevance when in the same breath a written agreement between lender and borrower that involves the biggest transaction of a person's life suddenly DOESN'T become relevant to know everything involved and is labeled as trash that should be thrown in the garbage can?

The Dorean presentment has evidence of the lenders wrong doings and makes certain accusations of the lender's misconduct. The presentment asks that the lender come clean & provide evidence that the trustees accusations aren't true. Is that too much to ask? Does the client have a right to know especially when an agreement exists & there's serious questions about the so called agreement or if the lender in fact violated the substance of the written agreement?

Gee, you want to know or have me prove or divulge my true age currently to you, when I'm not even dating you & have no agreement with you simply because you suspect their might be a problem with it or some sort of discrepancy. The trustees discover certain discrepancies of the lender & you automatically assume it's UNIMPORTANT TO KNOW. You're a piece of work!!!! How is one thing definitely relevant to prove, and the other (the Dorean presentment) suddently irrelevant and trash?

What if lenders are not telling the complete truth? Is that issue now considered trash because others have been unsuccessful in nailing the lenders to the wall?

mogel said...

Nemo: If deception, non disclosure, or fraud exists on the part of the lender as affirmed by the trustee signing the affidavit of truth, why does this suddenly become trash if these allegations are not rebutted? What court ever discussed these points in depth, every one of them & ruled specifically upon every one of them? It's easier just to call the whole process a scam & dismiss it generally in it's entirety than than to debate each issue or point.

You can call the affidavit of truth, nonsense, but the Federal Reserve Publications & other evidence that exists support the points as truth.

I particuar like point # 50 since that explains why the Federal Court doesn't want to discuss the UCC as relevant in the fraud case against Dorean because by discussing the UCC, the lenders come off as the fraudsters & they of course want to portray themselves as the victims of a fraud.


AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

Points 1-5: Trustees testify that trustees are competent, have extensive knowledge of the facts in these matters, aren’t prejudicing the client by addressing the issues and aren’t trying to cause any unnecessary delay and are prepared to testify if called upon.

Points 6-8: Trustees have been given no evidence from the lender of any material facts of the loan agreement showing that these material facts existed at the time the contract was signed by the borrowers, and so lender can’t exercise any rights in the agreement.

Point 9: Collecting or attempting to collect on the bogus debt by the lender constitutes mail fraud.

Point 10: The lender’s silence and default of answering the complaint after a bond has been issued establishes triple damages against the lender should the lender proceed against the borrower or the trust in any bad behavior action.

Points 11-12: The lender has provided no admissible evidence to prove that the subrogation bond is invalid or worthless or insufficient to cover the lender’s loss. The bonds purpose is to separate the mortgage from attaching to the property. The bond redeems the encumbrance.

Point 13: No proof is given by the lender that the borrower accepted his strawman which is his all capitalized name, or properly signed the loan agreement. See UCC 1-201 (3a). Agreement is invalid because lender in bad faith changed the agreement by changing the promise to pay into a negotiable instrument which the lender used to fund the loan and didn’t return client’s “deposit”.

Points 14-16: Lender led client to believe that the lender would be loaning their own assets, and has not provided evidence to the contrary. Lender has not provided evidence otherwise that has shown that due to the loan process the lenders assets and liabilities have BOTH INCREASED.

Points 17-18: Clients understanding of the loan process is the lender stole from the client the exact amount of the alleged loan when the lender indorsed the promissory note and created new monies. These new monies bought the property.

Point 19: Lender is violating the usury laws since they are changing interest on a fictitious entity called, “principal” when the “principal” doesn’t exist since the lender didn’t risk their own assets in the loan process.

Point 20: Lender does not disclose that the borrower provides the funds for his own loaned and hence is the creditor in the transaction.

Point 21: Lender is violating The Truth In Lending Act by improper disclosure of the facts.

Point 22: The lender by their policy of keeping a clients deposit proves that they deny equal protection and due process under the law.

Points 23-26: Giving credit is not the same as giving a legitimate loan. Usury is illegal. The lender can’t transfer its credit by writing a check. The lender charges interest on monies they don’t even risk.

Points 27-28: Lenders define money differently than the common usage.

Point 29: The lenders policy is to intentionally trick you into believing that you owe them money despite the fact that the lender did an exchange and misleads you to believe they loaned you monies. Client provides the value for his own loan, not the lender, so the lender is guilty of extortion and embezzlement.

Point 30: Lender created a worthless IOU.

Point 31: Lender used the promissory note that was banked to fund the alleged loan.

Point 32: Promissory notes are converted into money.

Point 33: Lender altered the promissory note by stamping it like a check: “without recourse—pay to the order of XYZ Bank.

Points 34-35: Lender deposited this note in a transactional account behind the clients back to fund the loan.

Point 36: Lender has not proven that the borrower cannot repay the alleged loan in like kind, for example giving a secondary promissory note to pay off the original note.

Point 37: Federal Reserve Publications prove that the borrower is being falsely charged by the lender to pay a fictitious claim.

Points 38-39: Lender has used credit as money and has received interest on credit which is postponement of the payment of monies.

Point 40: Lender had motive, intent, and opportunity to commit felonious unlawful conversion of the borrowers deposit and in fact did so for lenders sole benefit.

Point 41: Lender is involved in a money laundering scheme and conspiracy to defraud borrowers of their wealth through possible foreclosure actions and this conspiracy includes Judges.

Point 42: Lender has never provided any consideration or loan since lending money in exchange for a borrowers promissory note is quid pro quo.

Point 43: Lenders loan agreement is not a binding contract since the following ingredients are lacking: (1) no agreement with mutual understanding of both parties,
(2) no competent parties, (3) no agreement based on approval and willingness of parties, (4) no consideration, (5) agreement doesn’t have a lawful purpose, (6) agreement is not in legal form, (7) agreement doesn’t provide for full disclosure

Point 44: Lender did not provide a legitimate loan but just gave the borrower a debt to pay.

Point 45: The agreement did not say that borrower would loan his deposit to the lender in order to get another loan or get an extension of credit.

Point 46: There is no proof that the lenders liabilities did not increase by accepting the borrowers deposit and there is no where in the agreement that requires the borrower to give value to the lender.

Point 47: Lender’s agreement does not say that there was to be an exchange that would take place, namely that the lender would receive the promissory note for a loan given.

Point 48: Lender has not shown otherwise that the lenders liabilities increased by the amount of the credit loaned. Since the lenders liability increased by the same amount, the lender still owes the borrower.

Point 49: Lender is violating the Deceptive Trade Practices Act which is USC Section 1692 through its acts and omissions.

Point 50: Lender is not conforming its business operations according to UCC 1-201.8, UCC 3-305 (16) and UCC 3-101 (68).

mogel said...

There's enough evidence below to show that the lenders are acting outside their corporate authority to do what they do. This makes the lenders not the victims, but unable to recover damages or enforce their lending agreements due to the doctrine of "ultra vires" alone.

This makes the criminal trial in CA against the Dorean Group particularly a farce when the charges become "bank fraud", "mail fraud" or "wire fraud" when these are the things that the so called victims (lenders) have done.

ULTRA VIRES

The United States Code, Title 12, Section 24, Paragraph 7 confers upon a bank the power to lend its money, not it’s credit. In First National Bank of Tallapoosa vs. Monroe, 135 Ga 614; 69 S.E. 1123 (1911), the court, after citing the statue heretofore said, “The provisions referred to do not give power to a national bank to guarantee the payment of the obligations of others solely for their benefit, nor is there any authority to issue them through such power incidental of the business of banking. A bank can lend it’s money, not it’s credit.” Meanwhile, they do it anyway from a profit motive, even though it flies in the face of their primary duty to protect people’s money.
In Howard & Foster Co. vs. Citizens National Bank of Union, 133 S.C. 202; 130 SE 758, (1927), it was stated, “It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under Federal law, being limited in it’s power and capacity, cannot lend it’s credit by guaranteeing the debt of another. All such contracts being entered into by it’s officers are ultra vires and not binding upon the corporation.”
An activity constitutes an incidental power if it is closely related to an express power and is useful in carrying out the business of banking. See First Nat. Bank of Eastern Arkansas v. Taylor, 907 F.2d 775. But even with this latitude no hint of lending credit is provided in 12 U.S.C. 24 that would give rise to an incidental power to lend credit. The exercise of powers not expressly granted to national banks is prohibited:

First National Bank v. National Exchange Bank 29 U.S. 122, 128

California Bank v. Kennedy 167 U.S. 362, 367

Concord Bank v. Hawkins 174 U.S. 364

Further, it is laid down as a general rule that a national bank cannot lend its credit by becoming surety, indorser, or guarantor for another. “In the federal courts, it is well settled that a national bank has not power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, indorser, or guarantor for him.” See the following cases:
.
C.E. Healey & Son v. Stewardson Nat. Bank, 1 N.E.2d 858, 285 Ill. App. 290.

People’s Nat. Bank of Winston-Salem vs. Southern States Finance Co., 122 S.E. 415, 192 N.C. 69, 48 A.L.R. 519.

Colley v. Chowchilla Nat. Bank, 255 P. 188, 200 C. 760, 52 A.L.R. 569.

Rice & Hutchins Atlanta Co. v. Commercial Nat. Bank of Macon, 88 S.E. 999, 18 Ga.App. 151.

First Nat. Bank of Hagerman v. Stringfield, 235 P. 897, 40 Ill.App. 376

City Nat. Bank of Wellington v. Morgan, Civ. App., 258 S.W. 572.

Farmers’ & Merchants’ Bank of Reedsville v. Kingwood Nat. Bank, 101 S.E. 734, 85 W.Va. 371.

Best v. State Bank of Bruce, 221 N.W. 379, 197 Wis. 20.

A national bank’s charter requires that they protect customers money first, and then make money second. National banks are only allowed to make money in order to protect people’s money-so one serves the other, but the priority is to protect.
In Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman, 139 U.S. 60, 11 S. Ct. 478, 35 L. Ed. 55, the court said:
“A contract ultra vires being unlawful and void, not because it is in itself immoral, but because the corporation, by the law of its creation, is incapable of making it, the courts, while refusing to maintain any action upon the unlawful contract, have always striven to do justice between the parties, so far as could be done consistently with adherence to law, by permitting a property or money, parted with on the faith of the unlawful contract, to be recovered back, or compensation to be made for it. In such case, however, the action is not maintained upon the unlawful contract, nor according to its terms; but on an implied contract of the defendant to return, or failing to do that, to make compensation for, property or money which it has no right to retain. To maintain such an action is not to affirm, but to disaffirm, the unlawful contract.”
a. “When a contract is once declared ultra vires, the fact that it is executed does not validate it, nor can it be ratified, so as to make it the basis of suitor action, nor does the doctrine of estoppel apply.” Fand PR v. Richmond
b. “A national bank cannot lend its credit to another by becoming surety, endorser, or guarantor for him, such an act; is ultra vires…” Merchants Bank v. Baird 160 F 642.

The following case cites also support this Memorandum on credit loans and void contracts:
“In the federal courts, it is well established that a national bank has no power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, endorser, or guarantor for him.” Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat’l Bank, 11 F 2d 83, 271 U.S.669.
“A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or corporation…Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 F 925 36 CCA 553, certiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US 682, 44 LED 637.
“Mr. Justice Marshall said: The doctrine of ultra vires is a most powerful weapon to keep private corporations within their legitimate spheres and to punish them for violations of their corporate charters, and it probably is not invoked too often. Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First National Bank, 103 Wis 125, 79 NW 229. American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 430.
“A bank may not lend its credit to another even though such a transaction turns out to have been a benefit to the bank, and in support of this a list of cases might be cited, which-would like a catalog of ships.” [Emphasis added] Norton Grocery Co. v. Peoples Nat. Bank, 144 SE 505. 151 Va 195.
“It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal Law being limited in its powers and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debts of another. All such contracts entered into by its officers are ultra vires…” Howard and Foster Co. v. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE 759 (1926).
“…checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the United States…” State v. Neilon, 73 Pac 324, 43 Ore 168.
“Neither, as included in its power not incidental to them, it is a part of a bank’s business to lend it’s credit. If a bank could lend its credit as well as its money, it might, if it received compensation and was careful to put its name only to solid paper, make a great deal more than any lawful interest on its money would amount to. If not careful, the power would be the mother of panics,…Indeed, lending credit is the exact opposite of lending money which is the real business of a bank, for while the latter creates a liability in favor of the bank, the former gives rise to a liability of the bank to another. I Morse. Banks and Banking 5th Ed. Sec. 65; Magee, Banks and Banking, 3rd Ed. Sec 248.” American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 429.

“It is not within those statutory powers for a national bank, even though solvent, to lend its credit to another in any of the various ways in which that might be done.” Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v. L “Herrison, 33 F 2d 841, 842 (1929).
“There is no doubt but what the law is that national bank cannot lend its credit or become an accommodation endorser.” National Bank of Commerce v. Atkinson, 55 E 471.
“…the bank is allowed to hold money upon personal security; but it must be money that it loans, not its credit.” Seligman v. Charlottesville Nat. Bank, 3 Hughes 647, Fed Case No. 12, 642, 1039.
“A loan may be defined as the delivery by one party to, and the receipt by another party of, a sum of money upon an agreement, express or implied, to repay the sum with or without interest.” Parsons v. Fox 179 Ga 605, 176 SE 644. Also see Kirkland v. Bailey, 155 SE 2d 701 and United States v. Neifert White Co., 247 Fed Supp 878, 879.
“The word ‘money’ in its usual and ordinary acceptation means gold, silver, or paper money used as a circulating medium of exchange…” Lane v. Railey 280 Ky 319, 133 SW 2d 75.
“A promise to pay cannot, by argument, however ingenious, be made the equivalent of actual payment..” Christensen v. Beebe, 91 P 133, 32 Utah 406.
“A bank is not the holder in due course upon merely crediting the depositors account.” Bankers Trust v. Nagler, 229 NYS 2d 142, 143.
“A check is merely an order on a bank to pay money.” Young v. Hembree, 73 P2d 393.
“Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes ‘fraud,’ and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages.” Barnsdall Refining Corn, v. Birnam Wood Oil Co., 92 F 26 817.
“Any conduct capable of being turned into a statement of fact is representation. There is no distinction between misrepresentations effected by words and misrepresentations effected by other acts.” Leonard v. Springer 197 Ill 532.64 NE 301.
“If any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several considerations for an unseverable promise, one of which is illegal, the promise, whether written or oral, is wholly void, as it is impossible to say what part or which one of the considerations induced the promise.” Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies L and C Co., 147 Wis 559.572; 132 NW 1122.
“The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the promise single or entire.” Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. Savings Bank, 227 Wis 550, 279 NW 83.
“It is not necessary for recession of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations.” Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Turner, 869 F. 2d 270 (6th Cir. 1989)
“Turner was told that the blank for the debtor’s name would be completed by adding the name of a company affiliated with Turner. Unknown to Turner, the guarantee was completed by filling in the name of a debtor with whom Turner was not affiliated and by altering the guarantee to change the name of the bank/creditor. The court held that Turner could assert a fraud claim against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as owner of the note in its corporate capacity.”

Southern Mortgage Company v. O’Dom, 699 F. Supp. 1227 (S.D. Miss. 1988)
“The court held that the fraud claim was defective since it alleged a promise to perform an act in the future or a representation as to future events…The court rejected this claim holding that there was no evidence that the lender had any sort of power or domination over the borrower who was free to seek financing elsewhere.”

American National Bank & Trust Company v. Hanson Construction Co., Inc., 1991 WL 42668 (Ky. 1991)
“The court held that, considering the relationship of the parties, Hanson was reasonable in relying upon the alleged representations by the bank. The court held that the future financing provisions were not so indefinite that it would be unreasonable for Hanson to rely upon them. Hanson’s failure to read the loan documents was excusable since he was encouraged by the bank officer not to read them and the bank officer advised him not to have his lawyer present at the closing. The court affirmed a jury award of compensatory and punitive damages against the bank.”

Nibbi Brothers. Inc. v. Brannen Street Investors, 205 Cal. App. 3d 1415 (1988)
“The court acknowledged that the statute would not bar a claim for unjust enrichment if it could be shown that a benefit had been conferred on the lender by mistake, fraud, coercion or request. Thus, had Home induced Nibbi to provide work on the project under circumstances in which Home’s inducement fell under circumstances traditional categories of mistake, fraud, coercion or request, a claim for unjust enrichment might escape the reach of the statutory bar.”

Bank of Sun Prairie v. Esser, 151 Wis.2d 11, 442 N.W.2d 540 (1989)
“The court affirmed the jury verdict in favor of Esser for fraud based upon evidence that at the closing the bank advised Esser that she was signing only for the new truck loan. The court held that Esser’s reliance on the bank’s misrepresentations was reasonable since she trusted the bank’s security practices and believed that the guarantee only applied to the new loan. The court also held that the trial court should have submitted Esser’s punitive damage claim to the jury because of evidence that the bank’s misrepresentation was active and the bank took advantage of Esser’s trust and reliance.”

Touche Ross Limited v. Filipek, 778 P.2d 721 (Haw. 1989)
“the court held that the alleged misrepresentations made by the bank were material and actionable since it was claimed that the bank affiliate did not have the development expertise it was represented to have and had no intention of advancing the funds when the promise was made.”

Blankenheim v. E.F. Hutton & Company, Inc., 217 Cal. App. 3d 1463 (1990)
“The court held that a claim of negligent misrepresentation is included within the definition of “fraud” as used in the statute and as that term is defined in Civil Code § 1572. The court also held that questions of fact were presented as to whether the investors had justifiably relied upon Hutton’s alleged representations concerning the investment.”

First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly. “Regarding the power to delegate the control of our money supply to a private corporation can be found in 16 Am Jur 2d, Section 347, which states: "The rule has become fixed that the legislature may not delegate legislative functions to private persons or groups, or to private corporations or a group of private corporations."

"
"Banking Associations from the very nature of their business are prohibited from lending credit." (St. Louis Savings Bank vs. Parmalee 95 U. S. 557)


"Banking corporations cannot lend credit." (First National Bank of Amarillo vs. Slaton Independent School District, Tex Civ App 1933, 58 SW 2d 870)


"Nowhere is the express authority granted to the corporation to lend its credit." (Gardilner Trust vs. Augusta Trust, 134 Me 191; 291 US 245)

"A national bank has no authority to lend its credit." (Johnston vs. Charlottesville National Bank, C.C. Va. 1879, Fed Cas. 7425)

"A contract made by a corporation beyond the scope of corporate powers is unlawful and void." (McCormick vs. Market National Bank, 165 U.S. 538)

(Note: Black’s Law Dictionary: ultra vires - Latin for "beyond powers." It refers to conduct by a corporation or its officers that exceeds the powers granted by law.)

Despite the above court cases, Ralph Gelder, Superintendent, Department of Banks and Banking, State of Maine, said on Feb. 20, 1974, "A commercial bank is able to make a loan by simply creating a new demand deposit (so called checkbook money) through bookkeeping entry." This is in total contradiction to what the courts have said. Yet, that is exactly how the banks create the money to loan to its customers or to buy government bonds.


"Act is ultra vires when corporation is without authority to perform it under any circumstance or for any purpose. By doctrine of ultra vires a contract made by a corporation beyond the scope of its corporate powers is unlawful." (Community Fed S&L vs. Fields, 128 F 2nd 705)

"A holder who does not give value cannot qualify as a holder in due course." (Uniform Commercial Code 3-303.1)

Bank of Am. v. La Jolla Group, No. F045318 (Cal. 5th App. Dist. May 19, 2005) A nonjudicial foreclosure sale conducted by mistake was invalid where the trustee had no right to sell the property since the buyer and lender entered into an agreement to cure the buyer's default.

National banking corporations are agencies or instruments of the general government, designed to aid in the administration of an important branch of the public service, and are an appropriate constitutional means to that end. Pollard v. State, Ala.1880, 65 Ala. 628. See, also, Tarrant v. Bessemer Nat. Bank, 1913, 61 So. 47, 7 Ala.App. 285.

A national bank cannot lend its credit or become the guarantor of the obligation of another unless it owns or has an interest in the obligation guaranteed especially where it receives no benefits therefrom. Citizens' Nat. Bank of Cameron v. Good Roads Gravel Co., Tex.Civ.App.1921, 236 S.W. 153, dismissed w.o.j.

A national bank has no power to guarantee the performance of a contract made for the sole benefit of another. First Nat. Bank v. Crespi & Co., Tex.Civ.App.1920, 217 S.W. 705, dismissed w.o.j.

National banks have no power to negotiate loans for others. Pollock v. Lumbermen's Nat. Bank of Portland, Or.1917, 168 P. 616, 86 Or. 324.

A national bank cannot act as broker in lending its depositors' money to third persons. Byron v. First Nat. Bank of Roseburg, Or.1915, 146 P. 516, 75 Or. 296.

A national bank is not authorized to act as a broker in loaning the money of others. Grow v. Cockrill, Ark.1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63 Ark. 418. See, also, Keyser v. Hitz, Dist.Col.1883, 2 Mackey, 513.

Officers of national bank in handling its funds are acting in a fiduciary capacity, and cannot make loans and furnish money contrary to law or in such improvident manner as to imperil its funds. First Nat. Bank v. Humphreys, Okla.1917, 168 P. 410, 66 Okla. 186.

Representations made by bank president to proposed surety as to borrower's assets, in connection with proposed loan by bank, held binding on bank. Young v. Goetting, C.C.A.5 (Tex.) 1926, 16 F.2d 248.
Bank is liable for its vice president's participation in scheme to defraud depositor by facilitating prompt withdrawal of his money. National City Bank v. Carter, C.C.A.6 (Tenn.) 1926, 14 F.2d 940.

A national bank receiving the proceeds of a customer's note and mortgage with authority to pay out the same upon a first mortgage lien upon real estate is acting intra vires and liable for breach of its duty. Brandenburg v. First Nat. Bank of Casselton, N.D.1921, 183 N.W. 643, 48 N.D. 176.

It has been held that the right to discount and negotiate notes, etc., goes no further than to authorize the taking of them in return for a loan of money made on the strength of the promises contained in them, and does not contemplate a purchase in the market. Lazear v. National Union Bank, Md.1879, 52 Md. 78, 36 Am.Rep. 355. See, also, Rochester First Nat. Bank v. Pierson, 1877, 24 Minn. 140, 31 Am.Rep. 341.

National bank is not authorized under national banking laws to lend deposited money on depositor's behalf. Carr v. Weiser State Bank of Weiser, Idaho 1937, 66 P.2d 1116, 57 Idaho 599.

Under this section, a national bank had no authority to enter into a contract for loaning money of a depositor kept in a deposit account through its cashier authorized by the depositor to draw thereon to make loans. Holmes v. Uvalde Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.App.1920, 222 S.W. 640, error refused.

A bank has no right to loan the money of other persons. Grow v. Cockrill, Ark.1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63 Ark. 418.

A "deposit for a specified purpose" is one in the making of which a trust fund is constituted with respect to which a special duty as to its application is assumed by the bank. Cooper v. National Bank of Savannah, Ga.App.1917, 94 S.E. 611, 21 Ga.App. 356, certiorari granted 38 S.Ct. 423, 246 U.S. 670, 62 L.Ed. 931, affirmed 40 S.Ct. 58, 251 U.S. 108, 64 L.Ed. 171.

Fund, deposited in bank for special purpose subject to depositor's check, remains property of depositor. U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation v. Atlantic Corporation, D.C.Mass.1925, 5 F.2d 529, error dismissed 16 F.2d 27.

'In the case of a special deposit, the bank assumes merely the charge or custody of property, without authority to use it, and the depositor is entitled to receive back the identical money or thing deposited. In such case, the right of property remains in the depositor, and if the deposit is of money, the bank may not mingle it with its own funds. The relation created is that of bailor and bailee, and not that of debtor and creditor.' 3 R.C.L. 522. Tuckerman v. Mearns, App.D.C.1919, 262 F. 607, 49 App.D.C. 153.

National banks are liable for the loss of property held by them merely for the accommodation of their customers, without any consideration for the keeping of it except the profit derived from the banking business of such customers. Security Nat. Bank v. Home Nat. Bank, Kan.1920, 187 P. 697, 106 Kan. 303.


In securities law, the most important requirement is full disclosure. Investors have to be given the full scoop. You cannot hold anything back. Everything-lawsuits, criminal records, market share, debt-has to be disclosed. This same type of disclosure is required in the Truth in Lending Act as well. With that said, why is it that no one has ever heard of this legal argument? Well, probably because they have not been told. But don’t you think that it is important and relevant to tell potential loan customers, as well as bank shareholders, that according to the US Code and numerous judicial decisions, it is questionable whether a national bank is actually authorized to lend credit, become a guarantor, or become surety? They should at least say something to their customers and shareholders along the lines of this:
“Disclaimer: We the bank, are lending credit, guaranteeing debts and becoming surety, through our lending business, for profit. The Comptroller of Currency approves. Congress has been silent in recent years. However, both federal and state courts in the past have repeatedly told us that the National Bank Act does not provide for this activity. Therefore, at any point in the future, the bank could be subject to either federal or state cease and desist orders. In that event the bank will require immediate and full payments and will cancel your credit or loan. Further, the bank may be exposed to civil lawsuits from all its former loan Clients and shareholders.”
Here are other things to consider:
If a party breaches its authority, by entering into an agreement that it knows it is not allowed by law to execute, is it moral to allow that party to enforce the agreement?
Is it moral to force a person to pay on a loan, when that person did not know that the bank did not have the legal authority to issue credit or to become surety?
Is it moral for a bank to place a negative mark on your credit report, when they did not have the authority to enter into the agreement in the first place, and that any deficit in payment has been insured by a third party insurance company and can be written off as a claim?

In addition to these three points, consider also that moral arguments (arguments based in equity), verses legal arguments (arguments based in law), are only upheld if the party seeking to enforce the agreement comes to the court with “clean hands.” This concept is known as the clean hands doctrine. What this doctrine means is that if a bank desires to enforce an agreement based on equity (morality), then they must have acted equitable (moral). In the case of credit, if the banks know that the law prevents them from loaning credit (there is over a hundred years of case law on this point) and they do it anyway, then they simply do not have clean hands, and cannot argue their case in equity. Therefore they must argue in law. MEANWHILE, THE LAW PREVENTS THEM FROM LOANING CREDIT. There are penalties and forfeitures attached to what the bank did. In this case there are. In fact there are penalties attached to national banks going beyond their express powers in that they are exposing depositor’s money to loss in contradiction to the bank’s primary duty. Therefore, the issue that can be raise is the argument of ultra virus and not only is the contract void, but even if the borrower did receive a benefit, the borrower was not unjustly enriched. If the contract is void then both parties walk away as if there never was a contract. The judge is then asked to declare a zero balance and deem it as paid as agreed. Since the borrower provided the value for the source of funds, the borrower is also entitled to a judgment in the amount of the highest credit limit issued or loan amount. Also, since the banks acts demonstrates that the bank took unfair advantage of the borrower, this results in the bank needing to be penalized. Typically, the borrower is entitled to ask for a financial award against the bank in the amount of the debt forgiven. Since fraud is committed, the borrower is entitled to all sums paid on the contract including interest, plus treble (triple) damages, attorney fees expended and court and other costs in addition. The borrower can also demands a zero balance on this debt, and a voidance of the loan agreement, and a financial judgment in favor of the borrower due to the bad behaviour of the lender.


ADDITIONAL BORROWERS RELIEF

In Federal District Court, the borrower may have additional claims for relief under “Civil RICO” Federal Racketeering laws. (18 U.S.C. 1964) As the lender may have established a “pattern of racketeering activity” by using the U.S. Mail more than twice to collect an unlawful debt and the lender may be in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343, 1961 and 1962. The borrower may have other claims for relief. If he can prove there was or is a conspiracy to deprive him of property without due process of law. Under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Constitutional Injury), 1985 (Conspiracy) and 1986 (“knowledge” and “Neglect to Prevent” a U.S. Constitutional Wrong). Under 18 U.S.C.A. 241 (Conspiracy) violators, “shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten (10) years or both.
In a Debtor’s RICO action against its creditor, alleging that the creditor had collected an unlawful debt, an interest rate (where all loan charges were added together) that exceeded, in the language of the RICO Statute, “twice the enforceable rate.” The Court found no reason to impose a requirement that the Plaintiff show the Defendant had been convicted of collecting an unlawful debt, running a “loan sharking” operation. The debt included the fact that exaction of a usurious interest rate rendered the debt unlawful and that is all that is necessary to support the Civil RICO action. Durante Bros. And Sons, Inc. v. Flushing Nat’l Bank, 755 F2d 239, Cert. Denied, 473 US 906 (1985).25. The Supreme Court found that the Plaintiff in a civil RICO action, need establish only a criminal “violation” and not a criminal conviction.
Further, the court held that the Defendant need only have caused harm to the Plaintiff by the commission of a predicate offense in such a way as to constitute a “pattern of Racketeering activity.” That is, the Plaintiff need not demonstrate that the Defendant is an organized crime figure, a mobster in the popular sense, or that the Plaintiff has suffered some type of special Racketeering injury; all that the Plaintiff must show is what the Statute specifically requires. The RICO Statute and the civil remedies for its violation are to be liberally construed to effect the congressional purpose as broadly formulated in the Statute. Sedima, SPRL v. Imrex Co., 473 US 479 (1985).

neodemes said...

I'm sorry, moogie, did you think I was actually asking your age? I wasn't. I don't care how old you are. The point was a disparity in information you provided to your prospective honey exists, including an accurate and honest photo of yourself. Please don't tell me you posted that 15 years ago, or whatever the actual difference between the taking of said photo and present time.

If it can be demonstrated that you aren't forthcoming regarding establishing relationships, it can be extrapolated that you can't be trusted. Not that I ever trusted you. But, perhaps clients have and are hanging on the thread of hope you continue to dangle with your ramblings.

As for all this crap you just pasted here, just put up a link, for goodness sake.

Like this:
www.federaldebtcorp.us/ultravireslaws.htm

~~The Swami~~~ said...

I have a friend who is going through a divorce. I spoke with him to give him words of encouragement and hope that he would pull through this ordeal a better person. However, with his distrust of women so severe, he made a statement that I had never heard before........

"How can you trust something that bleeds for a week and lives? Huh? How can ya?"


I had no viable response.

notorial dissent said...

Quoting GYHOOYA
Where is it writen that the bank's don't have to answer question about the accounts they hold?
Not what I said. If there is a question about the banks accounts, there are people called bank examiners and bank regulators who are charged by law with looking into things like this, and there are also the courts if there is a legal dispute. None of these were utilized because there was NO real or legal dispute.

You sound like a fool at the best of times, but you proceed to complete ass when you start trying to regurgitate Moogey blather.

notorial dissent said...

Moogey continued to bray
Notarial Dissent said: "The banks were under no obligation to respond or otherwise pay any attention whatsoever to the “presentments” since they were legally and factually meaningless."

If that were true, it makes me wonder why NO lender would ever answer the presentment & do what was asked knowing that is was meaningless to repond

What part of legally and factually meaningless eludes you?

it would be no skin of the lenders back to come clean and answer each point.
Why should they waste their time on meaningless drivel? Legally, there is no such thing as an "affadavit of truth", so again, another meaningless bit of legal gibberish, and even if it were real, it would only have standing after having been dealt with in court-where this piece of tripe would not last five minutes.

What is specifically "legally meaningless" or "fraudulent" about the affadavit below?
"legally meaningless" means of no legal force or effect. It is a collection of meaningless gibber that the courts have already ruled as meaningless and as an intent to defraud.

You are repeating yourself, you are still boring, and the answer is still the same, "legally meaningless gibberish of no factual or probative value".

Actually, they did respond to the presentment, they ignored it and threw it in the trash can where it so rightly belonged.

The lenders to the dorean presentment MUST ANSWER the presentment or agree to fraud through their default and silence to answer the accusations in the 52 points of the affidavit of truth.
Oh, says who???? The courts certainly didn’t, they tossed the whole piece of crap out, and ruled it a fraud in the bargain. It lost in civil process, Moogs, and that ended it.

“A national bank cannot lend its credit to another by becoming surety, endorser, or guarantor for him, such an act; is ultra vires…”
Moogs, I can’t decide if you are illiterate, or just plain stupid. All of the cases you so painstakingly stole from some other source, hinge on the fact that a “bank” CANNOT stand as surety, that is to say pledge its personal credit, the same as an individual cosigning a loan, for another individual or entity. That is not at all the same thing as a bank loaning money to an entity or individual. Which if you had bothered to read the stuff you stole you would know. But since you don’t know what you are talking about as far as banking and real estate law is, why should I expect you to know anything about this either.

This quote you obviously didn’t read sums it up. “…the bank is allowed to hold money upon personal security; but it must be money that it loans, not its credit.”

Which just goes to show that you really should read what you steal before you put it up.

notorial dissent said...

Kurt,

Your Reality Check bounced a long time ago, and it is still bouncing...........

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "Oh, says who???? The courts certainly didn’t respond....."
________________________________

So you really believe the courts didn't hear, consider and read all the issues in the dorean presentment & didn't respond to the points JUST like the lenders either, YET THE CIVIL COURT OF JUDGE ALSUP RULED ON THE ISSUES FAIRLY by doing the same thing & throwing the real issues in the garbage can too just as quickly? Your own nonsense and paradigm proves what a kangaroo court Judge Alsup's court is by your own words. Talk about a ruling from "Fantasy Island" when the Judge ruled that the process was a scam yet treated it like garbage too, not even worthy of consideration.

I rest my case if you believe your own nonsense that the Civil ruling by Judge Alsup was proper & with subject matter jurisdiction. Your own words proves my point here.

What is your response to Kurt's response that there are motions right now in the the Civil cases referred to, meaning that it isn't quite over. Judgments can be set aside anytime & can be ruled void when their are improper procedures that go on in the Court. You know that!!! The Civil rulings are not over or done with.

The court can't legally rule on something they don't hear or completely consider all the issues in question fairly, before they have a fair trial on all of these issues, or do you really think before you type some of your responses & nonsense.

The UCC says that the lender has to respond to legitimate issues. Their are legitimate issues to consider when misreprentation exists or full disclosure is not present in an agreement. These are not meaningless things or garbage as you say. The lender was warned:

"You, have ten (10) days in which to rebut this affidavit, point for point, from receipt of this certified mail, UCC1-204. Absent response, on or an incomplete response, on lenders bank part compels lenders bank to assent to this affidavit and a fault exists UCC 1-201(16), creating fraud through material misrepresentation which vitiates all forms, contracts, agreements, etc. express or implied, from the beginning, UCC1-103. Any and all correspondence must be completed in writing and performed by a person with commercial capacity and under oath."

Court cases have concluded that silence is equated with fraud & misrepresentation.

Agents have a "duty to respond". There's plenty of law to support this fact, or are you so ignorant that you really don't understand that? The lender is the agent of the borrower/client. The Bank/lender took the promissory note and did illegal things with the promissory note & didn't divulge these facts in the agreement to the client ever. The presentment is trying to find out material facts through questions that need answered, much like a lawsuit allows and demands a discovery period where you are under obligation to respond to discovery questions the other party puts before you, or you lose your case by not playing fairly according to the rules & lose by default. In some respects, the administrative process is similiar to the rules of the judicial process.

One is suppose to exhaust all of their remedies before they file in court anyway and have a case heard.

Did the lenders exhaust all of their remedies they had, before the prosecuting attorney filed this fraud case against the Dorean Group? No, they showed their bad faith by throwing the presentment in the garbage can, just like the prosecuting attorney filed this fraud case in bad faith too by not considering at all, all of the administrative default judgments against the banks, the Dorean Group has. It can't be shown that these administrative judgments were gotten in bad faith or produced against the rules of the UCC, so these valuable judgments will stand as legitimate & are valuable & will eventually pay off. Don't really care if you believe that or not.

When these judgments pay off, that will speak volumes of your years of experience in real estate, law, and banking, won't it?

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent agrees: "but it must be money that it loans, not its credit.”
_________________________________

I agree on that last statement. How can you have so much experience when you don't understand the simple fact that banks do not lend from their own assets, or from their own net worth or stockholders equity, or from their derived income, or from their own depositors? The money for lending comes from the promissory note from the borrower that the bank monetizes. Banks are forbidden by law to lend the way you think they must.

"New money is created" from each loan. Both the assets & liabilities of the bank increases in the loan process". In a true & legitimate loan, this wouldn't happen where the bank is creating both a new asset and a new liability. The problem is the bank doesn't honor this liability they create when they take the promissory note without any payment consideration.

You are obviously ignorant of what the Federal Reserve Publications have said or what smarter & more experienced men have said on this subject of lending.

Banks "create" money, they don't lend it & take the risk you think they do.

mogel said...

Ralph Gelder, Superintendent, Department of Banks and Banking, State of Maine, said on Feb. 20, 1974, "A commercial bank is able to make a loan by simply creating a new demand deposit (so called checkbook money) through bookkeeping entry." This is in total contradiction to what the courts have said. Yet, that is exactly how the banks create the money to loan to its customers or to buy government bonds.

A bank has no right to loan the money of other persons. Grow v. Cockrill, Ark.1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63 Ark. 418.

National bank is not authorized under national banking laws to lend deposited money on depositor's behalf. Carr v. Weiser State Bank of Weiser, Idaho 1937, 66 P.2d 1116, 57 Idaho 599.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent: Tell me with all of your schooling & experience explain this statement by the Secretary of the British Treasury who must understand banking & lending better than you? Is he also delusional and needs a reality check too?

“Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing” ---Ralph M. Hawtrey, Secretary of the British Treasury

mogel said...

"Paper money polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality of our people." PELATIAH WEBSTER

“Thus, our national circulating medium is now at the mercy of loan transactions of banks, which LEND, NOT MONEY, but promises to supply money THEY DO NOT POSSESS." IRVING FISHER

“In the practical workings of the banking system the bulk of deposits originates in the granting of loans...., and his ability to make loans and investments arises largely from the receipt of his depositors' money." FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM- BOARD OF GOVERNORS PAGE 24.


"As we realize that banks create their own deposit debts....we begin to see why these institutions are often referred to as monetizers of debt... Because of ‘fractional reserve system, banks, as a whole can expand our money supply several times, by making loans and investments. Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower's IOU." FEDERAL RESERVE BANK, NEW YORK

"The banks -- commercial banks and the Federal Reserve -- create all the money of this nation and its people pay interest on every dollar of that newly created money. Which means that private banks exercise unconstitutionally, immorally, and ridiculously the power to tax the people. For every newly created dollar dilutes to some extent the value of every other dollar already in circulation." CONGRESSMAN JERRY VOORHIS


“No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marquee and reprisal; coin money; emit letters of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility." THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (Article I, Section 10)

"Emitting bills of credit, or the creation of money by private corporations, is what is expressly forbidden by Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution." U.S. SUPREME COURT, CRAIG V. MISSOUR, 4 PETERS 410.

“The Federal Reserve Board, and the Federal Reserve Banks are private Corporations." CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, JUNE 10, 1932, P. 12595

“Capital must protect itself in every possible manner by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages must be foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through a process of law, the common people lose their homes they will become more docile and more easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of government, applied by a central power of wealth under control of leading financiers. This truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of Capital to govern the world. By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance. Thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves what has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished." USA BANKER’S MAGAZINE, AUGUST 25, 1924


“The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit.... In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value.... Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the "hidden" confiscation of wealth.... [Gold] stands as a protector of property rights.This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the "hidden" confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard." ALAN GREENSPAN

“Government is the only agency which can take a useful commodity like paper, slap some ink on it and make it totally worthless." LUDWIG VON MISES

“The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class. The great body of people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages will bear its burdens without complaint.” ROTHSCHILD BROTHERS OF LONDON 1863 (one of the private foreign families that are owners of the Federal Reserve Banks)



FROM THE HORSES MOUTH
THE FEDERAL RESERVE ON MONETIZING YOUR PROMISSORY NOTE
I recently requested copies of various publications published by several branches of the Federal Reserve Bank. The quotes reproduced below are taken verbatim from several of these publications. They explain that the customer of a bank is the depositor when he obtains a loan and that he is entitled to the return of his deposit. The explanations you will read below admit that banks or depository institutions within the Federal Reserve System do not loan money from their own assets but rather, they create money by simply entering the amount created or crediting it in an accounting ledger.
Hats the Federal Reserve Wears
Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
PO Box 66
Philadelphia, PA 19105-0066
215-574-6115

Paragraph 6, Paragraph 3:
“Money for loans comes from two sources: 1) people who have saved and are willing to lend their savings; and 2) institutions such as banks, which have the power, within limits, to create money in checking-type accounts when they make loans.”
Paragraph 8, Paragraph 3:
“Federal Reserve notes are the only kind of paper money issued today.”

Modern Money Mechanics
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
Public Information Center
PO Box 834
Chicago, IL 60690-0834
312-322-5111
Page 3, Second Column, Paragraph 1:
“Who Creates Money? … The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks. … checkable liabilities of banks are money. These liabilities are customers’ accounts. They increase when customers deposit currency and checks and when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrower’ accounts. …
Page 7, Example 3, Expansion-Stage 1:
“Expansion takes place only if the banks that hold these excess reserves increase their loans or investments. Loans are made by crediting the borrower’s deposit account, i.e., by creating additional deposit money.”
“Stage 7: Expansion continues as the banks that have excess reserves increase their loans by that amount, crediting borrowers’ deposit accounts in the process, thus creating still more money.”
“In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically a dollar bill is just a piece of paper, deposits merely book entries. The actual process of money creation takes place primarily in banks.”

As noted earlier, checkable liabilities of banks are money. These liabilities are customers’ accounts. They increase when customers deposit currency and checks and when the proceeds of loans made by the banks are credited to borrowers’ accounts.

In the absence of legal reserve requirements, banks can build up deposits by increasing loans and investments so long as they keep enough currency on hand to redeem whatever amounts the holders of deposits want to convert into currency. This unique attribute of the banking business was discovered many centuries ago.

mogel said...

Notarial dissent: Do you have more money or more education & experience than this man who seems to know something you don't?

Josiah Charles Stamp: 2nd richest man in Great Britain, 1880-1941


Josiah Charles Stamp quote:

“The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight-of-hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin... But if you want to continue to be slaves of the bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit .”

mogel said...

Borrowing is not much better than begging; just as lending with interest is not much better than stealing.
Doris Lessing