Sunday, July 01, 2007

The Logic of the illogical (06-08-07)

I’ve seen a strange string of illogic in the comments. Basically there is a thought out there the banks had no obligation to respond to our presentment and that tribunals were the only forum to question. I know anyone with commonsense would see through this foolishness but I’ll address them anyway. The government which is the maker of these tribunals we are locked into has a thing called “public policy” that contains within it the tenets of good faith, fair dealing, and honesty in fact. In fact this is suppose to be the intent of Congress in the enactment of their bills. The statute is by design a mechanism to punish via some penal sum or sanction any violation of public policy. Congress has many statutes that encourage other remedies outside of the tribunal you believe you’re limited to. Things like arbitration, the self-help remedies of the UCC. These support doctrines such as judicial economy, the interest of justice and mediation. Could you imagine a world, a country where the people were powerless to settle any dispute without the government’s intervention? Commerce would slow to a mere percentage. People would get frustrated by the endless delays and revolt by taking matters back into their own hands. How would your family run? The minister, accountant, friend, expert or others in their ministerial capacity would become irrelevant. Now I think you stole from me and I confront you and your only defense is that you don’t like the way I asked the question or are offended I challenged your integrity. I’m sorry but that is retarded. What if the bank misplaces another’s deposit into your account and call to verify if you made the deposit, do you tell them “go to court, I don’t have to talk with you, I can’t believe you would suspect I would keep something not belonging to me?” The bank by their relationship and contracts with you had every right to talk with you. Let’ s assume you choose to remain silent they will perform a remedy regardless that reflects the actual material facts. Even if you retort “you had no right” public policy will prevail. How can this nonsense be entertained by anyone? The government has every right to put me in jail on what they call a crime, a violation of public policy but where did they get that right if not from the public? Did the public (we the people) lose their rights just because the government chose to enforce it? How is that possible? It seems to me that all that has happened to Dorean is evidence of truth being the standard we measure the variance from. Now I’ll agree in practice that the foxes are guarding the hen house but at least their garments of show make a certain statement. Just maybe I’ll get an answer from this forum as to their hypocrisy on public policy. They are using the silent treatment when I question them but I’ve been here before. Yes it proves they have something to hide when they have a duty to speak. When you threaten me with life in prison you have a duty to speak. That’s constitutional, that’s public policy!

69 comments:

neodemes said...

Kurt,

Part of your problem appears to lay in your tactics.

Example:
You filed a bill of particulars request comprised solely of: "Are the Defendants DALE SCOTT HEINEMAN and KURT F. JOHNSON living souls?"

Do you really believe this tired out sovereign gibberish is going to be effective?

The retard you keep referring to may be the one staring back at you from your mirror.

If you don't get serious, they are going to hang you.

sop17 said...

"Just maybe I’ll get an answer from this forum as to their hypocrisy on public policy."




LOL! there is no answer. the govt. has been this way (corrupt) for centuries and unless the paradime shift is not just for nickels, they will continue to be


we will will see about this new comoing paradigm.

maybe its the rapture that is coming!!!

sop17 said...

" the shitf wont even be worht a pair of nickels, much less a pair of dimes.....

sop17 said...

there really must be a pairofdimes sift going on as what is one to make of this!???

www.quatloos.com/parsons.htm



a 20%/month bank dentures program ENDORSED BY QUACKLOOS.COM????


and waht do JUNGLE RAW BEANS has to say about this high yip??


JUNGLE RAW BEANS has been quite lately.....

sop17 said...

do tell me about the bank denture investment porgam.

i still looking fo an invstment that i can sink my teeth into....

mogel said...

Nemo: If there really WASN'T a material difference between the capitalized version of a name, (one's Strawman) and the Non capped version of a name, you could get away signing a contract or any public document & demand that it NOT be put in all capitalized version. After all, for all intents & purposes, it really doesn't matter as you say. You can't sign a mortgage, get a drivers license, birth certificate, credit report, or any legal document without the name (Strawman) being all capped. Now give me a valid and reasonable response why that really is?

Now if the spelling style doesn't really matter, why is that so that all these governmental agencies REQUIRE the all capped version on these documents? I realize the courts have repeatedly ruled that it doesn't matter how the name is spelled, but I'm not impressed with the fact it does matter in real life practices when in dealing in commerce and with the government on this issue.

Nemo, when you can convince the retards to give you a drivers license without your name being in the all capped style, then, I'll believe your nonsense.

There is no difference in the courts leading you to believe that lenders don't "create money" when they perform a "loan", or when the courts rule that for all purposes the Strawman is the same as the real flesh & blood person by their rhetoric & misleading rulings. The courts inconsistency shows that they aren't interested in some truths.

When there is a difference between real life practices and court rulings, we have a serious problem.

mogel said...

Q. Are Prime Bank Instruments registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission? If not, Quatloos isn't going to recommend this program.

SOP: I think you are being deceived. First of all, the SEC isn't going to give their blessing without a registered offering. Look at the answer to the question on their website:

A. No, these securities are not registered with the SEC because they meet the requisite statutory exemptions mandated by Congress. To provide additional comfort to our investors, on March 16, 1973, Parsons Heritage requested assurances from the SEC that the prime bank instruments we offer do not need to be registered.

One thing is for sure, almost all prime bank debenture programs don't pay out as promised.

mogel said...

SOP: Did you follow instructions and read the whole website? If not, you must read this:

http://www.growthventure.com/
parsons/invest2.htm

neodemes said...

Funny.

I don't recall signing my driver's license in ALL CAPS.

Apparently, I'm not a legal driver.

I guess I'll ride in the back and let my STRAW MAN chauffeur me around.

LOL

Ramble on, moogster!

mogel said...

Nemo: I didn't mean to say you sign in all caps, on your drivers license application, but your name on your drivers license is spelled in ALL CAPS AS YOUR NAME, is it not? I know mine is & everyone other license I've seen without exception.

sop17 said...

"SOP: Did you follow instructions and read the whole website? If not, you must read this:

http://www.growthventure.com/
parsons/invest2.htm

=====================



yep, you got me on that one!


i nver follow up on anything posted on quicklose, so i did not see that page.

all i knew was that sometihkg didnt smell right about something like this being on quacklose, but didnt know exactly what.

exactly what was that i should have follwoed it thru and realized that it was a take on a scam


altho programs for bank dentures really do exist;

as many here have pointed out, the bank dentures program is called "fractional banking" or legalised "check kiting"

if you keep the money in the air long enuf, its called check kiting

exactly what banks do as all their money or most of it really only exists as digits entries on a computer screen

thats why you cant get a million in cash out of your bank even if you have that much, because the bank itself doesnt really have it (or ever did have it) just a cmputer entry in you account that say you got $1 million

so befor the bank actually have to come up with the money, they just transfer it to another bank and let them earn the overnight interest on it.

and repeat and repeat.

simple plain old check kiting only made legal.

keep the money in the air moving long enuf, until the music stops which amazingly after centuries, the music seem like its going to stop.

the last one holding only "credits" is going to eat theri credits for lunch, if they can becasue they will get no credit for digit entries in they accounts.


also why the govt. try to shut down all e-cuurincies

they dont wnat people to get in on it.

neodemes said...

Whatever, moog.

mogel said...

Dorean's own "Business Plan" speaks of the duty to speak:

"There is a duty to speak when a Freedom of Information Act request is received. If this duty is not acted upon there is remedy. The Banks have a clear duty to speak when it comes to the contract. There is a duty to read which axiomatically requires a duty to disclose. The banks come from a superior bargaining position, uses adhesion contracts, and have a burden to prove a voluntary asset. Weaver v. American Oil. 257 Ind. 458, 276 N.E. 2d 144 (1971), Vitex Mfg. Corp. v. Caribtex Corp. 377 F. 2d 795, 799-800 (3d Cir. 1967)."

"The banks further have a duty to speak when they accept the office of agent through the intermediary broker relationship in forwarding your financial asset into the secondary liquidity markets and when they retain your note as a safe keeper."

"Banks by their vested powers are the sole choice for administering the public monetary policy of the nation. For them to take the silent is acceptable approach is inimical to the public good. Hennigsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 (1960); Annot., 75 A.L.R.2d 39 (1961)"

"The powers to reconvey the lien upon the property is found in the duty to speak and the banks arrogance to remain silent. The remedy obtained to Dorean by this behaviour is fully discussed in the Restatement of the Law, Second, Agency Copyright 1958 The American Law Institute."

In light of that information, it's going to be impossible for the prosecution to maintain any fraud charges against Dorean. And to show any intent to defraud, well you can forget that, since the business plan has enough justification alone to show that the intent to scam or defraud anyone was never present from the very beginning.

Course the Court showed an intent to defraud & hide the truth & real intent of the Dorean Group when they refused to include this evidence in the Court records even though it was properly submitted.

Dorean's response to that bad behaviour was to file an amicus curiae brief, which cannot be stricken, so the court's cheating, did them no good, but actually hurt them.

As the A Team Leader always said, "I love it when a plan comes together". :o)

mogel said...

Here's the nonsense in one statement, so even the slow one's can understand why it's unreasonable to not require full disclosure and include the lender to speak about all material issues of the agreement. One just needs to hear the lender say to the borrower to understand my point:

"Hey retard, I am valued patron, JUST SIGN on the dotted line."

mogel said...

I meant to type:

"Hey RETARD, translation: 'valued patron', JUST SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE."

mogel said...

Or maybe it was this that I heard:

"Hey valued patron, meaning 'retard', just sign on the dotted line if you want YOUR MONEY, so we can all go to lunch quicker."

Course they were right about the "your money" part at least.

mogel said...

"As an officer of the court, an attorney is charged with the advancement, and protection of property, LIBERTY and occasionally life." Keker v. Procunier, 398 F. Supp. 756

I wonder if the prosecution team has been notified of their BREACH OF DUTY YET?

mogel said...

Mr. Keller & Company need to be arrested for their filing of bogus charges against the Dorean Group:

"An attorney has no constitutional guaranty of freedom FROM ARREST and any immunity which he possesses must be found in the COMMON LAW and in the statutes supplementing it. Zumsteg v. American Food Club, Inc., 143 N.E. 2d 701.

mogel said...

Judge must be fair to all parties and may not do or say anything that MIGHT PREJUDICE either litigant. U.S. v. Price, 13 F.3d 711 (3rd Cir. 1994)

So when Judge Alsup signs any order that limits evidence or prejudices the defenses of the Dorean Group, a mistrial exists & the Judge loses his presupposed jurisdiction.

mogel said...

"When a person of ordinary intelligence does not receive fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden, prosecution for such conduct deprives him of due process. US v. Neveres, 7 F.3d 59 (9th Cir. 1993)"

Was Kurt & Scott ever notified of any forbidden conduct with the laws supporting this, before their arrest?

Court cases that make you say, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

mogel said...

"Due process of law is violated when government vindictively attempts to penalize a person for exercising protected statutory or constitutional rights." US v. Conkins, 987 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1993)

Now that case certainly applies to the Dorean Group. Dorean's right to challenge the banks & send out their presentment is based upon Title 5 of the Administrative Procedures Act."

mogel said...

"Prosecution of Citizen who is unaware of any wrongdoing for "wholly passive conduct" violates due process." U.S. v. Layne, 43 F.3d 127 (5th Cir. 1995)

"For the government to punish a person because he had done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort." U.S. v. Guthrie, 789 F.2d 356 (5th cir. 1986)

"Only by due process of law may courts acquire jurisdiction over parties." Weiss V. Shapiro Candy Mfg. Co. Inc., 18 A.2d 706, 707.

"Due process clause not only applies when one's physical liberty is threatened but also where a person's good name, reputation, honor or integrity are at stake." Gotkin v. Miller, 514 F.2d 125 (1975)

"A judge may not direct a verdict of guilty no matter how conclusive the evidence." Connecticut v. Johnson, 480 U.S. 73, 83
Didn't Judge Alsup say that the duo were going to get life when Dorean rejected the prosecutions offer at one time? How improper is that?

"False imprisonment is unlawful arrest or detention of person without warrant or by ILLEGAL WARRANT or warrant ILLEGALLY EXECUTED." Reilly v. United States Fedelity & Guaranty Co., 15 F.2d 314, 315

"A search and seizure which precedes an arrest is USUALLY CONSIDERED UNLAWFUL." Sibron v. State, 392 U.S. 40
Didn't that happen to Dorean too when they raided the office?

"Silence can only be equated WITH FRAUD where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionlly misleading." U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297 (1977)
Seems to me that Dorean getting the silent treatment suspecting that the banks committed fraud in the lending transaction & also accusing them of that & then having that suspicion confirmed by the banks silence after several weeks, were then at that point, under obligation to discharge the banks lien, first as a fiduciary to the dorean client, & 2nd also acting in the banks best interest too, as their agent, & thus also protecting the bank from further liability by fixing the problem as soon as the banks silence legally defaulted their purported claim. Further ratification of this agreement & justification, is the banks acceptance of the Dorean bond & not returning it, so the bank's neglect & actions here also indicates an acceptance of all of the terms explicitly spelled out by the Dorean presentment. One of the conditions upon default was that the dorean trustee had a right to discharge the lender's mortgage. Since banks give that right to agents all the time, such a widely accepted practice, hardly can be considered bank fraud.

mogel said...

How can the Dorean case be a criminal case?

"Criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts IS RESTRICTED to federal reservations over which the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction, as well as to forts, magazines, arsenal, dockyards or other needful buildings." 18 U.S.C. Section 451

notorial dissent said...

Well Kurt, nice to see you still can’t tell fact from fiction or reality from delusion, but then you never could could you? Or more precisely, once a liar, always a liar.

The statutes, as enacted by the Congress, are what you violated, and it is “public policy” that people who commit open and notorious fraud shall be arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for their efforts. You have seen the first part leg of that triad, and are soon to face the remaining two. Again, you twist and obfuscate, or are just really that unaware. “Public Policy” is to prosecute those who break the law.

Since when did Congress have anything to do with either arbitration, or the UCC, again, another lie or ignorance on your part. Both are creatures of State law and enforcement. There are no “self help remedies” in the UCC, there are only rules and standards of conduct of how business is supposed to be conducted, step outside of those standards, and it requires court enforcement and implementation to deal with any problems. Another of your delusions.

People have always been free to settle their own problems as long as they remain within the boundaries of the law and both are agreeable. It is when there is dispute and failure to agree that the courts become necessary, and no voodoo actions by you can alter or replace that. And oddly enough, despite this necessity, commerce has in fact not slowed to a halt, and it has been following this model since the founding of the Republic. Again confirming you to be a liar.

The fact remains, that if you choose to claim someone did some harm to you and they call you a bold faced liar, or more likely just ignore you as the over blown windbag you are, your ONLY option is to go to court, and hope that the judge and jury, if you are fool enough to request one, don’t see you for the fraud you are and throw you in jail, oh wait, I forgot you tried that and did end up in jail, silly me for pointing out the obvious.

Aside from your mishmash about things with a bank, it is not “public policy” that prevails, but the law, something you are finding out about at this very moment.

Quoting Kurt The government has every right to put me in jail on what they call a crime, The only true thing you have said so far. It was however not a violation of “public policy” that put you there, but open and notorious acts of fraud in violation of federal statute. Contrary to what you would like everyone to believe, there is no “right” to commit fraud or steal, even though you obviously think so. The statutory authority of Congress comes from it constitutional authority, and for some obscure reason they decided to make acts of fraud a criminal offense, imagine that.

What happened to Dorean was that you committed numerous acts of fraud, theft, forgery, and general deceit, coupled with overweening self aggrandizement, and not only got caught at it, something to do with general ineptitude to start with, and just general incompetence on your part, and you landed your sorry selves in jail, where incidently you are likely to remain for the remainder of your pathetic lives.

You are a third rate conartist and you got caught. You started believing your own BS and got caught up in it, and now it is too late to get out, and all you are doing at this rate is generating more BS to explain all that passed before, and this batch isn’t any better than what you started with. Ineptitude and general incompetence will win out in your case.

Hope you like prison gray, you are going to have a very long time to get used to it.

Soppy, word of advice, don’t use words you can’t spell and don’t understand. It makes you sound like an even bigger fool than you start out at. Stick to the two syllable words, you don’t handle them any better, but at least you can spell them, almost.

I see you managed to fall for the Quatloos HYIP gullibility test. Congratulations you never cease to underwhelm me.

And then there is the Moogster, parading further evidence of his ignorance and gullibility.

So now you have discovered the capitalization nonsense. Moogs, you can sign your name anyway you want to, and no one cares, it doesn’t matter, it is a non event, it is a waste of time to pursue this. Your name is your name regardless of how it is printed, whether in all caps, all lower case, or a mixture of both. Legally and factually the are the same. Capitalization is a matter of convenience and custom, nothing more. You can sign any document you want any way you want, and no one cares. Now what the printed version may look like is also a matter of custom and convenience. It is custom modernly, that a name be spelled with initial caps, and that is how it will be done on most things. it may also be done in all caps on some forms and documents because it is easier to read that way, or that is the habit they have gotten into, either way it is meaningless, despite your delusions.

So you admit that the courts have repeatedly ruled that it doesn’t matter, but because you want to believe some silly myth.

So you admit that the courts have ruled your theories are a crock, but you are going to keep right on believing your nonsense, no big surprise there either.

Moogems, once an idiot always an idiot. First, there is no such thing as a Prime Bank Instrument, never has been, never will be. So there is no reason they would be registered with the SEC, they don’t register nonexistent items, and don’t register anything at all unless it is openly registered and traded on the stock exchange; Second, Quatloos does not and never has recommended any such thing. You are getting dumber by the minute.

Somehow, I find it hard to believe that the Dorean business plan says anything at all about the FOIA, in fact I find it hard to believe that there was even such a thing as a business plan to begin with. The rest of your drivel makes even less sense, since for one thing the FOIA applies only to Federal Administrative offices. The rest is just your usual meaningless nonsense.

The banks/lenders were not and never were in any way shape or form agents for anyone in any of the transactions. You gibber, as usual, the note is the bank’s asset, to keep or sell as they please, once you have signed it, it is theirs, not yours. It is the bank’s promise of repayment by the issuer. Nice try, no cookie.

Moogey BS "The powers to reconvey the lien upon the property is found in the duty to speak and the banks arrogance to remain silent. The remedy obtained to Dorean by this behaviour is fully discussed in the Restatement of the Law, Second, Agency Copyright 1958 The American Law Institute." BS, there has to be a valid agency established, and it has to be done positively by the authorizing power, it can’t be assumed, or it is fraudulent, but then that was Dorean’s stock in trade wasn’t it?

In light of the fact that there was no agency created, they will have no problem showing fraud and forgery.

Since however, this has nothing to do with the crimes charged, it is irrelevant to the case being tried.

I keep asking you and you keep not answering, what is not disclosed in the loan agreement?

It may have slipped our short attention span, but Keller et al, are Federal prosecutors, and not considered attorneys in the sense of your non sequitur quote. As prosecutors, they have almost unlimited immunity from action for carrying out their duties.

The judge signs orders within the bounds of Federal law as to what he can and cannot do, your rantings not withstanding.

More Moogey dimwittedness Was Kurt & Scott ever notified of any forbidden conduct with the laws supporting this, before their arrest?
There is an old maxum stating that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, which would apply here in any case, but any normally intelligent person would have known their behavior was illegal, and at the very least unethical, except, that Kurtums has already been busted for the same type of fraud before, so he can’t plead ignorance, stupidity, incompetence, and general moral turpitude yes, but ignorance no way. Sorry Moogs, that donkey don’t fly.

More Moogey droppings "Due process of law is violated when government vindictively attempts to penalize a person for exercising protected statutory or constitutional rights." US v. Conkins, 987 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1993)
Gee Moogs, I don’t remember their being a constitutional right to commit fraud, maybe you can get out your expanded version of the constitution and point it out to me. If the Dorean Group had really wanted to challenge the banks, the only legal forum would have been the courts, but they knew they were peddling snake oil and that it would never fly with anyone with and IQ above a tricycle, so they decided on fraud instead.

Further Moogey droppings "Prosecution of Citizen who is unaware of any wrongdoing for "wholly passive conduct" violates due process." U.S. v. Layne, 43 F.3d 127 (5th Cir. 1995)
Little problem here Moogs, forging documents, and filing false papers, and suborning fraud is not passive, takes positive action and intent. So wrong again.

And yet again Moogs, the banks were under no legal obligation to pay one minutes worth of attention to the legal gobbledygook passing for documents the boys were handing out. If they had a valid complaint the proper forum was the courts, and we’ve already been over that too.

Further proof of why Moogey shouldn’t plagiarize "Criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts IS RESTRICTED to federal reservations over which the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction, as well as to forts, magazines, arsenal, dockyards or other needful buildings." 18 U.S.C. Section 451
You really should be more careful about where you steal from Moogs, 18 USC 451, has to do with crimes on Federal land or Federally controlled land, and it states the Federal courts do have jurisdiction, not that they are limited to jurisdiction there. Up to your usual standards in any event.

sop18 said...

nd,

nice to see that you are providing for the hegelian dialectic.


which is to always allow at least (2) choices

this is good, as this allows god to work. god will lead those he wants to the correct choice.

fight in iraq/dont fight iraq

join dg/dont join dg

vote/dont vote

etc/dont etc


just look at all those who joined other ME progams and got scamed out they money???

what led them to the dg?? lucky guess??

i can even rember who led me to this blog or told me aobut the dg in the first place??


how many HYIPs i lost money in?? LOL!

now maybe some of them payout???

mak up for all the "looses" as HYIP admins like to call them

"dont loose* you money" LOL!!

all sure things....CROWN INVTS, PImPS, GODs WAREHOUSE, PIU, ITS, PSHI, an many mo all "legitmate" and all "loose" you money thaks to good ole' uncle scam close em' all down.....

now maybe SOUTHERN BELLE PRIVELEGE BANK.

Illusions No More said...

Kurt & Scott,

Yo guys have koHONa's! We greatly appreciate you and Dr. Fred.

May Independence Day take on a special meaning soon for you both.

-----

Kelly here, long time follower, second time poster. Met Scott in driveway at business in California October 2004, thanx to Ma Bell’s 411. I met Kurt in Vegas February 2005.

Active and watching and reporting to many folks and many orphans who came to me upon the abandonment by their agents after June 2005 Vegas. Keeping them occasionally posted.

I very much appreciate this particular Blog post. It is lucid and addresses some very fundamental and important issues of logic.

One must always first use his mind to process data and think thru a problem. This is essential before one decides or simply reacts to his feelings. Feelings must follow logic as function follows form in architecture.

One may have many feelings as life meanders or crashes along... but, to embrace a particular feeling for any period of time one MUST be able to state why he feels such.

As a general example when my mom thinks I did something around her home that upsets her, she will inquire of me did I do it. She does not accuse me (usually, that is … she is after all my mom). After she gets it clear what happened she tells me how she feels.

We remain human when we stop spewing feelings and allow our lives to stay steady throughout the twists and turns by riding a ship of logically reasoning. Evidence in court is NOT about feelings. Remember you and I will have different feelings observing any event. What is a turn on to some will sicken others. Yet, the logic remains intact as to the Who, What, Where, How & Why.

What you are educating readers with in this post is the idea of Thinking. It seems to be diminishing at times for a myriad of reasons. It is often sorely missing from those who post here. As Oscar Wilde said, "People Mostly Live the Lives of Others, having few original thoughts." Notice he did not say "Feelings".

You two years is not for naught.

A fan of Magic... a dispeller of Myths,

I no M

sop18 said...

y'all have a HAPPY 4TH 'o JULY!

jus' keep sinkin' you teeth in them bank dentures, and you will do alright.

when we get back from the 4th, the dg will be back to biness, as they say.


K&S may you enjoy a peaceful 4th knowing the "peace that surpasses all understanding"

becasue in taht way you really are free and no one can put bounds on you even tho there may be physical bounds, but never spirtual ones.

and you too mog, may you enjoy the peaceful day with your faimily.

and even you demo, may you enjoy the peace of the HS

"...rember, god makes it rain (bestows blessings) on the just and the unjust too." (becasue He is merciful; up to a point)


see yo all on the 5th!

wehn by then i probably be sop27 LOLO!

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: Capitalization is a matter of convenience and custom, nothing more.
_______________________________

Oh really? Is it custom to capitalize words on an internet chat or internet blogs too, so it's more convenient too? People think you are angry or shouting when you do that. As a matter of fact, I remember you complained about that once before when someone was using all CAPS in their conversation. If it's custom to capitalize & it's only about convenience, insist to the Drivers License Bureau you want your name on your license NOT in all CAPS, or try signing a mortgage that doesn't have your name in all caps on the document. Insist you won't sign the document until it is typed differently, & let me know how you fare. Tell them it's more convenient to you to have your name spelled in the manner you demand. I'm sure they'll find your reasoning reasonable & won't bother to argue with you about public policy.

When you can accomplish that I'll accept what you say.

The person who signs his name is not the Strawman, obviously you don't understand that yet. The name on a legal document is the Strawman, meaning "Debtor", a ficitious corporation. The person signing the document is a living breathing soul, human being, so the soul doesn't sign his name in all caps.

Until you can do that motor mouth, peas of a bird brain,
you're just a windbag of hot air. The Dept. of Motor Vehicles obviously wouldn't mind a suggestion like that if it is true as you say, "IT DOESN'T MATTER" how a name is spelled on a legal document or license, so it would be really easy to have them spell it in any form you require.

How is it more convenient to put a name in all caps? Do you really believe the crap you spew? That's the stupidest thing you've said to date. Maybe an argument could be made it would be easier & more convenient NOT to put letters in all caps because such a practice would use up less space.

Do you really believe all disputes must be handled and settled in Court, otherwise the proceeding is meaningless? Do you think people that have disputes with the IRS often handle & settle those disputes out of court? Do you also think the "Administrative Procedures Act" is also a waste of law & is also meaningless in practice. Do you think arbitration tribunals are courts too? Do you think agreements are meaningless if they aren't handled & signed off by a Judge in court? Do you think it's also meaningless & unimpressive to a Judge to exhaust all of your administrative remedies before you file a claim in court in order to do all you can to settle a dispute?

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "What happened to Dorean was that you committed numerous acts of fraud, theft, forgery, and general deceit, coupled with overweening self aggrandizement, and not only got caught at it, something to do with general ineptitude".
______________________________

Theft, general deceipt, self aggrandizement, ineptitude?

I don't remember reading those as counts against the Defendants in any Court records. Are you reading the same information I am?

Are those charges & crimes also in the Federal Statutes that you said were violated?

I didn't realize it was a crime to be inept? If anything if someone is mentally deluded, that would be reason enough to have them held mentally incompetent, & put in a mental ward & not in jail, but wait, there was a mental compentancy hearing & Dorean passed with flying colors as I remember. For something to be a fraud, it has to be willful and thought out & planned to deceive or steal from someone. Dorean stole nothing.

You aren't stealing when you give a bond in twice the amount of the purported loss.

Generally scams are well thought out & planned & includes withholding of material information to the victims. Dorean from the very beginning provided full disclosure in their mortgage challenge of what they were doing & spelled out consequences & remedies, so there is no confusion of all the terms agreed to.

So why are the banks crying that they are victims now when they had all the information not to be confused about anything from the very beginning even up until now.

So why are you pretending to be confused too bringing up irrelevant charges that aren't relevant to what's going on in court?

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "Second, Quatloos does not and never has recommended any such thing."
_____________________________

You're right, Quatloss only recommends something under the guise of deceipt, to have a laugh at someone else's expense, hoping that someone won't read all the fine print.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent asked: "So you admit that the courts have repeatedly ruled that it doesn’t matter,"
_________________________________

Yes, I have always said and the Supreme Court agrees, a ruling is meaningless and void if it can be shown it isn't based upon facts or material evidence in the court record, or if a ruling is done by invading constitutional rights and ignoring due process rights.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent asked: "So you admit that the courts have ruled your theories are a crock,"
____________________________

No, I listed many court cases in the past on the blog where the banks are acting "ultra vires" in their practices, but public policy seems to prevail here & the banks continue to get away with their stealing.

The courts seemingly have ruled that lenders don't "create money" or have said that there is no such thing as a "vapor money" which is an outright lie based upon reality & all the Federal Reserve publications who have at least attempted to be honest and clear on how lending really works. How lending really works today goes against public policy, because public policy is to be honest in your transactions, fair, and not steal.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "Moogems, once an idiot always an idiot."
____________________________

I see you aren't a proponent of continuing education. Why does that not surprise me?

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "the note is the bank’s asset, to keep or sell as they please, once you have signed it,"
________________________________

So you admit the bank need not present any consideration or payment or perform any loan BEFORE they claim ownership of the note? How did they acquire ownership of this asset & at what point is this their asset?

So you admit the banks are committing stealing & receiving unjust enrichment to themselves? So you admit that promissory notes have monetary value?

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "I find it hard to believe that the Dorean business plan says anything at all about the FOIA,"
___________________________________

Why would you find that hard to believe when you've never read their business plan, and you don't even believe that such a plan ever existed?

Is this a common practice for you to make conclusions based upon total ignorance of a document?

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent blathered: "It is the bank’s promise of repayment by the issuer."
_________________________________

Sorry no cookie for you! The bank doesn't issue a check until many days after the promissory note is signed. You said the promissory note BECOMES the bank immediately upon signing the note WITHOUT ANY LOAN OR CONSIDERATION.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "The banks/lenders were not and never were in any way shape or form agents for anyone in any of the transactions."
___________________________________

If I open a checking account at a bank, wouldn't you agree the bank acts an agent for my monies, when I deposit funds or cash in that account?

Since you agree that the promissory note has value too & is an asset, when the bank takes my promissory note before they pay for it, they are acting as my agent for that asset until they pay for it or fulfill the intent of the loan agreement which was to loan me monies.

The promissory note is talked about as a "deposit" in the federal reserve publications & becomes a liability of the bank, thus an agency relationship is created between lender & borrower.

In an honest relationship, the bank would put the promissory note in a vault somewhere without using it's value or selling it, until the note obligation is paid off since the owner of the promissory note is the issuer of the note which is me. If the bank can't prove they paid for that asset, it isn't theirs yet to do whatever they please with it. That's stealing.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "I keep asking you and you keep not answering, what is not disclosed in the loan agreement?
___________________________________
I've posted this information many times before.
Is the promissory note used as a false witness? The promissory note has the borrower's signature agreeing that the lender lent the borrower money.
The attorney wants only the form - the promissory note with your signature- as a witness in court. You want the true substance - the true transaction - and the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Some attorney’s object to allowing the bookkeeping entries entered into court as evidence. The attorney must rely on the form and stop the substance.
Extortion occurs when the court does not allow information into court for one's defense.
Few people disagree that the one who provided the original funds to fund the bank loan check should be repaid the money. Few argue that we should have equal protection and full disclosure. The lender concealed the true substance in the agreement.
If a banker received $10,000 of capital from Joe and deposits the funds into a checking account, should the bank return the $10,000 to Joe? If all bankers agree that the answer is "yes," then all bank loans in America should be canceled tomorrow.
If the bank received $10,000 from Joe and lent the same $10,000 to Joe, should the bank return the $10,000 to Joe? The foreclosure attorney must argue that the bank should not return the $10,000 to Joe. Joe believed that the alleged borrower should repay the lender, and the lender should repay the one who funded the bank loan check. The foreclosure attorney must argue that the parties agreed to the terms and the one who funded the loan should never be repaid the money. How could the judge rule in favor of the bank, claiming that the one who funded the loan should never be repaid the money?
Want proof that this is real? Ask yourself the following questions:

1. Were you told that the Federal Reserve Policies and Procedures and the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) requirements imposed upon all Federally-insured (FDIC) banks in Title 12 of the United States Code, section 1831n (a), prohibit them from lending their own money from their own assets, or from other depositors? Did the bank tell you where the money for the loan was coming from?
2. Were you told that the contract you signed (your promissory note) was going to be converted into a 'negotiable instrument' by the bank and become an asset on the bank's accounting books? Did the bank tell you that your signature on that note made it 'money', according to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), sections 1-201(24) and 3-104?
3. Were you told that your promissory note (money) would be taken, recorded as an asset of the bank, and be sold by the bank for cash - without 'valuable consideration' given to obtain your note? Did the bank give you a deposit slip as a receipt for the money you gave them, just as the bank would normally provide when you make a deposit to the bank?
4. Were you told that the bank would create an account at the bank that would contain this money that you gave them?
5. Were you told that a check from this account would be issued with your signature, and that this account would be the source of the funds behind the check that was given to you as a "loan"?

If you answered "No" to any of these questions, YOU HAVE BEEN CHEATED!

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "You really should be more careful about where you steal from Moogs, 18 USC 451, has to do with crimes on Federal land or Federally controlled land, and it states the Federal courts do have jurisdiction, not that they are limited to jurisdiction there."
_________________________________

"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters DO NOT EXTEND into the territorial limits of the States, but have force ONLY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and other places that are within the EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION of the national government.
Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 215

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "the prosecution has unlimited power to do whatever they want without any liability or recourse..."
___________________________________

I knew you were a tyrant at heart!

"Persons dealing with government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume risk that government agents MAY EXCEED THEIR AUTHORITY AND PROVIDE MISINFORMATION."
Lavish v. Marsh, 644 F.2d 1378

mogel said...

"The authority of public officers to proceed in a particular way and only upon specific conditions as to such matters implies a DUTY NOT TO PROCEED IN ANY MANNER OTHER THAN THAT WHICH IS AUTHORIZED BY THE LAW."
First Nat'l Bank v. Flier, 87 ALR 267

The prosecuting team are public officers, are they not? If they have a duty to proceed in certain ways, if they knowingly violate that code of conduct, aren't they subject to sanctions? Of course, they are, but you think they are some sort of Gods without any liability or recourse against their renegade actions.

Pauligirl said...

mogel said...
You can't sign a mortgage, get a drivers license, birth certificate, credit report, or any legal document without the name (Strawman) being all capped. Now give me a valid and reasonable response why that really is?
-------------------------------
Can't speak for the rest of it, but for mortgages, that's simply not true. Sometimes I have to type the names in on the forms and sometimes I use all-caps (because I'm lazy and that's easier because I set my typewriter for caps–which is the same thing that mortgage, credit companies and other entities do) and sometimes I don't (when I didn't set for caps) and guess what--nobody cares. It still gets recorded and it's still a valid mortgage. All-caps is an idiot argument.

mogel said...

All officers including judges, ARE LIABLE if they act wholly outside of their jurisdiction or official authority, even where the act is a discretionary one. The officer is then regarded as not acting in the capacity of an officer at all.

Robichaud v. Ronan, 351 F.2d 533 (9th Cir., 1965)

mogel said...

Person is NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE unless criminal INTENT accompanies wrongful act.
Gasho v. U.S., 39 f.3D 1420 (9th Cir. 1994)

To show criminal intent you almost have to get into the mind of the accussed or have to learn & understand all of their words and actions to define and decipher their true intent.

In light of all the UCC regulations and law that the dorean group cited in their presentment to the banks, their recent presentment to the prosecution that went unanswered, and their business plan which Mr. Keller & Company had from the very beginning, three months at least before Scott's arrest, shows the Dorean Group had legitimate reason to believe that the banks were committing fraud and that there existed a public need for them to expose this since no one else in the market place was having any large scale success against the banks.

Also the Dorean Group's earlier experiments with Scott's house loan & car loan that was successful for over 2 years where Scott made no monthly payments without any timely or successful foreclosure by the bank & the banks going silent in every 4000 of clients cases without exception, and the dorean bond they submitted to lenders for all clients to provide a remedy in case of any properly submitted loss by the bank, the banks chosen silence to answer any of the accusations or validate anything or answer the trustees "affidavit of truth", or sign any affadavit pertaining to this subject matter, the banks inability to allow an audit of their books for any dorean clients, the banks not bothering to refute the Federal Reserve publications or accountants report, the doctrine of agency by estoppel, all the contract law and remedies they believed were agreed to by the banks silence, and the list goes on & on, where is the WILLFUL AND CRIMINAL INTENT TO DEFRAUD as long as the Dorean Group truly believed based upon the history of all these events, it suggests in their heart of hearts there was legal legitimacy and reasonableness to their actions?

Also one must factor in the Dorean Group never deviating from their cause & beliefs, even at great loss of family, reputation, & finances, never fleeing the country to not be found & spending all this time on the blog to educate and inform without compensation, there seems to be no basis to believe there were ever any willful and criminal intent to defraud the banks from the beginning, even in the unlikelyhood it can be shown by the prosecution or even believed by a jury that there may have been possible wrongful actions by the Defendants.

It's not enough for the prosecution to prove wrongful acts to convict & put the Dorean Group away for life. The burden of proof is much more difficult than some believe or have stated here such as Notarial Dissent who just dismisses them off as scam artists without showing their real intent. The prosecution has bit off more than they can chew I'm sure in this case.

The prosecution is not even aware of all the weapons the Defendants have to turn the tides into their favor to have this case dismissed. The prosecution & Judge should have enough information to be afraid though. When the prosecution fails in their efforts to convict, their achilles heel will be exposed as the liars they are & the liabilities they have created for themselves both personally & professionally for abuse of judicial process & then the real games and long awaited fun will begin. I still can't wait for the fireworks to begin!!!!!!

Pauligirl said...

mogel said...
Notarial Dissent said: "You really should be more careful about where you steal from Moogs, 18 USC 451, has to do with crimes on Federal land or Federally controlled land, and it states the Federal courts do have jurisdiction, not that they are limited to jurisdiction there."
_________________________________

"The laws of Congress in respect to those matters DO NOT EXTEND into the territorial limits of the States, but have force ONLY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and other places that are within the EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION of the national government.
Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 215
6:48 PM

I suggest that you read the entire case. Neither this one from 1894 (which is actually CAHA v. U.S., 152 U.S. 211 (1894) or Lavin say what you think they say.
http://vlex.com/vid/20059297
Neither can it be doubted that the district court of Kansas had jurisdiction over a prosecution for the crime of perjury committed at the place named in violation of the provisions of section 5392, Rev. St. That section-and under it this indictment was found-reads as follows:
'Every person who, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed is true, wilfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true, is guilty of perjury.'
This statute is one of universal application within the territorial limits of the United States, and is not limited to those portions which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government, such as the District of Columbia. Generally speaking, within any state of this Union the preservation of the peace and the protection of person and property are the functions of the state government, and are no part of the primary duty, at least, of the nation. The laws of congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national goverment. It was in reference to such body of laws that section 2145, Rev. St., was enacted, and the argument which is sought to be drawn by the counsel therefrom against the jurisdiction of the district court of Kansas has no foundation.


mogel said...
"Persons dealing with government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume risk that government agents MAY EXCEED THEIR AUTHORITY AND PROVIDE MISINFORMATION."
Lavish v. Marsh, 644 F.2d 1378

It's Lavin v Marsh. While I can't find the entire text of Lavin..other cases quote it in context....
This from U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals SOCOP GONZALEZ v INS
9870782
see also Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2d 1378, 1383 (9th Cir. 1981) (stating that "[p]ersons dealing with the government are charged with knowing government statutes are regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation"). Similarly, the negligent provision of misinformation is not affirmative mis- conduct.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/
scripts/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=
9870782&exact=1
It goes on to say "The doctrine of equitable estoppel applies against the government only if it engages in "affirmative misconduct" going beyond mere negligence"



Do you have the entire text of First Nat'l Bank v. Flier, 87 ALR 267?
I can't find the case and can't find it cited anywhere. I know you are getting the bits and pieces of the cases off places like commonlawvenue and thematrixhasyou, but they tend to pick out the pieces they like and leave the important parts out.

Pauligirl said...

mogel said...
Notarial Dissent blathered: "It is the bank’s promise of repayment by the issuer."
_________________________________

Sorry no cookie for you! The bank doesn't issue a check until many days after the promissory note is signed. You said the promissory note BECOMES the bank immediately upon signing the note WITHOUT ANY LOAN OR CONSIDERATION.

5:29 PM

-------------------------
Unless it is a refinace with a right to rescind, the check or wire is issued the same day the note is signed. Or at least it is in North Carolina. According to the Sate Bar, we can't even record the deed of trust until we have the funds.

mogel said...

Pauligirl said: "Can't speak for the rest of it, but for mortgages, that's simply not true."
_______________________________

Maybe you can provide a link or a mortgage document where the name is not in all caps that was signed & where I can see that the instrument was recorded. Doing so certainly goes against the policy I'm familiar with. I would like to see an exception to the hard fast rule. Makes me wonder if the Recorder even noticed the deviation or if the Recorder would ask that the instrument be redone if it in deed went noticed as you suggest.

Course the naysayers say that the Dorean discharge of lien goes against public & bank policy, but I don't see very many Recorders argue about that either & course they still recorded the instrument too for almost all clients, so I don't think your argument really proves anything as far as legitmacy, unless you want to agree that the Dorean documents are legitimate simply because they were allowed to be filed & recorded.

mogel said...

Paulgirl said: "Unless it is a refinace with a right to rescind, the check or wire is issued the same day the note is signed."
_________________________________

If I had the license, I could give loans too in the afternoon every day & create my own money making perpetual machine if I had the funds in the morning beforehand to back each loan first.

It's the confiscation of the promissory note without paying for it that provides the juice for the perpetual money making machine to operate. That was my point. The loan should come first or at the same time the promissory note is signed, not at any later period of time. The timing of how the process works out in the favor of the banks never having to reach into their own pockets for a loan or take the financial risk they lead you to believe. At any rate, it's morally wrong for the banks to profit from the promissory note AND the mortgage asset too & not disclosing exacly what happens to the promissory note.

The promissory note actually makes the borrower sign a misstatement which isn't true. It acknowledges that a loan HAS ALREADY been given when in fact that acknowledgment really isn't true. That mis-statement should be treated as fraud in & of itself when it says: "In return for a loan THAT I HAVE RECEIVED, I promise to pay......

mogel said...

As far as the All Capped name Strawman argument, try doing a credit online dispute with Equifax or the other two bureaus and type in your name in small letters. The computer program won't allow you to have the small letters in place of your name, but after going to the next section to fill out the rest of your information, the software program immediately puts your name in all caps EVERY TIME WITHOUT EXCEPTION even though you didn't type it that way.

If the argument is meaningless, I know that to the credit bureaus, the spelling distinction of all Caps of a persons name in their software program, sure says otherwise & it won't even allow the smaller case letters ever to appear for your name.

It's not about convenience, but it's about a legal distinction that is in play that has meaning.

mogel said...

Notarial dissent said: "BS, there has to be a valid agency established, and it has to be done POSITIVELY by the authorizing power, it can’t be assumed, or it is fraudulent,"
__________________________________

Wrong again. Not according to "Reinstatement of the Law, Second, Agency Copyright 1958 The American Law Institute."

"'Agency action' INCLUDES any failure to act (5 USC 551 (13)).
Caulfield v. Board of Education, 449 F. Supp. 1203 (ED NY 1978)

"To establish an agency relationship, there must be a manifestation by the principal to the agent that the agent may act on his account, and consent by the agent to act in such a way. Ex. 1"

"This consent can be communicated by ANY of the means stated in Section 26, including acquiesence by the principal in a series of acts previously done by another as agent.

"A principal can make this manifestation or communication in several ways. A person may reasonably believe that, from the conduct of the principal, that he has authority to act as an agent, and thus create an agency. Ex. 2"

"A 'manifestation' may also come in the form of a ratification of ACTS DONE BY AGENT AFTER THE FACT."

"There is a strong lean towards it being reasonable to expect a response to your presentment package. And that a lack of response would lend itself to a reasonable belief that the bank INTENDED on agency being created. Ex.1"

"Ratification is basically an indication of approval. This is definitely our stongest point with regards to upholding the Discharge of Mortgage and other such documents. Ratification can occur "if the purported principal with knowledge of the facts received or retains property TO WHICH HE IS ENTITLED ONLY if the earlier transaction is validated." So the rentention of your Bond, in most cases, could be construed as something that they were not entitled to keep UNLESS THE AGENCY WAS CREATED, and thus their rentention is a ratification of the creation of the agency. What is really good is that "such conduct is evidence of..consent...even if [they] disclaim an intent to affirm. Ex. 5
Any act which the Banks have power to do can be ratified when done by an agent. This would include a Discharge of Mortage and other such documents.

Duty to speak is a strong point when it comes to Ratification. Lack of action can be an inferred assent in regards to ratification. However, this lack of action must be accompanied by evidence of assent, such as knowledge of dealings, or by taking into a account the ordinary experience and habits of man. Ex.6
There is tons of case law to this effect."

Failure to release and disclose will lead to a remedy where the silence violating your duty to speak becomes an affirmation to our remedy.

So the bank fraud charges have no merit.

mogel said...

"With no injured party, a complaint is invalid on its face."
Gibson v. Boyle, 139 Ariz. 512

Where's the injury to the banks or where is the bank fraud when the bank didn't risk their own assets and also due to the fact the bank kept the dorean subrogation bond as their remedy in case there was any injury or loss. Where's the affidavit of bank loss or bank injury?

mogel said...

"Plaintiffs in federal courts must allege some threatened or ACTUAL INJURY resulting from the putatively illegal action BEFORE a federal court may assume jurisdiction."
Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617

notorial dissent said...

Soppy, so nice of you to stagger through.

Ah Moogems, just when I thought it was going to be a boring holiday.

Moogs, remember, the phrase is custom and tradition, think, I know it will be painful, but think. There is a difference between the internet, and the printed page, about 550 years if you count from moveable type, or earlier if you don’t. Originally internet usage was limited to teletype standards and was used for short messages, and was restricted to upper case only, which is hard to read, as things expanded and different technology emerged, usage changed and so at that point, it became CUSTOM on the internet to only use upper case when you were being emphatic, and now it is considered rude if you use caps more than lightly . That is called custom and usage. Custom and usage in legal documents dates from the days when they were hand written and copied and penmanship was sometimes truly scary, and the custom then was to do names in all upper case to make them more readable. The legal field being the least friendly to innovation has resisted changing that old habit. Early typewriters originally had only upper case letters on them and the habit of typing information only in caps onto preprinted forms also became a habit. Early computers only handled the uppercase fonts, and so most early databases were only geared to having them in that format, and the habit, custom has held true. As to the driver’s license, that again is just holdover from earlier DP days, there is no reason they can’t do it in regular type, it just isn’t set up to do it, although some databases are only set up to accept caps. It doesn’t matter. As to legal documents, that again is just a matter of custom, if you want the names in regular font, then tell them to do so at the outset, otherwise, but habit they will do it the way they have been doing it for the last 100 years. There is no legal reason one way or another, they could just as easily and legally do it all in lower case if that floats your boat.

The strawman crap is pure BS and not worth bothering with.

Moogs, I really wish you would actually read what I wrote before making a complete fool of yourself. I never said that all disputes had to be settled in court, only the ones where the parties cannot come to a resolution on their own or with the help of a neutral third party. People do it all the time, and in fact have been doing it for centuries, it is just that some people are too stupid or the problem is too complicated to do it themselves, and then a court needs to resolve it.

Moogs, you don’t even know what the “Administrative Procedures Act” is let alone what it is about. Do you even know what the term “administrative remedies” means or applies to, apparently not.

Since I never said anything about courts or arbitration there is nothing to respond to other than your usual not reading of what was written.

Moogey dithered Theft, general deceipt, self aggrandizement, ineptitude?

I don't remember reading those as counts against the Defendants in any Court records. Are you reading the same information I am?


I’m sorry, I forget the concept of editorial comment confuses you, too bad.

Moogey prevaricated yet again You aren't stealing when you give a bond in twice the amount of the purported loss.


No, you are committing insurance fraud by issuing a false instrument and general fraud by presenting a false instrument with the intention to deceive. It is similar to forging a bad check.

Moogey whined You're right, Quatloss only recommends something under the guise of deceipt, to have a laugh at someone else's expense, hoping that someone won't read all the fine print.

I take it you were fool enough to fall for it then. It is a perfect example of what a HYIP promotion looks like, your next career move perhaps.

Moogey lies again Yes, I have always said and the Supreme Court agrees, a ruling is meaningless and void if it can be shown it isn't based upon facts or material evidence in the court record, or if a ruling is done by invading constitutional rights and ignoring due process rights.

Not what you said Moogs, and the rest of this is gibberish.

Moogs, the courts have repeatedly said the vapor money theory was a crock, and that stands, the poorly written stuff from the Fed will not stand up in court, and is economic theory not fact.

Moogey drivel I see you aren't a proponent of continuing education. Why does that not surprise me?

Oh, based on what?

Moogey twists and turns yet again So you admit the bank need not present any consideration or payment or perform any loan BEFORE they claim ownership of the note? How did they acquire ownership of this asset & at what point is this their asset?

So you admit the banks are committing stealing & receiving unjust enrichment to themselves? So you admit that promissory notes have monetary value?


That would be NO on both counts. If you are stupid enough to give someone your note without getting something in return, they you get what you deserve. Since the lender never gets the note until after everything has been signed and the “consideration” has been handed over, this is disingenuous on your part, or maybe just ignorance, I can never tell. The note becomes the lender’s property when they have disbursed the funds for the loan. No funds, no valid note, and if need be it would be cancelable in court. The lender got the note for making the loan, disbursing the funds as directed by the closing, it has been a even exchange. The PN has monetary value in that it is the maker’s promise to pay off the loan made over a period of time and that the interest charged for the loan will recompense the lender.

Moogs, I find it hard to believe that the Dorean Group actually had a business plan to begin with. There is no reason whatsoever for them to include anything about FOIA, since it has nothing to do with anything they were allegedly doing. Otherwise, present proof to the contrary. I’ll still laugh at you, but it would be interesting to see the explanation.

Moogs prevaricates yet again "It is the bank’s promise of repayment by the issuer."

That is a true statement. There is by law, a three day recision period before the loan becomes final. The disbursements are ready as of the closing date. If the loan is cancelled, so is the note, and it doesn’t become the lender’s property until the loan is ratified.

Moogs, if you open a checking account, you are a customer of the bank you opened it at and a customer with respect to specified services, generally that of paying your checks if there are sufficient funds, and attempting to collect you deposits, otherwise there is no other relationship. So they are not your agent

Since you agree that the promissory note has value too & is an asset, when the bank takes my promissory note before they pay for it, they are acting as my agent for that asset until they pay for it or fulfill the intent of the loan agreement which was to loan me monies.

The promissory note is talked about as a "deposit" in the federal reserve publications & becomes a liability of the bank, thus an agency relationship is created between lender & borrower.


NO, I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU, AND YOU ARE WRONG, AS USUAL, on all counts.
The PN has value because it is a promise of repayment, and it becomes an asset of the lender ONCE the loan is completed, not before. Until the loan is ratified the note remains in the hands of the closer, and it not legally the lenders until completion. No one has taken anything without paying for it. They are not your agent, then or ever. The note remains a piece of paper until the loan is ratified.

The note is “deposited” into the banks asset/loan portfolio, it is an asset to the bank and a liability to the maker, that’s you Moogey, you really shouldn’t have slept through elementary accounting. And there is no agency relationship there anymore than there is between you and your grocery.

More Moogey drivel In an honest relationship, the bank would put the promissory note in a vault somewhere without using it's value or selling it, until the note obligation is paid off since the owner of the promissory note is the issuer of the note which is me. If the bank can't prove they paid for that asset, it isn't theirs yet to do whatever they please with it. That's stealing.

If you bothered to read the note, you would see very plainly that it says the note may be sold at any time. The bank can prove they paid for the note, they have the disbursement record for when the loan was issued, and it is theirs in fact, and law.

Moogs, the PN is the acknowledgment that the issuer received the funds specified in the note, for whatever purpose they intended to put them. If they didn’t get them, then why did they sign the note. If you are saying you signed a note to get funds to buy a house, and then never got the funds, you have a valid complaint, but if you got the funds and got the house you don’t. The bookkeeping entries are irrelevant to the conditions above. Did you get the house or didn’t you? If you got the house you have no valid complaint. The closing documents show what transpired, and they are the only record that pertains to the actual loan, did you sign the closing documents or didn’t you?

Moogs, your examples are nonsense, and are incomprehensible. Nice try at obfuscation though.

Moogey misinformation part 1 Were you told that the Federal Reserve Policies and Procedures and the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) requirements imposed upon all Federally-insured (FDIC) banks in Title 12 of the United States Code, section 1831n (a), prohibit them from lending their own money from their own assets, or from other depositors? Did the bank tell you where the money for the loan was coming from?

That would be a NO because that section has nothing to do with the making of loans, and there is no such prohibition to begin with.

Moogey misinformation part 2 Were you told that the contract you signed (your promissory note) was going to be converted into a 'negotiable instrument' by the bank and become an asset on the bank's accounting books? Did the bank tell you that your signature on that note made it 'money', according to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), sections 1-201(24) and 3-104?

Anyone of average intelligence should know that a note is a negotiable instrument, since by definition that is what a note is, so it isn’t converted at all, it just is by definition. What do you think is going to happen to it, of course it is going on the bank’s books. And no, your signature did not make it “money” it did make it your liability, and an asset of the lender, and it did make it have value since it is a promise to pay.

Moogey misinformation part 3 Were you told that your promissory note (money) would be taken, recorded as an asset of the bank, and be sold by the bank for cash - without 'valuable consideration' given to obtain your note? Did the bank give you a deposit slip as a receipt for the money you gave them, just as the bank would normally provide when you make a deposit to the bank?


This is always spelled out in the note, you are informed that it may be sold at any time. Why shouldn’t it be sold for cash, the lender certainly gave you cash when they made the loan, and you have already gotten your consideration for the loan, the note is no longer yours in any event, it belongs to the lender. Nonsense, you did not give them any money to get a deposit slip for.

Moogey misinformation part 4 Were you told that the bank would create an account at the bank that would contain this money that you gave them?

Nonsense, no such account exists, a loan account showing a declining liability is created, that decreases as the loan is paid off is created.

Moogey misinformation part 5 Were you told that a check from this account would be issued with your signature, and that this account would be the source of the funds behind the check that was given to you as a "loan"?

Since no such account exists, this too is ridiculous. The funds disbursement would have come from the loan disbursement account made payable to whoever the seller was.

So what Moogs, you made up your quote about 18 USC 451 and misquoted 152 U.S. 215, so other than proving you can’t read, I’m unimpressed.

Moogey misquotes again Notarial Dissent said: "the prosecution has unlimited power to do whatever they want without any liability or recourse..."

Since that is not even close to what I said I will just call you liar and be done with it.

Moogey drivelThe prosecuting team are public officers, are they not? If they have a duty to proceed in certain ways, if they knowingly violate that code of conduct, aren't they subject to sanctions? Of course, they are, but you think they are some sort of Gods without any liability or recourse against their renegade actions.

So far, other than your wild rantings, there has been no indication of any violation by the prosecution, I would say they have been rather restrained considering the two idiots they have had to deal with. Try and find something else to misquote if it will make you feel better.

Moogey drivel All officers including judges, ARE LIABLE if they act wholly outside of their jurisdiction or official authority, even where the act is a discretionary one. The officer is then regarded as not acting in the capacity of an officer at all.

Robichaud v. Ronan, 351 F.2d 533 (9th Cir., 1965)


Yeah yeah Moogey, babble on. In your dreams.

More Moogey drivel In light of all the UCC regulations and law that the dorean group cited in their presentment to the banks, their recent presentment to the prosecution that went unanswered,

Which, in light of the fact that the UCC does not and never did have anything to do with real estate transactions just goes to the pattern of fraud. Their business plan, if there was one, just shows that they had plotted out their scam in advance and just adds to the evidence of intent.

If you call having Scott’s house going into and being foreclosed upon success, then you truly do have problems. But then again that has been the level of success for all of the Dorean enterprises, foreclosure and failure, a far cry from the grand promises made at the outset, but at least consistent.

As to the time on it, banks have been notoriously slow about foreclosure proceedings and length of time does not dilute right to action. Wishful thinking does not equate to reality, although you try hard enough.

The presentment was a crock, the bond a fraud, the whole thing an elaborate con game that the lenders had every right to ignore.

Yet Scott’s house got foreclosed, so much for a “success”.

Right on Moogs, we’ve been through this same line of BS before, and it was BS then and its smell hasn’t improved any since the first time around. It is still all a crock.

Moogie misconstrues again "To establish an agency relationship, there must be a manifestation by the principal to the agent that the agent may act on his account, and consent by the agent to act in such a way. Ex. 1"

First, "Reinstatement of the Law, Second, Agency Copyright 1958 The American Law Institute." is a book on the law, not the law. Agency law varies from state to state, as does law concerning Power of Attorney, which does however uniformly require a positive written affirmation of the power properly notarized. You cannot, despite yours and the boys delusions assume either state with out having been properly given it, and the if you don’t do what I want you to do I will do it anyway stunt they tried doesn’t work legally. Also in line with what you copied, the lenders did not ratify the “boys” actions, but in fact repudiated them as fraud, so there go acquiescence as well. Fraud is still fraud Moogs.

Moogs, there is no constitutional requirement or law anywhere that says you have to answer a ringing telephone or an idiot sending you nonsense documents. If there was a real and valid legal issue then it should have been taken to court or to the state consumer fraud office, but doing that would have shown the whole thing to have been a crock from the very beginning. Dim and dimmer’s only hope of prolonging the scam from the start was to stay as far away from court and the real world-where they would get laughed at and jailed as they could. The only problem being that their egos got in the way and they tried it in court, and got blown out of the water for the fraudsters they were. Which is how we end up with them where they are yet and still and ever more.

In my opinion, the one mistake the lenders made from the outset was in not filing extortion and attempted fraud charges on dim and dimmer when they sent out their first batch of documents. Probably missed the connection after having to read the mind numbing drivel they were sent.

Gibson v. Boyle, 139 Ariz. 512 and Linda R.S. v. Richard D., are civil cases, and do not relate to the criminal charges or practice.

Nice try Moogs, down to your usual low standards and not in the least creative or imaginative, consistency is your watchword I see.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "This is ALWAYS spelled out in the note, you are informed that it may be sold at any time. Why shouldn’t it be sold for cash,"
________________________________


Not true!!! In my note, it doesn't mention anything about selling the note at all or even the right to do so.

Although I did find this statement on the "loan application addendum": "I understand and agree that World has the right to sell my loan to an investor, if World chooses to sell my loan..."
Course in another disclosure, they indicate that they keep 100% of their loans, so why the apparent contradiction or redundancy?

Also I did get a letter from my lender on March 10, 2004 lying to me & stating the following:

"Thank-you for your correspondence dated Feb. 17, 2004, a copy of which is enclosed herewith, Notwithstanding the representations in your letter, we have not received NEGOTIABLE FUNDS for the above loan.
Signed, Melissa B.

So according to her letter to me, she considers the promissory note NOT to be a negotiable instrument.

mogel said...

Notarial dissent said: "The bookkeeping entries are irrelevant to the conditions above. Did you get the house or didn’t you? If you got the house you have no valid complaint. The closing documents show what transpired, and they are the ONLY RECORD that pertains to the actual loan."
________________________________

How do you know the bookkeeping entries are irrelevant? Are they irrelevant in your mind, since you say they DON'T EXIST since you say the closing documents are the only record there is?

Now if that isn't a contradiction, what is?

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "If you got the house you have no valid complaint."
_________________________________

That's like telling the lender if they got their monthly payment this month, they shouldn't care if the house has no current insurance as long as the payments are met.

The lending transaction is not composed only of one issue, but you already know that, so your logic is flawed as usual.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "the lenders did not ratify the “boys” actions, but in fact repudiated them as fraud, so there go acquiescence as well."
________________________________

Well if the rumor is true & can be supported & shown that the Dorean Bonds as a package deal ended up trading in Europe, there goes your theories down the tube. Then the ratification no longer becomes a debating issue.

notorial dissent said...

I would have to see the exact verbiage, but in thirty years, I have not seen a real estate note that did not include the right of sale, although by law it is not needed. The note is personal property of the lender, and by law, and by the UCC a note is a saleable item, and in fact to be legally a note, it must be saleable, so your ongoing whine is pointless.

Quoting Moogey So according to her letter to me, she considers the promissory note NOT to be a negotiable instrument.

No she is saying that they have not received “NEGOTIABLE FUNDS” for the loan, that they have not sold it, it says nothing about the instrument being negotiable.

Moogs, the book keeping entries are irrelevant for the simple reason they have nothing to do with the loan. Either funds were disbursed so that you could buy the house you wanted and you got it or they weren’t. Nothing else matters. If you got the house, then the seller was paid off, you got title to the house, and the lender got the note as promise of repayment, and that is all that matters. That is how every loan that is ever made is done.

The closing documents are the record of the loan transaction, and as far as the loan is concerned they are all that matters. They show money received from the lender to be disbursed to the seller and what the costs were with regard to the loan.

I never said there weren’t internal transactions within the bank with regard to the funds, there will have been a debit to the loan origination account or where ever the loan funds came from creating a negative entry that will have to be balanced by a positive entry of the note being added to the loan portfolio account.

Moogey said That's like telling the lender if they got their monthly payment this month, they shouldn't care if the house has no current insurance as long as the payments are met.
Nonsense and you know it. Both are required to meet the note conditions.

More Moogey BS Well if the rumor is true & can be supported & shown that the Dorean Bonds as a package deal ended up trading in Europe, there goes your theories down the tube. Then the ratification no longer becomes a debating issue.

If the rumor is true, the moon is made of green cheese, but that has nothing to do with anything here. If you have something more substantial than the ringing in your ears, then by all means share it, I can always use a good laugh. Since the Dorean Bonds were only valid supposedly for the payment of the of the mortgage, I find it amusing that you think they could be traded anywhere. They are not negotiable instruments in any stretch of the imagination, and since they are a fraud from beginning to end, the thought of EU fraud charges are even more amusing, since they are no where near as nice about it as the US authorities are. A stretch in a Spanish prison would be just about what they deserve.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "I never said there weren’t internal transactions within the bank with regard to the funds, there will have been a debit to the loan origination account or where ever the loan funds came from creating a negative entry that will have to be balanced by a positive entry of the note being added to the loan portfolio account.
________________________________

So how is the lender following GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principals) which they HAVE TO DO in your accounting illustration above? Your explanation just sounds like you are creating two debit entries by the transaction or two assets in favor of the bank. If the bank is receiving two assets, how can there be a real loan?

Send me the accounting of debits & credits that cancel each other out here that you are describing. Also include the journal entries on the acquisition of the promissory note. You're the one that didn't sleep through accounting 101, so that should be really easy for you to produce.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "Either funds were disbursed so that you could buy the house you wanted and you got it or they weren’t. Nothing else matters. If you got the house, then the seller was paid off, you got title to the house,"
___________________________

I'm not denying the Seller got paid off, I'm just questioning where those funds originally came from, hence the need for the accounting entries and banks books. I had title to the house BEFORE funds were disbursed according to the deed of trust I signed; that's the point I was making.

It says on the Deed of trust that I ALREADY had legal title to the house when I signed the deed of trust, which was BEFORE the funds were disbursed & BEFORE THE LENDER WROTE A CHECK or wired funds to the seller.

Obviously I had to have legal title BEFORE i can defend the title of any encumbrances. Here is the exact verbiage on the deed of trust when I signed it:

"I promise that (i) I lawfully OWN the Property, (ii) I have the right to grant and convey the property to Trustee, and (iii) there are no outstanding claims, charges, liens or encumbrances against the property...."

Now, how can these representations be honestly given by me, before the alleged loan was closed, and before any monies were wired or transferred, and before the Trustee had an actual interst in the property? The question comes up, how can all of these THINGS BE that the agreement acknowledges BEFORE THE LENDER GRANTS A LOAN? The answer is that it's an impossibility. The only possible scenario is that my note the lender had me sign, which I still own by the way, paid for the home to be "free & clear". Since this is true, the lender, has breached our agreement to loan me monies.

Again, we have the same paradox or legal problem where on the promissory note it says at the time of signing it the following language:

"In return, FOR A LOAN THAT I HAVE RECEIVED", I promise to pay..."

All of this is BEFORE any funds are disbursed by the lender.

In order to be honest and fully disclose, why doesn't the promissory note say: "in return for a loan that I WILL RECEIVE by the lender, I promise to pay...."

So your logic of the accounting records don't matter, is pure nonsense. There's obviously some lies and deceipt going on since I'm a party to a lie by my acknowledgements that simply aren't true at the time I'm signing my name and acknowledgement.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "The note is personal property of the lender, and by law, and by the UCC a note is a saleable item, and in fact to be legally a note, it must be saleable"

"No she is saying that they have not received “NEGOTIABLE FUNDS” for the loan, that they have not sold it,
__________________________________

If the note is saleable, as you insist, then, the promissory note IS negotiable funds that the lender has received since it can be sold at anytime. Maybe the lender has sold the note since they never produced an original copy of the note as per my demand, so maybe they don't have the note in their possession anymore.

If it's an even exchange, the note for the bank's check or loan, why am I paying again, by the lender, by them putting a lien on my property? If I default down the road, the lender sells the property, gets cash at the auction, & also got paid already by the sale of the promissory note too. The lender gets paid twice for 2 assets they received.

How is that a fair & conscienable agreement when this is not disclosed in the original agreement that I am paying twice for a loan, plus I'm paying interest on funds I provided on top of paying twice.

notorial dissent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
notorial dissent said...

Moogems, I did give you the basic accounting steps. Loan Origination is debited by the amount of the loan made and Loan Portfolio is credited by the value of the note as it is booked in. It is the debit of the money going out(loan) and the credit of the asset coming in(note). That is the book keeping entry, debit and the credit that shows the action of the loan.

You really don’t read do you?? I never said anything about creating two debit or two credit entries, you are simply making it up as you go along now, since your restatement is not even close to what I said.

I gave you the journal entries you just don’t want to read them.

Quoting Moogey I'm not denying the Seller got paid off, I'm just questioning where those funds originally came from, hence the need for the accounting entries and banks books.
At least you are admitting that the seller got paid. Which pocket the money came from is irrelevant and always has been.

Quoting Mooney It says on the Deed of trust that I ALREADY had legal title to the house when I signed the deed of trust, which was BEFORE the funds were disbursed & BEFORE THE LENDER WROTE A CHECK or wired funds to the seller.
You signed the Note before you signed the DOT, at which point the house became yours. The deed from the seller had already been signed, and was in the closer’s possession, and the checks to the seller had already been cut, so this is just more of your nonsense. The loan was granted before you ever got to the closing, the closing is the completion, where you accept the loan, and funds are disbursed. No paradox, just your real or feigned ignorance.

Moogs, a Note is a negotiable instrument, not negotiable funds. If the Note is sold, it is sold, and whoever bought would then be collecting on it. What is your point?

Again, you failed basic reality. The Note is your promise to repay the loan the lender made to you, the DOT is the surety that you will. If the lender has to foreclose, it is because you failed to pay on the note, your promise, and the only way they could recover their money was by foreclosing on the property and selling it hopefully for what they were owed. Again, you lie. The Note is a promise to pay, not a payment. You are not paying twice, and you know it.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent: So with a $100,000 loan, are you saying this is what it would look like on the banks books, so I'm clear. Agree or disagree?


Debit Credit
Cash $100,000
Note Receivable $100,000

mogel said...

I meant it to look like this on the banks books so both the debit & credit zeros out. Is this what you are saying:


Debit
Cash $100,000

Credit
Notes Receivable $100,000

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "Which, in light of the fact that the UCC does not and never did have anything to do with real estate transactions"
________________________________

That's like saying the promissory note has nothing to do or has no part in any real estate transactions too, or that it's not necessary to sign a promissory note in order to get a loan, just sign a deed of trust.

It's the forgery of the promissory note (personal property) that makes the UCC applicable in the lending transaction. It's the additional words on the promissory note without the knowlege of the borrower that is a problem here: "Without recourse, pay to the order of XYZ Bank" that makes the promissory note a forgery & different from the original promissory note that was signed. Borrower doesn't ever get a delivery of these changes & is not aware that this has gone on, so without any delivery, there can't be any valid mortgage agreement & the agreement becomes voidable. These additions, changes the risk & cost of the lender different than what the the loan agreement says. Now the promissory note can be banked, just like a check, with those changes. Now the lender has the funds to do a loan, by using the credits at the bank from the promissory note & doesn't have to come up with their own funds for their loan. What's so hard to understand about that? If the lender didn't loan their own funds, then, the borrower is the creditor in the transaction. If he is the creditor in the transaction, he is entitled as the beneficiary to all of the monthly payments that he pays, since the mortgage agreement in essence is a rental agreement. By the lender not disclosing this & keeping the monthly payments for themselves they in essence are committing fraud & this is unjust enrichment. If the borrower is the creditor, than, he is the holder in due course of the promissory note still, so when these mortgages are bundeled in the secondary market & sold, these securities are a fraud on their face.

mogel said...

Notarial Dissent said: "by the UCC a note is a saleable item, and in fact to be legally a note, it must be saleable,"

"No she is saying that they have not received “NEGOTIABLE FUNDS” for the loan,"
__________________________________

Seems to me it doesn't matter & is a moot point, since a note MUST BE SALEABLE, & by definition can be converted into cash AT ANYTIME, which ARE NEGOTIABLE FUNDS.

That's like saying, giving something of value to someone that agrees and acknowledges that value, is not a transaction equal to getting paid.

mogel said...

Notarial dissent: Refute these publications!!!! Do you know any court cases that said that these federal reserve publications CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE? "Economic theory" it is not. If you think so, then explain the theories in context of how it's explained. It is all presented as factual as to how the lending process works. All the different publications from the different Federal Reserve Banks seem to agree how the process works. I'm particulary interested in your response to these statements:

1. Loans are made by crediting the borrower’s deposit account, i.e., by creating ADDITIONAL deposit money.” Seems to me your journal entries you gave me DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT!!!!! How come?

2. The actual process of MONEY CREATION takes place primarily in banks.”

3. "Of course, they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. WHAT THEY DO WHEN THEY MAKE LOANS IS TO ACCEPT PROMISSORY NOTES IN EXCHANGE FOR CREDITS TO THE BORROWERS' TRANSACTION ACCOUNTS. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by $9,000. Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions."

If reserves are unchanged, there can't be a legitimate loan where the lender risked their own assets. If the lender risked their own assets, there would be no "money creation" or "additional deposit money".

Let's hear your explanation of what you call "economic theory" in light of what is really being said.
___________________________________


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.

Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers. In this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment.

Transaction deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the borrowers in turn could ‘spend’ by writing checks, thereby ‘printing’ their own money. – Page 3

If business is active, the banks with excess reserves probably will have opportunities to loan the $9,000. Of course, they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers’ transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by $9,000. Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions. But the deposit credits constitute new additions to the total deposits of the banking system. Page 6.

Page 24 says: “Loans add to bank deposits.” The June 1992 edition shows standard bookkeeping entries from Page 7 to 33 proving that money is recorded as a bank asset and a bank liability is evidence of money a bank owes. The bookkeeping entries prove that banks accept cash, checks, drafts and promissory notes as money deposited to create checkbook money, which are bank liabilities which shows that the bank owes money to the one who deposited money at the bank.

Page 6 says, “What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange (an exchange or swap is not a loan) for credits to the borrowers transaction accounts” (emphasis added). Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise. Then the next sentence explains that the bank assets and liabilities increase by the amount of the alleged loan. “Bank do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created.” (emphasis added).
________________________________________________________________________

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.

Money creation bookkeeping isn’t gimmickry. Far from it. Banks are creating money based on a borrower’s promise to repay (the IOU), which in turn, is often secured or backed by valuable items the borrower owns (collateral).

Banks create money by ‘monetizing’ the private debts of business, individuals and governments. That is, they create amounts of money against the value of those IOU’s.

To create money, however, banks must have ‘excess’ reserves, funds exceeding those they are legally required to hold.

If a bank has excess reserves, it can create an amount of money equal to the excess, it can grant a loan. Borrowers write checks against their new deposits. When these checks are deposited at other banks, those banks collect payment from the borrower’s bank. Bankers know that when other banks present borrower’s checks for payment, they will have to transfer reserves on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

Page 5 says, “money doesn’t have to be intrinsically valuable, be issued by a government or be in any special form.”

Page 27 explains that the banks create new money by depositing IOU’s, promissory notes, offset by a bank liability called a checking account balance. Deposit creation, rather than currency deposits, accounts for most of the $375 billion of checkbook money.

Money is not limited to cash. Money is anything that has value and banks or people accept as money and money does not have to be issued by the government. Page 9 explains that cash and checkbook money have equal value.
_______________________________________________________________________

I BET YOU THOUGHT- FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF BOSTON

“There are no longer any specific backing requirements for Federal Reserve Notes.”

“Banks create money by monetizing debt.”
_______________________________________________________________________

MONEY, BANKING & MONETARY POLICY – FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS


It may not seem to make much sense, but banks actually ‘create’ money when they lend it. – Page 9.

Banks actually create money when they lend it. Because the loan becomes a new deposit, just like a paycheck does... This page also explains that when banks grant loans, they create new money. – Page
_______________________________________________________________________

BANKING BASICS – FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF BOSTON

Contrary To popular belief, credit cards are not a form of money even though people often refer to them as ‘plastic money’. Credit cards users are actually taking out a loan.... Page 20.
___________________

TWO FACES OF DEBT – FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGO
Public Information Center, PO Box 834, Chicago, IL 60690-0834
(312) 322-5111

Page 19, Paragraph 3-5: “In their publication, the Federal Reserve admits to converting loan applications into money. They also admit to an obligation to return this money to their customers upon demand, just as they would return checks or cash that has been deposited into their bank.

Paragraph 3: “For an individual institution, they arise typically when a depositor brings in currency or checks drawn on other institutions. The depositor’s balance rises, but the currency he or she holds or the deposits someone else holds are reduced a corresponding amount. The total money supply is not changed.”

Editorial comment/Clarification:

From this paragraph, we conclude that when you deposit checks or cash into your account, the total money supply does not increase. Think about it. If you deposit a check at your bank, your account balance increases, but the account from which your check was written decreases an equal amount. If you are depositing cash, you are simply transferring money from one person to another person, or from one account to another account.

Paragraph 4: “But a depositor’s balance also rises when the depository institution extends credit, either by granting a loan to or buying securities from the depositor. In exchange for the note or security, the lending or investing institution credits the depositor’s account or gives a check that can be deposited at yet another depository institution. In this case, no one else loses a deposit. The total of currency and checkable deposits, the money supply is increased. NEW MONEY HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE BY EXPANSION OF DEPOSITORY INSTITUTION CREDIT. SUCH NEWLY CREATED FUNDS ARE IN ADDITION TO FUNDS THAT ALL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS PROVIDE IN THEIR OPERATIONS AS INTERMEDIARIES BETWEEN SAVERS AND USERS OF SAVINGS.”

Editorial comment/Clarification:
If through extending credit “new money is brought into existence” and if this money is in “addition to funds” other than what the institution provides in their operations, then, it is obvious that the lender does not loan any of their own assets or the assets of the depositors when a loan is given or when they “extend credit”.
“In exchange for the note..” (“the note” refers to your completed credit card or loan application, which is considered a promissory note) “...the lending or investing institution credits the depositor’s account ...” (creating your account and depositing the money into your account amounts to the same thing)
“...or gives a check that can be deposited at yet another depository institution.” (if they can write a check from your application/promissory and give it to another bank, this is further confirmation that your application has been converted into money)
“...the money supply is increased. New money has been brought into existence by expansion of depository institution credit.” (if the money created from your loan application causes the money supply to be increased, and it is “new money,” it brings up the question—where did the money come from?) It was derived from your signature, which is your personal property. Since the banks have created the money using your personal property, it is your money. This means the banks are paying for your credit card purchases with money that belongs to you!

Paragraph 5: “But individual depository institutions cannot expand credit and create deposits without limit. (don’t you fee sorry for them) Furthermore, most of the deposits they create are soon transferred to other institutions. A DEPOSIT (OF MONEY) CREATED THROUGH LENDING (FROM YOUR LOAN APPLICATION) IS A DEBT THAT HAS TO BE PAID ON DEMAND OF THE DEPOSITOR, (THAT’S YOU) JUST THE SAME AS THE DEBT ARISING FROM A CUSTOMER’S DEPOSIT OF CHECKS OR CURRENCY IN THE BANK.”

Other characteristics that vary with types of debt are the collateral a borrower offers, if any, the contractual arrangement for payment of interest and principal, and the
negotiability of the debt instrument itself. – Page 1

In addition to issuing securities, the federal government, through the Federal Reserve System, issues non-interest-bearing debt-currency or paper money. Currency is so widely accepted as a medium of exchange that most people do not think of it as a debt. Technically, however, Federal Reserve notes are liabilities- Page 4.

Debt provides a money creation function. It also provides a means of creating entirely new funds – funds needed to finance the greater volume of new projects and spending that contribute to economic growth.

New money has been brought into existence by expansion of depository institution credit – Page 18 & 19.
_______________________________________________________________________
TWO FACES OF DEBT – FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK

“In addition to securities (IOU’s) the Fed issues debt as money. Most people did not realize that debts are assets.”
________________________________________________________________________


Points of Interest
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
Public Information Center
PO Box 834
Chicago, IL 60690-0834
312-322-5111

Page 6-7, Paragraphs 7-10:

Banks and Deposit Creation: “Depository institutions, which for simplicity we will call banks, are different from other financial institutions because they offer checking accounts and make loans by lending checkbook deposits. The deposit creation activity, essentially creating money, affects interest rates because these deposits are part of savings, the source of the supply of credit. Banks create deposits by making loans. Rather than handing cash to borrowers, banks simply increase balances in borrowers’ checking accounts. Borrowers can then draw checks to pay for goods and services. This creation of checking accounts through loans is just as much a deposit as one we might make by pushing a ten-dollar bill through the teller’s window. With all of the nation’s banks able to increase the supply of credit in this fashion, credit could conceivably expand without limit. … When banks create checkbook deposits, they create money as well as credit since these deposits are part of the money supply.”
_____________________________________________________________________
Accounting Standards:
The Financial Accounting Standards Board publishes accounting standards in its annual publication Original Pronouncements. Under the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 65 (FAS65), “Accounting for Certain Mortgage Banking Activities,” it states that:

“1. Mortgage banking activities primarily consists of two separate but interrelated
activities: (a) the origination or acquisition of mortgage loans and the sale of
the loans to permanent investors from a variety of sources, including
applications received directly from borrowers (in house originations), purchases
from realtors and brokers, purchases from investors, and conversions of various
forms of interim financing to permanent financing.”

And under the Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 91 (FAS91), “Accounting for Nonrefundable Fees and Costs Associated with Originating or Acquiring Loans and Initial Direct Costs of Leases,” it states that:

“4. An enterprise may acquire a loan by lending (originating the loan) or by purchasing (acquiring a loan from a party other than the borrower). This Statement applies to both a lender and a purchaser. This Statement shall be applied to individual loan contracts.” In other words, the phrase “originating the loan” means purchasing a loan from the borrower and “purchasing a loan” means buying the loan from a third party after it has been purchased from the borrower.
______________________________________________________________________

THE NATIONAL DEBT- FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF PHILADELPHIA

The power [of creating money] also makes it possible for governments to pursue policies which could have even more disastrous results than bankruptcy.”
________________________________________________________________________

PUTTING IT SIMPLY- BOSTON FEDERAL RESERVE BANK

“When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money.”
_______________________________________________________________________

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

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


A DAYS WORK AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK – FED BANK OF NEW YORK

“There is still another and more important element of public interest in the operation of banks beside the safekeeping of money; banks can ‘create’ money. One of the most important factors to remember in the connection is that the supply of money affects the general level of prices—the cost of living. The Cost of Living Index and money supply are parallel.”
______________________________________________________________________

GOLD – FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGO

“Without the confidence factor, many believe a paper money system will eventually collapse. Present experience indicates the system can operate without a gold guarantee however, and that the only confidence required is a firm conviction that money will be accepted in payment for goods and services.”

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGO – ABC’S OF FIGURING INTEREST

Page 2 explains that by depositing money in a savings account, an individual makes a loan to the bank.

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGO – PUBLIC DEBT – PRIVATE ASSET

Page 2 explains “The bank owes us the money that is in our account.”
_______________________________________________________________________

"Federal Reserve bank credit does not consist of funds that the Reserve authorities get somewhere in order to lend, but constitute funds that they are empowered to create." (Federal Reserve Bank: Its Purposes and Functions, 1939 Edition) Evidence straight from the Federal Reserve’s own documents !! Almost like taking candy from a baby !!

________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion: “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.” The Federal Reserve Bank publications I Bet You Thought, page 27, and Modern Money Mechanics, pages 2-25, and others admit that the bank creates new money every time that banks grant loans, that the promissory note is money, and that the bank records a loan from you to the bank, resulting in a new bank liability. The new bank liability shows that the bank owes you money from recording the promissory note or credit card application as a loan from you to the bank.

The bank does not fulfill its part of the loan agreement to legally loan you money, thus nullifying the agreement between the two of you, and releasing you from a “repayment” obligation. SO THE UGLY TRUTH OF WHAT THE BANKS ARE DOING IS TO LEND YOU YOUR OWN MONEY. YES, YOU, THE BORROWER CREATED THE FUNDS FOR YOUR OWN LOAN. The bank still owes you for the value of the converted funds they obtained for free due to the power of your signature. The bank never risked any of their own assets or the assets of their depositors in this transaction and in fact are forbidden to loan out their own assets due to the policies of the Federal Reserve. The banks bookkeeping entries, tell who loaned what to whom and how much. Therein lies what happened. Nowhere in the agreement or promissory note does the bank say that they’re going to alter the note (in violation of UCC 3-407, by the way) and change it into a draft AFTER you sign it so that it modifies “in any respect the obligation of a party” and they do it by “an unauthorized addition of words to an incomplete instrument relating to the obligations of a party.” These words are “Pay to the Order of”. Now the bank can sell or deposit this negotiable instrument, just like you can deposit cash or a check in the bank. This creates the value for your loan. The bank just gives this value (monies) back to you and call it a loan. This is not a loan but an “exchange”. However, the bank expects you to pay AGAIN by putting a mortgage on your property. The bank still owes you for the value of your deposit (promissory note). Yes, banks “create money” when they do a loan. They do not lend out their own assets. The Federal Reserve publications are clear.

notorial dissent said...

Moogey nonsense That's like saying the promissory note has nothing to do or has no part in any real estate transactions too, or that it's not necessary to sign a promissory note in order to get a loan, just sign a deed of trust.

No I never said any such thing, I said real estate transactions are not covered by the UCC, they are subject to state real estate law. The UCC was designed for small business type of transactions, not real estate.

There is no forgery to the note if an endorsement is put on it, that is allowed by commercial law, and a forgery would only exist if the terms of the note itself were altered, and they were not. It does not require the maker’s permission or knowledge for the transfer of the rights to the note. Change in ownership of the note does not change the conditions of the note or the requirement of the borrower to repay the note, despite what you would like to believe. The rest of your drivel is just that. The note is the property of the lender to do with as they choose. They can keep it, sell it, or borrow against it, and it doesn’t change the validity of it or the responsibility to repay it. The rest of this is your standard run of BS, and isn’t worth rehashing as it is hot air.

A note is a negotiable, that is saleable item, that is not the same as being negotiable funds. If the note is sold they will have funds from the sale, but then not the note.

As I said before Moogs, the only thing the publications from the Fed are is evidence of poor writing on their part, misconstruance on the part of whoever’s site you stole it from, and a very poor explanation of economic theory as opposed to economic fact. They will not be accepted as fact in any court, and you will not find a case where they have been, they are too poorly written. They have been rejected in any of the recent mortgage elimination cases where it was tried to present them, so you are wasting your time here.