Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Conspiracy to Commit Fraud

One of our charges is the big blanket charge. Conspiracy to commit fraud is a collusion of parties working together to twist the truth or conceal the truth. Many have sworn this is fitting of our actions. Let me run another group of individual’s actions before you. A couple named Rod & Deb Austin committed some real-estate fraud in North Carolina. Though they were agents of a broker of Dorean this transaction had nothing to do with Dorean business. You wouldn’t know that by the headline in the news which read Dorean Broker sentenced to 10 years for fraud. Now this fraudster works out a deal to trade his time getting a suspended sentence by agreeing to testify against us. North Carolina, the feds and a felon all conspiring to hide their crimes, twist the public perception, and bring all their lies into our trial. Oh how justice is so loved by those in power. These are the kind of people we’re up against. These are the kind of people you foolish clients are running to for salvation. One day you’ll be glad your trustees were not of the same caliber. You fools with your ethical platforms why don’t you look into these characters before you take them home for dinner? Maybe you’re no more honest than they are. The public is so easily fooled. Fools with no morality just point their fingers at better men and your eyes are fixed and your mind is broken. They get the benefit of performing their conspiracy to commit fraud and get the conspiracy to commit ignorance thrown in for free. How about conspiring to commit truth? I’m interested, how about you?

28 comments:

provb1022 said...

Thanks Kurt for the explantion. It's a shame that our government and people that profess these lies are so interested in protecting themselfs that justice is prolonged.

Thanks Mogel for your excelent defense of 100% success and the difference between proven. Also your explanation of Mortage elimination or Mortage Challenge. Mortage Challenge has always been the intent of Kurt. I know this by a personal conversation I had with him before the presentment was made to the banks in my case. What a lie this goverment wants to protect for obvious reasons. My prayers are with you all in your confronting the lie with the truth. Thanks again

mogel said...

Rodney Austin is a joke of a witness. If the prosecution knew what I knew, & what I could prove by people I know, they wouldn't use him as a witness.

Mr. Austin took in monies from many clients & DIDN'T perform the necessary paperwork to get them in the dorean mortgage challenge process by doing the work clients paid for. This is tantamount to stealing. I know this for a fact, it isn't speculation.

The prosecution putting him up as a witness just gives the Defendants the right to examine his own credibility and character & how he does his own business practices. Rodney Austin has no credibility, & he isn't honest in his business dealings, so his testimony, whatever it is, is meaningless & is questionable from the start. And this judgment of his character, isn't coming from me, it's coming from angry people that had dealings with him & people that said they didn't trust him who said horrible things about him.

Rodneye took in monies from clients & stopped communicating with his clients & made himself difficult if not impossible to get ahold of. The money was all he was concerned about. That is no way to do business.

I suspect Rodney will do anything & say anything on the witness stand for his own selfish purposes. He has proven to be unreliable, dishonest and selfish already and this is the type of witness the prosecution seemingly wants. How fitting. Like attracts like kind: "birds of a feather stick together".

near the end said...

Neo and judge roy bean and N.D.and _______ _________ etc..... why are you not commenting. HMMMMMMMMMMMMM

gr82bmoi said...

Mogel said…”He has proven to be unreliable, dishonest and selfish already and this is the type of witness the prosecution seemingly wants.”

Sounds like a typical Dorean pusher to me. Maybe that’s exactly the point the prosecution plans to prove…that anyone associated with the Dorean scam – employees, brokers, clients, principals, doesn’t matter —are “unreliable, dishonest and selfish.” What better way to prove that point than to call up the poster boy. Hey…how come Mogel isn’t a witness? Oh, I remember now – he’s so insignificant he’s got nothing the prosecution wants. Heck – so far they haven’t even bothered to charge him, but then again, is there even any proof he ever made a “sale.” Could he be nothing but a buncha big mouth, wanna-be blow? Hmmmmmmm?

“Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”—Don’t do the Crime (aka Death Row Killza)-----Snoop Dogg

habakkuk said...

“Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”—Don’t do the Crime (aka Death Row Killza)-----Snoop Dogg

HE GOES AROUND QUOTING SNOOP DOGG AND EXPECTS US TO RESPECT HIS ARGUMENTS.....I'VE HEARD IT ALL.

GYHOOYA said...

The public is so easily fooled. Fools with no morality just point their fingers at better men and your eyes are fixed and your mind is broken.

Now that could'nt of been said with more truth and fact, Strat to the heart of the matter.

When all you'Lemmings' want to get up off your asses and do something instead of typing your little fingers off here you could be typing to a congressman or a newspaper., gathering facts and proff about the dealings that go on with the banks and brokers.

Oh and speaking of untruthful brokers I would have to say the the Banks have the monopoly on that feild of stealing.

Song:
'Thats the facts jack'

Performed by:
by life AreUreal records
(2C4Real&Banditos)

Voicals
CI2I background and up front & in your Face

Look for their new hit soon to be recorded :
The time's Know-Thing as long as the crimes not just BLING-BLING cause you have to keep it real if you

R-4-Real RU?

Cause the banks and broker lie more that used car salesman who needs just one more sale to win that trip!

And let me tell you there nothing that a used car salesman won't tell you to win a trin or anything for that matter so you keep that head deep dwon in the sand whats left of you to seee,Well,is all A@^* I think that shows how you just about all that needs to be said. Not much of a stand up person are you? Grat2bm As for the rest of you Lemmings. just keep doing as your told and looking for your next big free ride.


I'll go with "Free Bird' any day
The song and life can't be any better then that

L8r

Oh and all of you neysayers why don't you explain all the lies and crap that goes on daily from broker and such before you start looking to point fingers or are you just part of the great big money stealing banker bunch.

Right!


You ever wonder how it is that these poor banker keep them selfs afloat with all the wrong place on them?

Right!

Don't no how they manage to pay for those big tall building in every city and town (the tallest ) in every town and city and state and all with sdoing thing on the Up & UP

RIGHT! SURE THEY ARE

SO RUN ALONG AND GIVE YOUR LEMMINGS SELFS TO THE PACKED AND FOLLOW, FOLLOW, FOLLOW TILL YOU RUN RIGHT OFF A CLIFF. But don't look back you might find out that the banker are still up top when you go over the edge and be disapointed in them for tricking you into thinking they were with you through Thick and Thin darn geuss they changed their minds and let you take the FALL.


Wake Up! how many lie are there to a banking center lets see? One , two < three no wait i'll be here all day that way let try this...

1234567890-=1234567890234567893456789045678934987034567980-346597804567890436908u9780-=456789934567890-4567890-435678904567890-4567890- + 1

taht should be close to the number of lies if i'm off a bit feel free to add to it I'm sure it's not any less than that thoug.

C-ya

near the end said...

gr82bmoi, I just dropped your wife of at the next street.

Hey if she acts like a Hooker and walks like a Hooker then she must be a; well, he knows what she is.

mogel said...

GreatobeMoi said: "Oh, I remember now – he’s so INSIGNIFICANT he’s got nothing the prosecution wants."

LOL How well you choose your words! :o) Is your wording just a coincidence? If I agree that your conclusion is correct, one must wonder why then the FBI felt it necessary to contact 2 family members of mine about me & throw around their guns & badges & scare family members & come in huge numbers as if something was important to them or as if some crime had been committed. If I had nothing to offer or if they wanted nothing, or if no crime has been committed, than by their actions they have just shown harassment towards me & my family. Either way those running this charade, are guilty of something either stance you believe since I haven't been charged with anything, than it just boils down to pure harassment. They obviously haven't tried very hard to talk to me or locate me & harassing family members is totally inappropriate.

Would you like to guess who said this: "Scott & I suspect that our role in history is one that has to be stealthily DONE BY INSIGNIFICANTS because anything above that has already been compromised or conflicted." What a great, true and profound statement!!! I'm proud to be in the class of insignificants too.

Jesus has said "that the weak things of the earth will confound the foolishness of the wise and the proud ones." God doesn't call the most powerful or intelligent, the most respected as far as world standards are concerned, to perform a great work, because he can't work with such people to achieve his ends. They don't know how to listen because they aren't humble. They aren't humble, because they are compromised because the things of this world are more important than spiritual things. If you can't listen, you can't follow.

We both agree that the prosecution doesn't want to hear the full truth. The fact that the prosecution team wants to suppress anything pertaining to the UCC coming into the trial proves that point.

However, to find the mind of the Principals & to find out their real intent, which it is necessary to prove ill intent in order to get a fraud conviction, you must include and discuss the UCC as evidence of their intent because their presentment to the banks refers to the UCC many times as justification of their actions & a glimpse into their minds.

To diminish any evidence or suppress any defenses the Defendants may have is tantamount to abuse of process. If the prosecution abuses the process of fact finding & truth, and the Judge goes along with this, they have compromised the trial, thus throwing out any veracity of any verdict or fraud conviction judgment in the end as being valid & lawful.

Besides look what it says here: "The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code)" –The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966

How then is the UCC irrelevant if we are talking about the monetary system & bank fraud etc.

The prosecution in essence wants to cheat to win, but in so cheating, lose by default & if they even ever had subject matter jurisdiction to bring these charges, which they don't, they lose that too.

mogel said...

Great to Be Stupid said: "Maybe that’s exactly the point the prosecution plans to prove…that anyone associated with the Dorean scam – employees, brokers, clients, principals, doesn’t matter —are “unreliable, dishonest and selfish.”

And that proves bank fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, in what conclusive way?

I didn't realize it was a crime to be selfish or unreliable & that this will be the deciding factor in favor of the prosecution to turn the tides of achieving guilty verdicts of life imprisonment. After all, you have predicted 30 years to life, have you not? The point I was making is that Mr. Austin's conduct makes his testimony unreliable to believe, especially since in the beginning he was such a strong believer/pusher in the validity of the dorean process.

The dishonesty I was referring to was taking in money as a Broker/agent & not attempting at all to perform the service that was agreed upon, like taking the money & doing nothing at all. That type of dishonesty is not relevant to the hearty issues of the criminal trial, but unfortunately you can't see that.

You think if you throw enough garbage at someone, that they are somehow guilty of everything that is alleged.

mogel said...

“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.
________________

Does anyone disagree banks "lend credit"? So if lending credit gives the bank a liability, the question is when did they plan on paying me back? And if they never planned on paying me back after using my money, isn't that bank fraud?

mogel said...

'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.
________________________________

Since my promissory note is a "special deposit" and if the banks "used it" by endorsing it, they have violated the law because I gave no such written permission.

As a depositor I am entitled back that money the Court has ruled.

So why am I considered a debtor by the bank when this ruling says otherwise?

mogel said...

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.
_____________________________

Well than banks must "lend their credit".

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

Course if they just lend their credit, and not their own money, then, they can't be the holder in due course either.

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.

mogel said...

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

mogel said...

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.
______________________________

Well so much for the assumption that bank lend out their own assets since they can't do that since the courts have said they can't put their funds in peril due to possible nonpayment.

mogel said...

“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
____________________________________
If banks don't supply the money, & don't possess the money it must not be their assets they are loaning.

mogel said...

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

Obviously banks can't lend their own assets if they create the loan out of nothing.

mogel said...

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
________________________________
An exchange is not a loan.

mogel said...

MONETARY POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES – FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO

p.13 “Bank loans are funded by banks creating new deposits.

“money doesn’t have to be intrinsically valuable, be issued by a government or be in any special form.”

mogel said...

I BET YOU THOUGHT..... – FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK

“Banks create money by monetizing debt.” For example, if the Fractional Reserve is 10%, a bank that has on deposit $1 million (10% of $10 million) can loan an additional $9 million, money the banks DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE -they’ve created money!
Checkbook money is ‘created’ by currency deposits. Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars
to accounts on their books IN EXCHANGE for a borrower’s IOU."
______________________________
An exchange is not a loan that needs to be repaid.

gr82bmoi said...

Mogel yammered..."We both agree that the prosecution doesn't want to hear the full truth. The fact that the prosecution team wants to suppress anything pertaining to the UCC coming into the trial proves that point."

Here’s a little legal lesson for you Mogel: The prosecution doesn’t have to hear the full truth. In fact, the prosecution doesn’t “hear” anything. That’s the judge or jury’s job. And, it’s up to the defense to make sure they do. But, no worries, right – the defense (affectionately known as “Dim and Dimmer”) has a strong grasp on all of the legal in’s and out’s of a serious criminal case.

habakkuk said...

"Here’s a little legal lesson for you Mogel: The prosecution doesn’t have to hear the full truth. In fact, the prosecution doesn’t “hear” anything. That’s the judge or jury’s job. And, it’s up to the defense to make sure they do. But, no worries, right – the defense (affectionately known as “Dim and Dimmer”) has a strong grasp on all of the legal in’s and out’s of a serious criminal case. "

gr82bmoi, YOU JUST DONT GET IT DO YOU? AT THIS POINT YOU'R STARTING TO GET LAUGHED AT (JUST LIKE YOUR FRIENDS TCOB AND NEO...WHERE THEY BEEN BY THE WAY?). IF YOU KEEP IT UP AS SOON AS YOU POST ANYTHING MORE YOU'LL START TO ACTUALLY HEAR LAUGHTER OUTSIDE YOUR WINDOW. THATS HOW RIDICULOUS YOU ARE.

GYHOOYA said...

Great2 be a Lemming

If your so keen on the whole trial being fair and that then I will hope the same for you when your day comes in court.

This is by far a fair trial

The fact you stated about it being up to the judge and the defence to present it to him and the jury is true but the fact that this judge and court room are anything but fair and unbiest when it comes to this trial. I would hope your enough of a stand up person to call it like it is and not just what your hoping for and are willing to let happen in this triWrong is wrong no matter how you look at it. and in all fairness the two guy and dorean have made an up front presentment to the banks and the banks choose to change the rule of the game in mid play now how fair is that?

Again there have been many thing that have taken place at the hands of this judge and court along with the Feds and all who they are back by have done the same to try and derail these guy's.
If you can't see tha and understand the reason behind it then I guess your doomed to a life of being a lemming and follow any and all who have the power to tell you to.

GYHOOYA said...

Here something for you to think about when standing up for the court system we have now and the fairness it deals out .

There was girl that was taken from a parking lot in the midwest and then found murder just a day or so after the person who did this was caught on tape by the store cameras and that was use to arrest him.

Another couple was arrested when police were serving a warrent on the home where in it they found and missing girl that was locked up in a hidden room block from sight and this girl was onlly 15 yera old .

My point you wounder?
well it's this

In bothe cases there is a bail set one for the murder suspect at 5,000,000. and the other two it was set at 100,000. now if that isn't the stupidest thing I have ever heard i don't no what is.

This is the say system that hold our tow guy's without bail for over two year yet the'll let go on bail a person for all rights is a tried and true killerand the couple that would be child who know what?

the news is not saying as to what they did but it was to say the least not a fut time for the kid and being there were Medical exams and other thing preformed after I'll leave that to your mind to fill in the res.

Sick world we live in these day's

And a system of works that spends more time greasing there pockets then doing whats right and fair.
I''ll tell you what have it my way theres a BIG BIG HOUSE CLEANING THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN AROUND HERE!

this shit just F*&%$ bpisses me off to know end. I can't beleave that there leting these people out to walk the streets and yeet they keep looked up at MY and the rest of the tax paying peopel expence tow guy's who the only thing they have done is presented a stack of paoper to a banking system that they beleave show's their wrong doing and their intent on things aginst the ones with property they hold.

NOW HOW FAIR AND RIGHT IS THAT ?
YOU TELL MY ALL YOU NEYSAYIONG ASS WIPES AND YOU WONDER WHY I GET SO OUTRAGED ON HERE WHEN I HEAR SOME OF YOU DEFENDING THESE PRICKS OF A COURT SYSTEM AND THE GOV'T THAT HELPS THEM TO SCREW PEOPLE .

WHY DON'T YOU THINK ABOUT THAT THE NEXT TIME YOU CAN'T LET YOUR KID GOT TO THE DAM STORE FOR FEAR OF THEM ENDING UP DEAD FROM SOMNEONE THE COURT SYSTEM CHOOSE TO LET OUT ON BAIL; AND THEM TELL ME HOW IT WOULD BE IF THE TWO WERE OUT ON BAIL AND WHAT THAT MOGHT DO TO SOMEONE .

NOT EVEN CLOSE IS IT!


SO AS NOT TO LEAVE YOU WITHOUT YOUR EXPECTED FROM ME.
I'LL BE NICE BELEAVE ME WHEN I SAY THIS

YOU MAKE ME SICK AND YOU SHOULD HAVE NOTHING BUT WHAT YOU CAUSE TO BE HAPPEN TO YOURSELF AND FEEL THAT PAIN THAT THE PERENTS OF THAT GIRL ARE FEELING RIGHT NOW!
FU$^&&**K ING SHIT!


GO BE WHAT YOU ARE AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU SUPPORT WITH ALL YOUR B.S. AND WHAT IT WILL BERING YOU AND OTHER IN THE FUTURE.

mogel said...

"That’s the judge or jury’s job" to hear the full truth.
_________________________________

How can the Jury or Judge hear the full truth if the Judge signs the order not to allow the full truth to be heard such as the UCC issues?
According to the prosecution's motion, the UCC has nothing to do with the charges filed since bank fraud, mail fraud & wire fraud & conspiracy all are charges from different codes and law, so they don't want the Defendants to bring up UCC issues and want the Judge to stop them the Defendants from doing so in the trial.

How can the Judge even consider such a motion by the prosecution in good faith?

Great to be Moi: If the prosecutor knows of facts to acquit the Principals, they are obligated to bring these things to the Courts attention or drop the charges. It's called ethics, probably something you don't understand or even have based upon your comments.

Great to be Moi: The prosecution wants to limit what can be bought into the court record. What part of limiting the truth & trying to pervert & cheat & NOT trying to understand the state of mind of the Principals on trial for what they did, do you NOT understand?

gr82bmoi said...

Mogel said: “The prosecution wants to limit what can be bought into the court record.”

Of course they do, you poor, clueless imbecile. I can’t believe you endlessly spew your pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo and you don’t even comprehend this basic legal concept!? Obviously, if the issue is on sound legal footing (like you claim) AND the defense is competent enough to point that out, a judge could be persuaded to allow it. But, hey – don’t expect any basic legal maneuvers from the law offices of Dim, Dummer and Moogie.

Hey Buncha Hooey: Here’s one of life’s basic truths: He who hath the gold maketh the rule.

neodemes said...

*yawn*

mogel said...

Great to be Moi said: Obviously, if the issue is on sound legal footing (like you claim) AND the defense is competent enough to point that out, a judge could be persuaded to allow it.

Ya think? Let me repeat myself since you are hard of hearing.

"The entire taxing and MONETARY SYSTEMS are hereby placed under the U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code)" –The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966

You think the Judge would understand that statement & would need some persuading or do you think that statement is made up & is "mumbo jumbo" TOO? Do you think it would take a legal scholar to explain to a Judge that banks are part of the monetary system? Is that statement not on legal footing, or do you just not read what I say or understand anything of what I say?

Course maybe you're right on the other hand. A judge that makes fantasy rulings, might not believe that the Tax Lien Act of 1966 is really real after all.

mogel said...

Click on "Uncovering the fraud" & find out that the credit card industry & national banks don't even have the corporate authority to do what they are doing by "lending credit". See:

http://marketingsolutions.cc/
fsei_on_demand/gallery.html

If that is true, Mr. Keller, the prosecuting attorney doesn't even have any basis to bring bank fraud charges against anyone, except the banks who supposedly are assumed to be the victims, however, when the banks assume authority they don't have, and never had, they certainly can't be the victims, but can only be the perpetrators of bank fraud according to the doctrine of "ultra vires", acting without corporate authority.

I had to laugh at the referene in the video where an attorney cited 3 court cases on the court record, where the banks had authority to issue credit cards or issue "credit".

After investigating the only 3 cases that the banks attorney's can site or find of all court cases available to them, it turns out that the cases had nothing to do with any authority cited, but other unrelated issues. The lawyer for the bank, definitely lied upon the court record, & the Judge allowed it.