Sunday, October 28, 2007

My Share In The Cross

October 24, 2007 was my 7th day of trial and it started with a client named Larry Stepp who was eager to blast me. Larry is one of those self-righteous Christian types who gets his limited understandings of right and wrong confused with divine guidance. These are the very ones who will kill the Lord and think they are doing God a favor. As I went up to question, known as cross examination, Larry greeted me with "You didn't dress up for me I dressed up for you?" I was in my jail clothes and have been in jail protecting this idiot's rights for more than two years now and he can't see that I did dress up for him. What was great about this experience was the eternal benefit I obtained from it. No matter what the fate of this trial I gained a treasure worth any amount of suffering. As he said these words and I understood my role of attempting to save him from his ignorance I suddenly had an intimate revelation of what Christ had done for me. He took on the flesh and in essence dressed Himself in my jail clothes so he could save me from myself. I pictured all those people before the cross spitting on Him and taunting Him, "If you be the Son of God come down off that cross." I imagined Him thinking if I come down off this cross all you ignorant bastards will die. If I stay I can save you even from yourselves. How wretched my righteousness is. Larry showed me his filth as he attacked his advocate and he showed me mine because I did the same to my Lord. That is a treasure I will keep for eternity. The net effect upon me was no matter how gracious I was before this day I suddenly found room for even more grace. This is the existence of a man trusting in the Lord. He is forever changed in a moment by the induction of truth even if previously known made intimate, personalizing it in an entirely new fashion. This is the love of God that passes all understanding and cast out all fears. Even in this trial as I walk through all my fears I get imbued with confidence and assurance that all things work together for good to those who are called according to His purpose because I have just had a presentation of a love that gives me a hope and inspires my faith to trust Him who loves me so well. My shame in his eyes was really his shame and he was offended at it. My prayer is that God will make that moment as equally eternal for Mr. Stepp. In the end we are all sinners saved by Grace through faith and that is a gift from God. Larry I offer myself as a gift to you as Christ has offered Himself as a gift to me. It is this hope that I can be as successful an advocate for your well-being and that someday you will come to love me for the sacrifices made, making the kingdom of God that much richer.


neodemes said...

"In the end we are all sinners saved by Grace through faith and that is a gift from God."


Larry I offer myself as a gift to you as Christ has offered Himself as a gift to me.


Get over yourself.

habakkuk said...

Hey Neo, would you call the Apostle Paul a vain person??? He spoke in the same terms...

If you really studied the scriptures before spouting self-righteous babble you wouldnt be making these ignorant comments in the first place.

A quick lesson:
Yeshua (Jesus) is the pattern that we follow. HE tells us to pick up OUR CROSS and follow HIM. We have to deny ourselves...and that may involve sacrificing our lives for others...Just like Him.

The real religious folks in Paul's day would have said the same thing..."get over yourself"....They didnt understand he was just OFFERING HIMSELF just like the Lord did.

So before i start calling you NEO-Pharasisee...Go read your Bible.

PS...If there was anyone in the Bible who needed to "get over themselves" it was the self-righteous, religious people.

Yetter said...

Notorial Dissent. In all matters truth is agreement of thought and reality.I strongly disagree where the prevarication lies. Put ALL the facts on the table and let the chips fall where they may. All else is disception,opinion and spin.

Anonymous said...

"...offer you lives as a living sacrifice..."

as far as tooth is concerned, like say in my last post, go axe sum eyerackees what trooth is all aoubt?

ask poor fathers see they kids, wifes an famlees blowed up.

father aks: but, what did we do? what did my 2 year old do to yo???

govt. tell them:

"thats nothin. yo dont really count. yo kids arent really dade. an even if they are, they jus "collateral damage"

"see, yo not supose to cry if yo see yo kid get blowed up, because it not real. if we call it "collateral damage" then really, yo kid is still alive, see?? jus pretend it?

theres gotta be a god becasue they is no way that all this can possibly go unpunished. the problem is that the good people of the usa are going to wind up paying the bill for the evil govt. they have and the evil thins that this govt. has done.

corse, the devil really dun care about that, now does he????

Anonymous said...

govt. statement on defintion of "collateral damge"

"we werent really trying to kill yo, it was an axi-i-didnt. but, yo got kill; sh*t hoppens, f**k it! better yo than me!"

3 kind of lies:

1) lies (bad)

2) dam lies (worse)

3) govt. statements (uggh!)

Anonymous said...

intesting.....if yo in jail that is.....

Flawless argument and supporting appendices showing 18 USC to be a "non law" available for free download at

A petition that may have as many as 180 currently incarcerated co-petitioners has been filed and docketed in the U.S. Supreme Court. The petition, filed Sept 24, 2007, challenges Public Law 80-772 (including Title 18, or the U.S. Criminal Code). Tens of thousands of federal prisoners prosecuted since 1948 may be affected by the Supreme Court’s response.

The 49-page petition and its 119-page appendices supports claims that Public Law 80-772 is invalid. The filing is largely the work of Yori Von Kahl, who has been imprisoned since 1983 for being almost fatally shot by federal marshals who had set up an ambush near Medina, ND, to arrest his father Gordon Kahl. Yori was sentenced to life in prison under Title 18 as an accessory to the shooting deaths of two law enforcement officers though he was guilty of nothing and shot no one.

In a press release, attorneys for the petitioners explained that, "The law is clear; an act of Congress cannot become a law unless it follows each and every procedural step as defined in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. A bill originates in either the House of Representatives or Senate, but its exact text must be approved by a majority vote in both chambers. While Congress is in session, that text must be certified as having been passed in identical form by both Houses (or 'truly enrolled') and then signed by the Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate. The bill is then presented to the President to sign into law."

According to attorney Barry Bachrach, spokesman for the petitioners, H.R. 3190 was passed by the House on May 12, 1947. The resolution came before the Senate, but Congress adjourned before the bill could be passed. The Senate should have returned the bill to the House to be resubmitted to the Senate during a later session. Instead, during the following session, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary continued its review of H.R. 3190 and added a volume of amendments to the bill. The Senate passed "H.R. 3190 As Amended," which was sent to the House for a vote. While the House agreed with the amendments, the members failed to vote on "H.R. 3190 As Amended." According to the Constitution, valid business is conducted only when Congress is in session and a majority of members of both Houses are present. Yet, Congress authorized the House Speaker and President of the Senate to sign enrolled bills during an adjournment of indefinite length that began on June 20, 1948. This incomprehensible error was compounded when the Chairman of the Committee on House Administration mistakenly certified as enrolled the original H.R. 3190. Still more errors occurred: the House Speaker and President of the Senate signed the Senate’s "H.R. 3190 As Amended," the bill was then misrepresented to President Truman as being enrolled, and Truman signed the bill.

"Congressional journals clearly show that the House and Senate each passed two separate bills that were grossly different. According to the Constitution, this means that neither bill ever became law," Bachrach said.

"Under P.L. 80-772, U.S. district courts were given jurisdiction over all federal offenses. With P.L. 80-772 being invalid, however, the district courts clearly lack jurisdiction. The convictions and sentences of these prisoners are therefore void." Countries having extradition treaties with the U.S. since 1948 and their citizens, who were turned over for trial in U.S. district courts, also may be affected by the outcome of this case.

Federal prisoners are all encouraged to file behind this landmark petition as soon as possible. Those who qualify and are interested, please have someone notify us at www.

Editor's note: Something happened in June, 1948. The rules changed and the federal government has been maliciously prosecuting, fining and imprisoning Americans for violations of statutes that have not been properly enacted into law. Illusory laws can only be enforced upon those who believe the illusion is real. Whether the Supreme Court hears this case, or hears challenges to Title 21 [see page 22], Title 26 [see page 6] or not isn't the point. We have to burst the illusion in American minds. Download the petition and appendices. Read them and get clear on the lawless nature of Title 18 prosecutions. (DWH)

neodemes said...

hab -

There is no comparison between Paul and kurt.

kurt weaves a mosaic, likening himself as a savior.

Paul did not. Paul was imprisoned and killed for preaching of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour, not mortgage elimination schemes.

Toss out the kool-aide, hab, its rotting your brain.

Ephesians 1

1Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

2Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

8Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

9Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

10That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

11In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

15Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,

16Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;

17That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

18The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

19And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

20Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

21Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Noel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Noel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
habakkuk said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
habakkuk said...


First of all, Paul was a man...just like you, me and kurt....

I dont think kurt thinks he's a "savior"....YOU think he thinks he's a "savior". The problem with you religious folk is that you separate church from state just like secular folk do. Just becasue Kurt is not out picketing the issues you think are "righteous" doesnt mean he aint doin the perfect will of G-d and walking in the assignment G-d has planned for him.

Do you think Pastor so and so at your local church is the only one raising the standard and proclaiming the KINGDOM of G-d???? If you do you are missing the bigger picture and you are a limited, ineffective witness. You need to broaden your perception of who G-d is and what His Kingdom is. His Kingdom reaches beyond church walls into the MARKETPLACE....HE is beginning to shake the earth and the puny kingdoms of the earth that man has built.

Do you think G-d has a standard for how to conduct business??? The answer is YES. But guess what...the devil has perverted that just as much as he has perverted the mind of a murderer. Remember the love of MONEY is the root of all evil. Hmmmmmmm, now why do you think G-d wanted us to know that????? The love of money??? Why didnt he say the love of sex??? Hmmmmm...why dont you think about that one....and while your thinking read this scripture in Ezekiel 28:11-19

"11 Then this further message came to me from the Lord: 12 “Son of man, sing this funeral song for the king of Tyre. Give him this message from the Sovereign Lord:

“You were the model of perfection,
full of wisdom and exquisite in beauty.
13 You were in Eden,
the garden of God.
Your clothing was adorned with every precious stone[b]—
red carnelian, pale-green peridot, white moonstone,
blue-green beryl, onyx, green jasper,
blue lapis lazuli, turquoise, and emerald—
all beautifully crafted for you
and set in the finest gold.
They were given to you
on the day you were created.
14 I ordained and anointed you
as the mighty angelic guardian.[c]
You had access to the holy mountain of God
and walked among the stones of fire.

15 “You were blameless in all you did
from the day you were created
until the day evil was found in you.
16 Your rich commerce led you to violence,
and you sinned.
So I banished you in disgrace
from the mountain of God.
I expelled you, O mighty guardian,
from your place among the stones of fire.
17 Your heart was filled with pride
because of all your beauty.
Your wisdom was corrupted
by your love of splendor.
So I threw you to the ground
and exposed you to the curious gaze of kings.
18 You defiled your sanctuaries
with your many sins and your dishonest trade.
So I brought fire out from within you,
and it consumed you.
I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.
19 All who knew you are appalled at your fate.
You have come to a terrible end,
and you will exist no more."

Guess Ezekiel he's not just talking to the king of Tyre but to the god of this worldly system (thats satan in case you didnt know).

"You were in Eden,
the garden of God.
Your clothing was adorned with every precious stone" HMMMMMMM

" I ordained and anointed you
as the mighty angelic guardian.[c]
You had access to the holy mountain of God
and walked among the stones of fire." HMMMMMMMMM


"Your RICH COMMERCE led you to violence,
and you sinned.
So I banished you in disgrace
from the mountain of God.
I expelled you, O mighty guardian,
from your place among the stones of fire." SOUNDS LIKE 'THE LOVE OF MONEY' TO ME.

"18 You defiled your sanctuaries
So I brought fire out from within you,
and it consumed you.
I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.



Judge Roy Bean said...

All fine and dandy if you're a follower of Jesus.

But in the US, the law and the constitution it's drawn from doesn't let Christianity become part of the Dorean case.

The law can't respect Kurt's alleged religious beliefs. If it did, then Christians as a rule would prevail in cases against people of other faiths.

Don't forget the blindfold on the statue of justice.

The diversions Kurt likes to confuse his scam victims with don't play out in the real world of a secular court.

neodemes said...

The love of money is the motivator of all kinds of scams.

Wrapping the scam in religious garb doesn't change the outcome.

If God's hand is on any of this, we shall soon see, won't we?

Or will we just hear that "GUILTY" is merely God's good timing.

neodemes said...

I reiterate:

Larry I offer myself as a gift to you as Christ has offered Himself as a gift to me.

Now, what does the gift of Christ constitute? SALVATION!

Larry I offer myself as SALVATION to you as Christ has offered Himself as SALVATION to me.

That is just the most recent example of kurt's savior complex, like it or don't.

Anonymous said...

neodemes said...

"The love of money is the motivator of all kinds of scams.

wunner' if the bakers new this weigh back in '13 ??

Anonymous said...

nah...they was too bizzy makin' dough.....

Scott from Vineland said...

I was a little surprised that no one had commented on the "Kurt wept" verse in his recent lengthy "Breaking the Silence" post. Maybe the addition of the word "immediately" distracted some from making the comparison but I "immediately" thought of John 11:35.

I don't know how any of you can continue to argue with any good faith that Kurt does not have a messiah complex.

habakkuk said...

Judge Roy Bean said...

All fine and dandy if you're a follower of Jesus.


The law can't respect Kurt's alleged religious beliefs. If it did, then Christians as a rule would prevail in cases against people of other faiths.


The diversions Kurt likes to confuse his scam victims with don't play out in the real world of a secular court.


Neo said....

If God's hand is on any of this, we shall soon see, won't we?


Anonymous said...

btw, who is larry "watch yo" stepp???

and i see jugle beans still hisself in his raincoot.

he fancies hisself a reel junge in a cootroom.

why he falshes hisslef in a raincoot.


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

Well Moogems, I have some bad news and some worse news for you. The bad news is that Todd, misplaced punctuation boy, Swanson is as good a fugitive as he a CPA, he’s now in Federal custody. The worse news is that the proposed jury instructions have been released, and the citations of law point by point dispose of the Dorean nonsense and leave it exposed for what it was, fraud. Dim and dimmer’s temporary address, is very shortly going to become permanent. Oh, and I forgot, I have even worse news, in that the case will probably be with the jury by the end of next week, if not sooner. I don’t think they will beat the Jackson jury, but you never know.

Anonymous said...

" that the case will probably be with the jury by the end of next week, if not sooner.

" that case, everynone will be furrin' up the girll..."

Anonymous said...

rember, when yo get all yo $$$$$$, dun forget to send sum yo nickels to dims,

he gonna need help so he dun have to filed bankdumcy agian.

and it over a moth now, and jimmy nooone never splain why yo pay 4x fo yo mortage and when yo do a revse mottage, yo only get 1/2 yo money in cash??????????

can somenoone splane this???

neodemes said...

notorial dissent said...

Well Moogems, I have some bad news and some worse news for you.


The best is yet to come.

Stay tuned.


Pauligirl said...

sopsback said...
btw, who is larry "watch yo" stepp???

Stepp had property in Florida that he put in the process.
Kurt filed his release papers.
The bank filed a foreclosure notice.
Stepp filed an affidavit saying the bank had no right to do so.
Bank said , oh yes we do.
Stepp sold the property and paid off the loan.
Bank did a proper release.

Stepp had property in Idaho that he put in the process
This county is not on line.
But, I found the foreclosure papers.
Trustee Stepp Family Trust
You are hereby notified that in order to defend this lawsuit, an appropriate written response must be filed with the above-designated court within 20 days after the service of this Summons on you. If you fail to so respond, the court may enter judgment against you as demanded by the Plaintiff in the Complaint.
The nature of the claim against you is for, among other things rescission and foreclosure of the premises located at......

Stepp is also listed on Charles Dewey Tobias' s restitution list, with an address in Texas.

So, Steep was in for at least two, maybe more, properties in the Dorean process.
Doesn't look like he got free and clear of anything.

Pauligirl said...

sopsback said...
intesting.....if yo in jail that is.....

Didn't work.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects ex-convict's legal argument
Austin company argued most inmates must be freed on technicality
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to accept arguments alleging that the federal criminal code is invalid — dealing a blow to International Legal Services, an Austin company that advertised that the argument could win freedom for federal inmates nationwide.
Justices gave no reason for denying the petition.

Anonymous said...

"Justices gave no reason for denying the petition.

how could they???

somenoone tole them waht to do???

when yo never see a junge give a desison w/o giving a splanation???

junge has beans????

even he spill the beens on why, when he make a rawng dision. an he alwasy maken em.


Anonymous said...

and the other none, sumtyme yo gotta whatch whay yo walk, yo can stepp in steep sh*t an yo wind up in steep sh* watch wha yo stepp.

notorial dissent said...

Soppy drooled Justices gave no reason for denying the petition.

how could they???

Very easily, they allowed the lower courts determination that the case was a pile of bull droppings to stand, required no further comment, stunk bad enough the first time, didn’t need to be re-aired. The lower court had adequately summed up the lack of case by the conmen pushing it.

Anonymous said...

Criminal Collapse of Citibank & Morgan stanley Imminent

A stolen sum totalling $4.5 trillion (four and a half trillion American dollars) is being held illegally in a suspense account at Citibank’s offices at 399 Park Avenue, New York, USA.

The USA Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, is centrally involved in the administration of this theft. It is said that Paulson cannot now travel to Europe without being arrested. On Tuesday 20th October 2007, the Chinese authorities pressed Paulson to instruct release of the $4.5 trillion.

The money originally came from The People's Bank of China in June 2006, at the time when Henry Paulson took over as USA Treasury Secretary in Washington.

Also on Tuesday 30th October 2007, the Provost Marshal for the USA (Brigadier General Rodney Johnson), visited Citibank. Everything was set ready for payment of the $4.5 trillion to be made into the AmeriTrust Groupe securities account at Morgan Stanley at the latest by 6.00pm on Wednesday 31st October. This payment was not made.

Citibank and Morgan Stanley appear to be mired in a criminal conspiracy with the USA Treasury and the USA White House which will result in the arrest, in the USA, of William R. Rhodes (Chairman of Citibank), John Mack (Chairman of Morgan Stanley) and Henry Paulson (USA Treasury Secretary).

Now that this matter is in the public domain, it is possible that the affair will bring down not just Citibank and Morgan Stanley, but also the American Stock Market and the White House.

The $4.5 trillion is a key sub-component of the much larger NESARA programme shortly to be announced.

awwwwwwwwww......those poor bakers....they ran out dough...and it was time to make da donuts.....

Anonymous said...

btw, on moonday when the banks open up, i am going to my bank and talk to my baker...

i want to open me up on of dem "supense accounts" like they got a shitibank.

and i hope my baker dun axe me ho much doe i wanna put in, or who name it be in eether....i tell him, that why it a suspense account.

yo suppose to be kep in supense on how much is in it.

nice accout to have, no???

mogel007 said...

Judge Bean said: "But in the US, the law and the constitution it's drawn from doesn't let Christianity become part of the Dorean case."

That's funny, the money in my wallet that is used in commerce in this country, the same subject that is talked about in the constitution of the US, the same document that talks about money and the coinage of it, says on the money I use, "In God we trust".

Must have been a mistake or material misrepresentation then, since you say there's no correlation between God and money and the constitution and laws.

You must also believe that the historical heritage of laws and the origination of this country, also had nothing to do with God too.

Course coming from an Anti-Christ, or anti-God like yourself, it is only fitting that you share such a view.

mogel007 said...

Judge Beanhead said: "The law can't respect Kurt's alleged religious beliefs."

Kurt's alleged religious beliefs also go to "motive" and "intent" and shows his state of mind.

Are you saying his "state of mind" and "intentions" have nothing to do with the Dorean Case also and whether the prosecution can convict on fraud based upon his "state of mind" and willful intentions and his plan?

Maybe all this Jesus stuff has relevance after all, especially if he truly believes he is being led by God in all of his actions.

mogel007 said...

Nemo says: "If God's hand is on any of this, we shall soon see, won't we?"

That of course assumes that YOU can recognize God's will and his work, which I highly doubt.

Don't you think you are being highly unfair calling it a scam in one sentence and then saying, "we shall see".

I always thought the blind couldn't see.

mogel007 said...

Nemo said: "Or will we just hear that "GUILTY" is merely God's good timing."

Hasn't Kurt said he is following God's will? Hasn't Kurt tried to plead "guilty" a dozen times? Are you sure your conclusions are congruent with the truth?

mogel007 said...

Nemo says: "That is just the most recent example of kurt's savior complex, like it or don't."

Assuming Kurt is victorious, isn't he a "saviour" in the sense of saving the clients from their lenders presumptions?

Kurt has never said he was the Messiah, nor do you believe that or anyone else. Don't you think your conclusions are a little bit unfair? Course when have you shown a propensity to be fair? At least you are consistent, for whatever that is worth.

Judge Roy Bean said...

Byron - which God were the founding fathers referring to? (Keeping mind some of them were deists.)

Your ignorance abounds. The laws of this country can't be founded or applied on any specific religion's grounds or precepts. There is no state religion no matter how many times God is invoked - even in Utah, Byron. It's one of the most important parts of our constitution that offers freedom of and even freedom from religion. Not believing in an organized religion isn't illegal. You'd be surprised at the number of agnostics out there.

The appearance of "God" and the use of it in government activities is a generic, non-specific formal recognition that there is a higher power and that anyone can believe, worship, disbelieve or not and can even change their minds about who or what God is or isn't. Some extremists have attempted to take the "freedom from" religion concept too far and have been thwarted by common sense. Conversely, people like Kurt will attempt to cloak themselves in religion in an effort to further their own objectives.

As for trying to make it play as some kind of motive or intent defense, good luck trying to paint a believable picture of belief in Christ as part of orchestrating a conspiracy to break the law. Those who truly believe should condemn Kurt for his guile. Those who don't hold on to a religious foundation or a belief specifically in Christ would probably see him as even more of a conniving actor trying to make himself into something he can't be.

Judge Roy Bean said...

Gashler said: "Assuming Kurt is victorious, isn't he a "saviour" in the sense of saving the clients from their lenders presumptions?"

Please explain what you think will happen if the jury acquits him and/or Scott?

Try and be specific about what a former Dorean client (or anyone for that matter) will be able to do that they can't do today.

While you're at it, try to clear up for us what affect an aquittal will have on "lender's presumptions."

HINT: You might want to read the jury charge before you answer.

Remember, the jurors don't have the option to make up their own version of the laws. And unless the defense mounts a legitimate legal argument to the law as the Judge has defined it (which none of the nonsensical ones they've tried are), that jury charge represents what the law is.

So, just to be clear, Byron, if they are acquitted, please tell us what is going to change in the real world (not your fantasy version) for clients?

While you're at it, give us your "educated" guess on how long the jury will deliberate.

Enquiring minds want to know.

Anonymous said...

btw, wantem sent me a emial axing me if yo gonna invite him to yo meetin??

he say taht he want to take the suspense out of it.

yo bakers, yo better not close up yo bakeshop till i get my doe out!

By Dan Wilchins

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Citigroup Inc's (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research) board of directors is holding an emergency meeting this weekend, Dow Jones reported on Friday.

Citigroup's poor stock performance -- the bank's shares have fallen more than 30 percent this year and are trading at their lowest level since April 2003 -- has left many investors urging the ouster of Chief Executive Chuck Prince.

The agenda for the weekend board meeting was not immediately clear, but removing Chuck Prince or taking write-downs may come up, Dow Jones said.

If Prince is ousted, Citi director Robert Rubin is being considered as an interim replacement, but he is reluctant to take the responsibility, Dow Jones said.

"You can imagine the pressure they're feeling from the market's reaction to negative news and their continuing inability to reassure the market," said Thomas Russo, a partner at Gardner Russo & Gardner in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which invests more than $3 billion and owns Citi shares.

Michael Hanretta, a spokesman for Citi, declined to comment.

Citigroup said on October 15 that third-quarter profit slid 57 percent as losses mounted in areas including subprime mortgages and corporate loans to junk-rated companies.

Those results included $6.5 billion of pretax losses and write-downs in subprime mortgage bonds and other assets. Write-downs combined with some $25 billion of acquisitions over the last year have left Citigroup's capital levels relatively low

Anonymous said...

"So, just to be clear, Byron, if they are acquitted, please tell us what is going to change in the real world (not your fantasy version) for clients?

then they will have a turkey shoot.

no supense.

they will shoot all the judge turkeys!


yo heer taht! jud raw beans, yo wont be able to hide behing yo raincoot.

mogel007 said...

Judge Roy Bean wrote:
If history and experience serve, there aren't many trial days left.

Part of the urgency involves not only the court calendar but what the jury might have been told about their obligation as to the length of their duty. There is a viable reluctance to unduly inconvenience a jury.

Judge: The jury was told the trial could go until Thanksgiving, (much later than previously anticipated & expected by many), so maybe no deliberations will go on until December 2007 or even later. I'm not counting on any time periods that have been guessed in the past.

Maybe there might be some appeal of some kind lurking in the distance!!! Are you prepared to say otherwise, so why would I be interested in how long the jury deliberates & make a guess at that?

mogel007 said...

Judge: God (Jesus Christ) refers to himself as the LAWGIVER as one of his many titles or names.

I need not say anymore than that.

neodemes said...

Whistleblower said:

I have taken on the role of a whistleblower in the American Mortgage Industry because of my prior experience with being prosecuted by the government for securities fraud.

See any mention of God's calling, moogette?

Rave on!

mogel007 said...

Here's a post on the Quatloos site: "Looks like Swanson has been detained, and is using his 5th amendment rights. Judge has ruled that K&S will not be allowed to question him."

Can I conclude from this, that Swanson won't testify? And if he won't testify, why did they capture and imprison him? How can someone testify and be unable to not question a witness like Swanson without violating the Defendants constitutional rights? More nonsense from Judge Alsup's court?????

neodemes said...

moogie postulates:

Maybe there might be some appeal of some kind lurking in the distance!!!


I'm sure we can look forward to years of pitiful attempts from the duo.

The question is...when will you be joining them?

mogel007 said...

Nemo said: "See any mention of God's calling, moogette?"

Isn't that like you to take one statement, & assume that all truth and everything Kurt has ever said is containted in one statement?

Your stupid question and even more crazy assumptions, don't even deserve a response.

neodemes said...

moogie wonders: Can I conclude from this, that Swanson won't testify?


Duh! He plead the 5th, moogie. He's afraid of incriminating himself.


neodemes said...

moogie murmurs:

Your stupid question and even more crazy assumptions, don't even deserve a response.


And, yet, you just couldn't stop yourself from doing so, could you mighty mouth?


mogel007 said...

From the very loose site:

"The second part of the Judge's instructions concerns the substantive law that bears on this case.

This statement of the law pertains to all time periods relevant to this case. Although you have heard and seen evidence concerning legal points, you must take my instructions as supreme on matters of law and an accurate and controlling statement of the law to be applied in reaching your verdict. In a moment, I will explain the elements of the specific federal offenses charged but first here is an explanation of the basic law relating to notes, deeds of trust, and the rights and duties of borrowers and lenders.

When someone borrows money using his or her home as collateral, the borrower typically signs a note and a deed of trust. The note is a promise to repay the loan, usually in monthly installments. The deed of trust transfers the home to a trustee to hold for the benefit of the lender in the event that the borrower defaults on the loan payments. If and when the note is paid off, the deed of trust is reconveyed to the borrower at which point title is then free and clear in the name of the borrower. Rather than a deed of trust, some states allow the use of a mortgage. For purposes of this case, a mortgage and a deed of trust are the same.

When someone borrows money and signs a note, the borrower is obligated to make the payments on the note in accordance with its terms. If a provision in any note or any deed of trust happens to violate some law, it is possible that the particular provision might be unenforceable, such as, for example, a prepayment penalty might be subject to a limitation in a particular state. For some violations, the borrower might possibly even have the right to rescind the loan, meaning to undo the entire transaction, but in undoing a loan, the borrower would then have to give the loan money back. Under no circumstances can the borrower simply eliminate the loan, recover the collateral, and keep the money from the loan.

Within regulatory reserve requirements, banks are allowed to receive deposits from customers and then to use those deposits to make loans to borrowers; banks are also allowed to borrow money from the Federal Reserve Bank and then to use those funds to make loans to borrowers; and banks are free to use their own equity to make loans to borrowers. A borrower’s duty to repay a loan is not affected by any infringement of regulatory reserve requirements.

You have heard evidence that various homeowners involved in our case placed their homes into a family trust with defendants as trustees. Although the word ?trust? is used, a “family trust” is different from a “deed of trust” that typically accompanies a home loan. As I said, a deed of trust is a way to provide collateral for a loan. A family trust, however, is a convenient vehicle for families to hold their property, usually for estate-planning purposes. In this regard, placing one’s home in a family trust allows the trustees in charge of the family trust to exercise the same rights as the homeowner. Doing so, however, does not eliminate any debt owed by the homeowner and the home still remains collateral for the loan to the same extent as before the trust. Putting one’s home in a family trust creates no greater rights in the trustee than were available to the homeowner.

You have also heard evidence regarding ?presentments? made to lenders. Of course, a borrower or his agent or his trustee may send a letter to a lender complaining about aspects of a loan. The lender, however, is not legally obligated to respond to such a letter, at least with respect to any circumstances relevant to this case. Rather, the lender is free to ignore the letters and to stand on its rights under the loan documents unless the loan documents. If the lender then seeks to enforce the loan documents, a court will then have to hear out both sides and resolve any disputed clause or issue. If the lender loses, for example, one or more particular clauses may be found unenforceable. Under no circumstances, however, can the loan and collateral obligations simply be eliminated with the borrower allowed to keep the loan money. Even if a court allowed rescission so that the loan was undone, the borrower would have to return the loan proceeds. Use of the word “presentment” makes no difference. A lender is placed under no greater duty when it receives something called a presentment than when it receives an ordinary letter.

You have heard evidence that the presentments included a notice that defendants would
be appointed as agents or attorneys-in-fact for the lender in the event that the lender failed to respond within a stated time period. In this regard, I instruct you that a letter or notice to a lender stating that if the lender does not respond within a stated time period, it will be deemed to have appointed the sender as its agent or attorney-in-fact may be ignored by the lender. The lender is under no obligation to respond. The lender is free to stand on its contract rights with the borrower. Ignoring such a letter or notice cannot have the effect of lawfully appointing anyone as the lender’s agent or attorney-in-fact. In turn, any reconveyance signed by any such purported attorney-in-fact or purported agent would be unauthorized and invalid. Even if anysuch reconveyance were recorded in the county land records and/or notarized, it would still be unauthorized and invalid. There is nothing in the law of estoppel or laches or estoppel by laches that is different from the law as I have described in these instructions. To appoint an agent or attorney-in-fact, the lender would have to do so expressly and affirmatively, not simply by ignoring a letter. If, however, a lender expressly appoints someone as its agent or attorney-in-fact for a stated purpose, then, of course, that person could lawfully sign for the lender within the scope of the agency.

You have also heard reference to a subrogation and security bond. Under the law, no borrower has the unilateral right to substitute someone else?s promise to pay for his or her own promise to pay. Nor can a borrower unilaterally substitute a bond for his original collateral under the loan. If a lender receives such a bond or proposed substitution in the mail, the lender is free to ignore it, remain silent, and to stand on its original contract rights with the borrower.

You have seen evidence that some documents were notarized. A notarized document is a statement by the notary that the signature on the document was made by the person indicated, i.e., the notarization serves as a degree of proof that the signature is authentic. It does not mean, however, that the document is otherwise legally valid or invalid.

You have seen evidence that some documents were filed with various county land records. The fact that a document appears in the county land records does not mean that it is valid or that the county recorder has approved the document. Put differently, the fact of recording does not add or subtract from its validity or invalidity. It only relates to whether the form of the document is in the proper form for recording.

You have heard evidence that lenders sold various notes to others sometimes in the form of securitization. Unless the original loan documents provided otherwise, the original lender has the right to sell the notes and thereafter, upon notice, the borrower must make payments to the new owner of the loan.

The items called “presentments” and other letters and material received into evidence referred to various statutes and legal authorities. Nothing cited therein and no other provision of law contradicts the law as I have stated it in these instructions. In this connection, you heard reference to the Uniform Commercial Code, which is sometimes called the “UCC.” This is a code adopted as law in all fifty states. There is nothing in the UCC that would alter the lender-borrower law described in these instructions. So too with the federal-reserve system. There is nothing in the federal-reserve system or other banking laws that affects the rights and duties of lenders and borrowers as I state them to you in these instructions. Nor is there anything in generally accepted accounting principles that would modify the law as I state it to you in these instructions."

Makes me wonder if the Judge's instructions to the jury if ruled as is after the next round of filings, will put the trial verdict into jeopardy down the road if the final verdict goes against the favor of the Defendants.

Makes me just think that the Judge is giving the Defendants more reasons for an appeal by his interpretation of the law that just may very well be more fantasy land such as this statement: "There is NOTHING in the UCC that would alter the lender-borrower law described in these instructions.

What about "entitlement rights"? If the lender didn't loan any real monies for the promissory note, they aren't entitled to anything.

I think this statement could get the Judge in trouble too:

"Under the law, no borrower has the unilateral right to substitute someone else?s promise to pay for his or her own promise to pay."

Anonymous said...

"There is NOTHING in the UCC that would alter the lender-borrower law described in these instructions.

crystal clear rite?

howver, a layer would question:

would the prostitution pleeze defing:

"borryer: one who borrys $$$

"lender: none who lends $$$$

was any $$$ really borried?

was any $$$ really lent?

was any $$$ created???

mogel007 said...

Nemo said: "And, yet, you just couldn't stop yourself from doing so, could you mighty mouth?"

If I didn't, you would think that I was hiding or incapable of responding if I didn't come up with a response or answer. You would then find fault with me by ignorning a statement or post.

Course in your same mind, it's OK for the lenders to ignore issues from lack of response, but you see that's the beauty of your hypocrisy and Judge Alsup's. Both of you are unable to judge fairly and use the same standard on all people. Your version of black & white thinking is as follows:

Lenders- morally & legally good; God supportive

Dorean Group - morally & legally bad- divinely unsupportive

If I didn't respond, you would then charge me with running out of things to say or argue, like you said previously.

You see regardless of what I say or do, you will find a negative angle to it, because in essence you are a negative person, always looking & thinking of the worst in some people and looking for a bad ending or using a label to define, like "mighty mouth".

Your one of those people that always make it so, if I win or I'm right in the end, I still lose and was still wrong, and if I lose, I was always a loser destined from the very beginning to be so.

In the end, if the Dorean cause is favorable, and the Defendants are acquitted of any criminal conduct, you will still say the process was and is a scam because that's what negative, closed minded people would be expected to say.

You and Judge Bean are kindred spirits, even if he is an agnostic or atheist, and you aren't. Maybe Judge Bean would want to say otherwise?

mogel007 said...

Nemo: Just because a person leans on his 5th amendment rights on some issues, still doesn't mean he won't say things on the record or won't answer certain questions or won't open up many issues and give the Defendants the right to cross examine his testimony. Course if that right is already taken away by the Judge....... how is that possible?

Maybe Swanson will say nothing at all and be just a total mute in court, or maybe he won't? Doesn't that remain to be seen? Maybe by not saying anything at all, the Judge might find him in "contempt of court" on some issues and may even threaten him with jail time by non response? Are you claiming to know the future?

Course you seem to have all of the answers anyway, so why would a complete genius like yourself respond to a complete moron like myself, without casting some doubt on your own intelligence? Do you enjoy arguing with retarded people?

Maybe that's tantamount to asking yourself a question on "Mormon doctrine" and then answering it which I've seen you do as if someone really cares?

If you asked yourself a question, and didn't respond to yourself, would that make you more intelligent than asking yourself a question and then answering it? People that talk to themselves don't really bother me, but I'm not sure about those that do such behaviour & ALSO answer their very questions.

Maybe the men in the white coats should stop by and take you away to Bellview by such lonely and strange behaviour? Course I think your "stalking behaviour" in the past, was enough to commit you, but of course, I'm not trained in mental health, but I'm still willing to sign an affidavit to commit you.

neodemes said...

moogie...look behind you...


Anonymous said...

all rite, enud dg fo toddy.

do anynone no anythins about comet homeless???

this where all the homelss are going to be put??

the nones that didnt get the dg plan?

anyway this comet got brighter by a factor of well over 400,000 IN A COUPLE OF HOURS!!!!

this doesnt happen everyday.

a comet?

a planet??? x????

a strayship??

whatver it is, it bodes for sumthins to hoppens.

good??? bad????

check out tippy mccanny have to say aobut it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

maybe it come to rescue all the bakers before the public catch on them and like saddlam, hang they by they bal......raincoots.

Anonymous said...

Comet Holmes is making the news as a comet that has increased in brightness by 400,000 times in just a few hours ... BUT what you will find is all the flim flam jargon of "mysterious comets" with NASA scientists now attempting to edge in on Velikovsky by claiming that a comet caused earth wide civilization collapses around 2300 BC (they changed the date a little and claim that a comet hit earth and caused a great tsunami etc etc etc ... the NASA twist ) ... but back to Comet Holmes ... Comet Holmes is a long known comet that orbits the sun between Jupiter and Mars and has a rather small nucleus just a few miles across ... so when i heard about the brightening i waited for the standard NASA and related tripe to come out of the standard scientific media ... and it in fact is now all over the internet ... of course there is no reason for a "dirty snowball" to do this ... but never mind that ... so i looked at the true explanation relative to my Plasma Discharge Comet Model and low and behold the answer ONCE AGAIN ... is staring you right in the face ... below is posted the pic of the orbit at the time of brightening ...


Anonymous said...

mccanny, even yo got it rawng on comet homeless.

yo say it got 400000x brighter....

not enuf.

if it went from magnitude 17 or even 14 as some say, all the way up to magnitude 4 in brightness,

then the brightness magnitude scale is logarithmic, which means that every number up is a scale of 10x brighntess in magnitude.

thus, even if it went only from mag. 14 up to mag. 4

then this is 14-4 or 10x magnitude increase in brightness.

then, it got approx. 10^10 brighter in magnitude.

or 10 raised to the 10th power brighter.

simple math then...

its 10 followed by 10 zeros brighter or








10 BILLION X !!!!!!!!

could it really be a spaceshop or plant-x??????

lol! jug beans be hidin under his raincoot!

Anonymous said...

an mcanny, get with the pogrom!

yo say yo gut a masters in psychics, and i only got a batchelors in physics.

yo need wake up! yo is aslep!!

yo not suppose to get this sh*t rawng!!!!

yo no it yoself!

Anonymous said...

dun forget to cahnge yo clox.

When he signed this into law, it put the whole country under military or martial law, and that's when the flags in every courtroom, state and federal, began to be changed. And every state flag and every U.S. flag is now trimmed in gold fringe. And whenever you see a flag trimmed in gold fringe, that means that it is the flag of the Commander-in-Chief. Now, if it's the state flag, it means that's the flag of the governor, as Commander-in-Chief. And if it's the federal flag, or the national flag, more correctly, it's the flag of the Commander-in-Chief in Washington.

So, all your courts are nothing more than courts of military rule. They all proceed with summary procedures. The jury has no power of jury nullification. And they are simply enforcing the laws of the Empire, which I call 14th Amendment America, which is a military-style, King of England-style country. The courts are nothing more than courts of the king's bench, as you can see in Blackstone's Commentaries.

And the banks, as you walk into every bank, they all have a flag trimmed in gold fringe. The bank is what England would call, in Blackstone's day, the king's bank. So, we have the king's bank, and we have the king's bench. And it's run according to military rule, according to Berkheimer's great work Military Rule And Martial Law, published in 1914.

When Harry Truman did this, there was a consummation of a great plan to put us under the Emergency War Powers Act and, actually, a war rule. "Daylight savings time" is what was called "war time". This country only went to daylight savings time during World War II, and they called it, at that time, war time. So, nothing's changed. We've never gone back to not turning back our clocks. We're still on war time. The income tax is a war tax. It was called a victory tax in 1942.

So, people are paying a war tax, they're under war time, they're under an emergency war powers act, and the courts are war courts.

neodemes said...

Blast from the past

moogie declared:

I clearly see now why you knew that there WOULD BE NO TRIAL EVER and no jury picked to hear this matter in it's entirety.





neodemes said...

More Moogie Wisdom

mogel gloated...

Justice666: Hah!!!!!!!!!!
So that blows your theory of continuing the court date to wait for Bill Julian.

Won't be happening now!!!!!!



You're batting ZERO.

notorial dissent said...

Moogey, punctuation boy is in the slammer, for refusing to obey a Federal summons, and then going fugitive, can you say guilty conscience, everyone who isn’t brain dead and morally challenged can. As to whether he will or won’t testify, that is up to the court, but since he is taking the 5th on everything, and rightly so. Dim and dimmer had ample time to subpeona him while they were wasting time on irrelevancies and didn’t, the Feds did, and now appear to have decided not to, go figure, they probably, and rightly so, figure they have presented enough evidence as it is, and punctuation boy isn’t going to talk and run the risk of digging his jail cell any deeper by making any more stupid remarks after all the things out there with his signature already appended, and I can’t see him getting immunity for anything, he isn’t worth the effort.

Moogey driveled I'm sure we can look forward to years of pitiful attempts from the duo. Actually NO, they get to make plea to the court that sentenced them to drop the charges since they didn’t do it, which, after having a good laugh, the court will deny, they will then appeal to the 9th circuit, who for all the complaints made about them, aren’t completely bereft of common sense, where it will be determined they have no grounds for appeal and denied, after which they will bore some poor Supreme Court intern or law clerk after which it will come back Cert denied, which considering the total lack of merit of any of their claims, will probably take about two years max.

Congrats Moog, you actually quoted something right, haven’t a clue about what you quoted, but you did cut and paste well. Those instructions, as pertains to title, deed of trust, note, and the rest are exactly the same as they have been since the founding of banking. It hasn’t changed Moogs, it is still the same process, the same laws, it hasn’t changed. Those are all clear statements of the law as it has existed since the founding of the Republic. And, since the judge’s summary is the one the rest of the real world goes by there will be grounds for appeal there. The delusion in on your part.

Quoting Moogs trying to misconstrue the jury instructions "There is NOTHING in the UCC that would alter the lender-borrower law described in these instructions. This is a true statement dum dum, hasn’t changed since the code was established. Since your theory has been ruled fraud and nonsense, pointless argument.

Moogey making another misconstruance "Under the law, no borrower has the unilateral right to substitute someone else’s promise to pay for his or her own promise to pay." There is not and never has been any such right, so again more nonsense on your part. The person who signed the note is responsible for it, absolutely.

Despite all your blather, Moogs, it still comes down to the fact that if there were a real legal dispute then the court system was the venue to air it and dispose of it, the that was the last thing dim and dimmer wanted, since there the scam would be exposed.

moogie declared:

I clearly see now why you knew that there WOULD BE NO TRIAL EVER and no jury picked to hear this matter in it's entirety.

Moogey just keeps putting them up and reality just keeps knocking them over.

neodemes said...

For the record, ND, moogie driveled:
"Maybe there might be some appeal of some kind lurking in the distance!!!"

Your quote was of my response...and...hey...two years of pitiful attempts is still years


habakkuk said...


neodemes said...

“Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” (2 Corinthians 3:6)

notorial dissent said...

Neo, sorry, was a bit sleepy when I copied that, tried to get the attribution right, didn't, my bad, still Moogey drivel one way or another.

Actually, if things run the course they seem to be, the jury may well have the case by the end of the week. So much for the Moogs predictive ability, along with his knowledge of law and real estate.

neodemes said...

Well, to moogie's credit, what he doesn't know could fill volumes.


notorial dissent said...

True, much easier to catalog what he does know,

now where did I leave that post it note???

mogel007 said...

Nemo, A few wrong predictions are OK with me. I'll take my defeats or lumps as they come as I should.

In leu of this statement below, as long as it turns out to be true, does it really matter to be right all the time on all significant points?

"Know this one thing and take comfort; the trial which is coming to an end is the beginning of your victory NO MATTER the verdict."

We both agree: "You can't turn a lie into the truth no matter what."
In essence that's what the criminal trial has been about from my perspective. You have another perspective, and that's just fine too.

Have a good time rolling on the floor laughing. It won't last anymore than a lie lasts.

neodemes said...

"Know this one thing and take comfort; the trial which is coming to an end is the beginning of your victory NO MATTER the verdict."

That pretty much covers all the bases, doesn't it, and surprises absolutely no one.

mogel007 said...

Kurt said: "Though this may be a free swing I still don't understand all that God is doing."

Tell me Nemo, would a narcissistic, selfish, kool- aid drinking egomaniac, Messiah type, make a statement like the one above? Is that statement also no surprise to anyone, especially you?

Isn't that what faith is, not having a perfect knowledge of all things and following blindly the path that the Lord has set forth and taking the gifts and talents and inspiration along the way that the Lord has provided? Faith is a test in obedience. Speaking of that Nemo, how would you fare if you were in Kurt's shoes? Would you make the necessary hard decisions that needed to be made along the cold and dark and lonely path and have the heart to listen to the Lord's will? Maybe you would have your "saved mentality" and think no works were even necessary to accomplish the task and that you would throw EVERYTHING INTO THE LORD'S HANDS THINKING NOTHING WAS REQUIRED OF YOU?

neodemes said...

You continue to promote the notion that God's will has something to do with Dorean.

I don't, didn't, never will believe that Kurt is on a mission from God.

You also assume you know what I believe regarding Christian responsibilities.

While works are an element of faith, salvation is not hinged upon works.

neodemes said...

CSO Newsletter Vol. 2, No. 2
November 07, 2007

Why do we believe what we believe?

Outside the context of a Christian Newsletter, this would be an extremely broad question.

Still, perhaps I should use a more focused approach, for the sake of clarity.

Why do we, as Christians, believe what we believe?

Given the interactive nature of the blog/comment format, let me personalize this directly to you. Why do you believe what you believe, in regards to Christianity? (Are you a non-believer? Feel free to chime in, as well!)

Let’s take a quick look at the Old Testament, specifically within the story of Noah.

Leading into the command to Noah, we see:

Genesis 6:

5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

As I look at the world in which we live even today, Brothers and Sisters, I can’t help but marvel at the patience and compassion of God Almighty, that He has not blotted us all out of His sight, once and forever.

I am reminded, yet again, of the mercy shown upon us by a just God.

8But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

13And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

14Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

15And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

16A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

17And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

18But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee.

19And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

21And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

22Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

Was this an act of faith or of obedience on the part of Noah? After all, when God is talking directly to you, how much faith is required? There is, of course, a direct parallel to Christian faith…salvation by unmerited Grace.

Do we have a definition of faith to work with? I believe we do:

Hebrews 11

1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

If we look a bit further in the chapter, to verse 7, we, of course, learn that Noah acted in obedience, through faith.

7By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Indeed, we are clearly taught, in the preceding verse 6, that faith is of the greatest importance!

6But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.

As we know, Brothers and Sisters, there are countless people who say they do not believe in God.

Perhaps, you were once one of them. I know I was…well, I tried to be, but couldn’t quite shake the feeling of conviction whenever I tried to flat-out deny the existence of a Supreme Being, so I settled for ‘agnostic’. I reasoned that I didn’t know if there was a God or not, therefore, I remained free to live my life as I chose. But, I finally had to succumb to the undeniable Truth:

Romans 1:

9Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I hereby challenge ANYONE reading this to look around themselves and present to me a thesis which clearly supports the contention that the universe, the world, the countryside, a butterfly; whatever naturally occurring element you so desire to choose, exists without being the product of a Creator.

It is, of course, possible to believe in a Supreme Being or Beings, without acknowledging Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

We need look no further than Saul, a devout Jew, a Pharisee’s Pharisee if there ever was one, and a major player in the persecution of the early Church, even to the martyr, Stephen.
Let’s pause for a moment and consider who Stephen was:

* a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost - (Acts 6:5)
* full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people - (Acts 6:8)
* he spake with wisdom and the spirit - (Acts 6:10)
* all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel - (Acts 6:15)

Stephan found himself facing the council because “certain of the synagogue” conspired to “set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.”

When confronted with the false charges, Stephen could have surely denied them and kept a low profile and would probably have walked away none the worse for the encounter.

However, what he did was to recite an encapsulated summary of Jewish history from the days of Abraham to the death of Jesus, culminating in a powerful statement, surely stirred by faith and the Holy Spirit, saying:

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
(Acts 7:51-53)

Folks, that is one of the best examples of politically incorrectness that I have ever seen, short of Jesus’ own teachings. And the results were predictable:

When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. (Acts 7:54)

Yikes! If there was ever a time for an individual to renege on his professed beliefs, for the sake of self-preservation, this would be it.

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,

Were this to happen today, to the subscribers to any of the various religions (read cults) that folks get caught up in, how many would, at this point, quickly set aside their faith as error?

And [they] cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.

And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Saul was right there when the first recorded martyrdom for Christ took place with the stoning of Stephen.

Personally, I think that seeing the steadfastness of Stephens’ convictions, his adherence to his beliefs, should have been a wakeup call for Saul.

This was not the case.

And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. (Acts 8:1)

As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison. (Acts 8:3)

Brothers and Sisters, though you may have read the following before, I ask that you take the time to read it once again, as it is a truly remarkable occurrence; the transforming of Saul to Paul:

Acts 9

1And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

3And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

7And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

8And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

9And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.

10And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.

11And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,

12And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

13Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:

14And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

15But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

16For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.

17And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

18And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

19And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

20And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

21But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests?

22But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.

Paul later makes reference to his conversion experience:

Galatians 1:

11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,

16To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Not many of us, I think, can give testimony to such a dramatic event in our lives as that which was experienced by Saul/Paul.

What is your testimony? Why do you believe what you believe?

For myself, some of the most powerful cement for the bonding of my belief that the testimonies of the Gospels is true, comes from the accounts of the persecutions and executions of the Apostles, who died with words of confirmation on their lips and in their hearts.

Stand Firm!

Praise be to God said...

I have a question for all those people that have the answers. My friend is about to lose her house, she has not paid a house payment in over a year and yet the mortgage company has sold her papers. (just last month)Now does that make since unless the new mortgage company is going to be making money from her papers? Could someone explain that to me?
Because it sure doesn't make since unless they are making money. They no that they are going to forclose on her in Feb. The old mortgage company told her so. Please answer this question. Or could it be that what Kurt and Scott have been saying all along is correct?

neodemes said...

Most likely the new mortgage company bought the paper at a steep discount and anticipates making a marginal profit on the auction steps.


mogel007 said...

Nemo said: "While works are an element of faith, salvation is not hinged upon works."

While such a thought is not even scriptural, than logically speaking following your logic Nemo, FAITH IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY FOR SALVATION TOO SINCE FAITH & WORKS ARE INTERTWINED. It also follows that confessing Jesus Christ as our Saviour & accepting him as your Saviour is also "a work" which of course, according to your logic MUST ALSO BE MEANINGLESS TOWARDS SALVATION TOO. Course FAITH must be totally unnecessary too for salvation too, since it is "a work" TOO. Course all the principles that Jesus taught must also be unnecessary for salvation like possessing and incorporating "hope", "faith", "tolerance" and "charity" in one's life too. The famous "Beatitutes" taught by Jesus must also be meaningless towards salvation too according to your logic. It also follows according to your logic, that following God's commandments and laws are also unnecessary for salvation too since those are "works" too. The commandments must be an elective, or just a mere suggestion, but not a requirement. Jesus's admonition in Math 5:48 must also be meant to take as just a suggestion, but certainly nothing serious like the subject of salvation.

You know come to think of it Nemo, you're religious thought does have a certain appeal. LOL

I don't have to do anything or become anyone special, and God will save me. I can be totally evil and do whatever I want, sin as much as I want, don't have to repent, since repentence is a work, and God will save me irregardless of my fowl personality. Man, if that lie doesn't appeal to the masses, nothing will. LOL

Is baptism a work? Are unbaptized christians not saved? Is faith a work? Is receiving the Holy Ghost by "the laying on of hands," a "work"? Is receiving the HOly Ghost even necessary for salvation? HOw is the gift of the Holy Ghost even actually received?

James said: "faith without works IS DEAD, just like your religion of spiritual thought" which is a "cult" Nemo, & you don't even know it. How sad!!!!!!!!!!

Come to think of it Nemo, Christians that believe in all the scriptures & not just a few, and believe that works is necessary for salvation too, not just the grace of Christ, have nothing to lose in the end, but those like you, THAT COULD BE MISTAKEN, and live your life in a lie, and BEHAVE ACCORDINGLY, CERTAINLY LOSE IT ALL IN THE END if you are wrong.

I already believe that part of the gospel in what you profess, so if you are correct WE ARE BOTH SAVED. However if you are wrong........

You condemn me for believing MORE TRUTH and label me a "lost soul". That's the comedy and tragedy of it all.

Did anyone hear that right wing protestant that said on TV a few days ago that "Mormonism is a cult and Mormons AREN'T EVEN CHRISTIANS"?

Apparently, he is attacking Mitt Romney's religion, since he is a Mormon, who is running for President, and Mr. Romney stands a good chance of being the republican choice, although he isn't my first choice.

The ministers logic is, if Mitt Romney isn't a Christian, he isn't fit for running for a governmental office. LOL So much for opend minded thought & religious tolerance. LOL Since when should someone's religion be a "political issue"? Have we gone so far down hill as a tolerant nation of the 1st amendment to the constitution?

Does it get any better as far as ignorance is concerned?

The first article of the Mormon faith penned by Joseph Smith reads: "We believe in God the Eternal Father and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost".

Can it get any plainer than that, that Mormons profess to be Christians? That ignorant minister who spreads "hate", should study more. His ignorance of Mormon doctrine is showing.

mogel007 said...

Nemo said: "Most likely the new mortgage company bought the paper at a steep discount and anticipates making a marginal profit on the auction steps."


Buying paper at a "STEEP DISCOUNT" and making a "marginal profit" are oxymorons.

I would say if the company is buying at a steep discount, they aren't making a marginal profit, but a SUBSTANTIAL PROFIT. Their return might be 50% annually or more.

Course you don't even understand the concept of "salvation", so how should I expect you to understand real estate or discounting of paper or interest rate returns?

neodemes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
neodemes said...


Did you bother to read praise be's post?

The statement was made..."They no that they are going to forclose on her in Feb. The old mortgage company told her so."

The house is going into forclosure. If you think for a minute that the new mortgage company will be able to make much off this deal, you are as foolish as I have always believed you to be.

No surprise there.

notorial dissent said...

praise be to god, in the first place, unless the lender was extremely stupid they wouldn’t have made a 100% loan on the property to begin with. The property would have had to have appraised out at more than the loan or the borrowers would have had to have had awfully good credit ratings. So, even with the property in default, it is most likely worth more than the value of the loan, that plus the natural, hopefully, increase in value over time should cover their expenses. The original lender most likely sold it to get it out of their portfolio since they are only allowed to have so many nonperforming assets if they are a bank and some types of mortgage companies. They may actually have sold it at a loss to them to get rid of it and still make some of their money back. The new owner on the other hand not being tied to the same rules can afford to take it and sell it after the foreclosure and still make a profit over what they paid for it. They wouldn’t have done so otherwise, since they don’t buy property to take a loss on it.

neodemes said...

moogie misspeaks...

"While such a thought is not even scriptural, than..."
My response:
Conversation With A Mormon