Sunday, October 28, 2007

What's Happening In Your Trial

By the time this post we will probably be at the end of the prosecution's case. After they rest we will have to present our defense. This won't be a long drawn out process maybe a day or two. As I've stated before I am in a strange position attempting to win a trial I would rather lose. Just that intimate revelation of Christ's behavior on the cross was worth the exercise of going through this trial. If that was all it was for I appreciate God changing directions on me and taking me to a place I didn't think I was going. God always has a back story going on in our lives where greater things are happening than we can imagine. There are countless characters in the scriptures where we get the back story but they didn't have it at that time. Like them we see through a glass dimly but if we will trust the Lord the back story will appear in our hindsight. Now the reason I would rather lose this trial is because I am not dissuaded by the lies and propaganda that has wiped out most of my clients. The reason we didn't want the clients involved in our business is because they would make all the errors necessary in their fears to undo the work I was doing. If the clients really knew what I know they would have all come into our trial and blasted the banks and the court for being crooked. My plans have always included this potential betrayal and violent opposition. A guilty plea in the federal system is very well protected by the judge in a way that it always has you making the offer. If you make the offer all they have to do is accept and you're off to their prisons for a rather long time generally. We have been in a constant chess match controlling this particular moment in commerce. I believe Judge Alsup understands that we have this knowledge because he keeps trying to corral us there. Each plea agreement we accepted never had a signature from one making the offer. They always wanted us to sign first. We did but in a commercially safe method. Each of these were refused. In my opening statements I asked the jury to enter a guilty plea on our behalf since we are not able to. The session was paused so that the judge and prosecution could make the offer to us on how they would accept our plea. Their offer was not acceptable so we were forced into a trial. Though this may be a free swing I still don't understand all that God is doing. The eternal treasures are appearing so I am grateful for the course change. If we are found guilty by the jury then I can go before Alsup unhindered by their goal to have me make the offer and await the offer they must now make as part of their usage and customs of trade. If we are acquitted that can be a victory I suppose but at a high price. The other options are a hung jury, mistrial, or a dismissal for various reasons. The political solution, the embarrassment solution, the get rid of the record solution, and who knows how many other dynamics are in the background. I ask you to trust in the Lord I'm trusting in and our enemies will be handed over to us. This device of a trial and criminal prosecution is our remedy and it became the fastest remedy available under the circumstances that availed themselves when we were running Dorean. Many of you have complained to God who is answering your prayers more thoroughly than you can imagine. 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.

338 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 338 of 338
hockeydonn said...

You still have not cited any law or case law to support your theories

hockeydonn said...

The banl cannot loan it's own
capitol nor can it loan other depositors money TO CONSUMERS under the USC.

hockeydonn said...

No one said the legislation wasn't valid or in force. The intent of congress hasn't been confirmed/interpreted until there is an issue arised and the courts make a decision.

hockeydonn said...

It's not that tuff to understand

hockeydonn said...

The money did not come from the banks resources at all. If it did they would be in violation of USC.

hockeydonn said...

The bank CEO during the trial, may CPA's, ex-IRS agents, Lawyers, scholars and many more see that these are not crack pot theories.

hockeydonn said...

The only category that will not have the balls to admit it are the Courts.

hockeydonn said...

I gave you some case law sport. Go check it out and see foryour self. Is it that you are too lazy or what?

hockeydonn said...

You asked meto put up. I put up. When are you going to practice what you preach.

hockeydonn said...

Fiat money has been around longer than this country and you continually dismiss that because you are absolutely ignorant or blantently deceptive.

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent in speaking of Dr. Larry Bates, a banking & financial expert criticizes his credentials:

"I am curious if he actually has any real banking experience other than be the parking lot attendant at their drive up."
________________________________

The moto of the "naysayers" is when you can't discredit a person's expert credentials, YOU MUST ATTACK THEIR INTEGRITY to make them look like a fanatic nut, even if in fact, they aren't THAT.

Notarial Dissent, Of course he doesn't have any experience WHATSOEVER. That's why he was chosen as a CEO of a bank. Anyone knows that. Pardon the sarcasm, but according to the esteemed Judge Bean, I don't understand sarcasm.

Even you would have to admit, going from a parking lot attendant to a CEO is quite a feat & needs to be admired, right? Where's your admiration there in climbing up the ladder of success?

Course everything you say is so factual with no twist on the real truth ever, huh?

You're a total liar AND a MORON and you can't be fair if you were forced to be.

hockeydonn said...

If the bank is the holder of the note why won't they produce the orignal for my or a judges inspection.

hockeydonn said...

Because they do not have it. Why because they gave the original to the Fed and kept only a copy.

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

So the note had value that was worth the amount of credit that I assigned to it with my signature.

hockeydonn said...

The bank took that value and deposited it in their account and loaned it back to me charging interest.

hockeydonn said...

They did not loan anyone elses deposits to me.

hockeydonn said...

The bank can however invest/loan their capitol/notes/depositors money on the secondary markets.

mogel007 said...

The esteemed doctor said: "IF the bank lent you money, it obviously was not yours. Which is why the bank is not required to show in court where the money came from."
___________________________________

Likewise and logically speaking, if you buy stolen property, it's none of the sheriff's business or the courts business to have you return it back to the rightful owner too or where the property really came from.

We need this type of logic and great thought in our politics.

Please vote for the esteemed doctor. He's running for President of the ITA (International Thiefs Association).

Hey, he's got my vote of confidence to make this world a better AND MORE JUST AND FAIR place.

Please return LOGICAL thought back to the market place.

hockeydonn said...

Why did they give it to the fed? Because it was the note that was used for the Fed to issue credit/money. The same as a Federal reserve NOTE.

hockeydonn said...

I too wish you would find out how banking practices work. But since you are going to wait until the bank tells you you'll never know will ya. Your going to have to shed your blinders and robot mentality to see.

hockeydonn said...

Still, I've learned that there is no sense in sitting here talking to a brick. I guess we'll just carry on.

Seriously though, I'll pray for you
Notorial, Mogel and Beans. Heck why not just put us all on the prayer rolls.

chow for now

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent seems to think I am an expert at putting my foot in my mouth, however, here's a real classic by him:

"It is no more your business where the bank got the money they loaned from, than it is the bank’s knowing where you will get the money to repay the loan."
________________________

Really? So if I own shares in a bank, it is none of my business where the banks is getting their money, even if they are getting their money illegally & possibly laundering ill gotten gains? As a shareholder, you are saying IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS? As a credit union member, it is said each account holder is a shareholder of the financial institution, right? You're a moron on "securities law" too.

But the 2nd statement of yours is even stranger: "the bank's knowledge of where you got the money to repay the loan is none of the banks business"

If that's so true in REAL LIFE, since we know how interested you are in the REAL WORLD, why do banks scrutinize the transfer of funds all around the world to make sure they are "CLEAN UNLAUNDERED FUNDS"? Do you really think you can transfer over a million dollars from one place to another without that transfer being scrutinized & BECOMING THE BANKS BUSINESS? Of course you believe it won't be scrutinized because as you say, it's none of the banks business where the monies came from in the real world.

Are they interested where the money comes from or not? You want to rethink your statement where you clearly put your foot in your mouth.

You're saying the banks don't care? What world of delusion do you live in?

mogel007 said...

What is the real world of lending?

http://www.brasschecktv.com/
page/201.html

Anonymous said...

??? befo he became a hokey player, did miroslav satan own a bank??


or was he miro's slave??


or when yo goggle miroslave satan what yo get


---------------------






New York Daily News Satan's PP goal lifts Isles past Devils -

Nov 10, 2007


Uniondale, NY (Sports Network) - Miroslav Satan's third straight game-winning goal propelled the Islanders past the New Jersey Devils, 2-1, ...
Newsday - 81 related articles »
Miroslav Šatan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Miroslav Satan). Jump to: navigation, search ... Satan tied for the team lead in points with 66, shared with captain Alexei Yashin. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miroslav_Satan - 43k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
NHL.com Players
New York Islanders, MIROSLAV SATAN New York Islanders (81). 2006 Olympian. Position:, Right Wing, Shoots:, Left. Height:, 6' 3", Weight:, 191 ...
www.nhl.com/players/8459534.html - 39k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Official website of Miroslav Satan
Buffalo Sabres left wing Miroslav Satan is no stranger to the international hockey tournaments. Satan logged hefty ice time for Slovak National Team and ...
www.mirosatan.sk/satan_eng/main.htm - 2k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
ESPN - New York Islanders News, Schedule, Players, Scores, Stats ...
Miroslav Satan became an unrestricted free agent Sunday after the Buffalo Sabres declined to make a qualifying offer to the team's six-time scoring leader. ...
sports.espn.go.com/nhl/players/profile?playerId=823 - 92k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
ESPN - New York Islanders News, Schedule, Players, Scores, Stats ...
Miroslav Satan has not been involved in any transactions this season. ... Miroslav Satan became an unrestricted free agent Sunday after the Buffalo Sabres ...
sports.espn.go.com/nhl/players/profile?statsId=666 - 93k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Miroslav Satan - New York Islanders - NHL - Yahoo! Sports
The latest stats, facts, news and notes on Miroslav Satan of the New York Islanders.
sports.yahoo.com/nhl/players/666 - 44k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Miroslav Satan's profile at hockeydb.com
Miroslav Satan, Left Wing Born Oct 22 1974 -- Topolcany, Slovakia Height 6.01 -- Weight 195 -- Shoots L. Selected by Edmonton Oilers round 5 #111 overall ...
www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php3?pid=16367 - 13k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Miroslav Satan NHL Hockey at CBSSports.com
Miroslav Satan NHL Hockey player profile pages at CBSSports.com.
www.sportsline.com/nhl/players/playerpage/19146 - 99k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
SI.com - NHL - Miroslav Satan Player Page
SI.com - NHL - Miroslav Satan Player Page - The lastest news, scores, stats as well as truth and rumors and Fantasy news from around the web.
sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hockey/nhl/players/666/ - 68k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

------------------


intersitng numbers from the above search.


born on l. minooti number (22) on their highest witch day month

OCT. 22



"Satan tied for the team lead in points with 66, shared with captain Alexei Yashin. ...


NOTICE NUMBER "66" POINTS

biblical "66"

6- number of a man

66- number of govt.

666- number of perfect man running perfect govt.



team's six-time scoring leader. .


AGIN NUMBER "6"



"sports.espn.go.com/nhl/
players/profile?statsId=666 - 93k -


PLAYER PROFILE NUMBER "666"

WHAT? SOMENONE MAKE THIS SH*T UP???

YO GOOTA BE KIDDING ME, RIGHT, PROFILE NUMBER 666


Height 6.01 -- Weight 195 -- Shoots L. Selected by Edmonton Oilers round 5 #111 overall ...


DRAFTED NUMBER "111"

COME ON?? REEEELY??



sportsillustrated.cnn.com/
hockey/nhl/players/666/ - 68k -



ANTOHER SEPARAT SITE ALTOGETHER USES NUMBER 666 FOR THE PALYER PROFILE

NO SH*T!!

WTF IS UP WITH THAT.

MOST WIL TAKE THESE AS COINCEDANCES, BUT ANY WHO ARE AWARE DO NOT.

OBVIOUSLY, MR. MINOTTI HAS BEEN DILIGENT AT WORK.


YO TELLIN ME 8 YEARS AGO THEY DECIDE TO USE THEY "111" PICK IN THE HOCKEY DRAFT?

MINOTTI HAS OBVIOSLY BEEN AT THIS FOR A WHILE IN PLANNING.

ha. i dun bleeve in coincedances.....

Anonymous said...

oh, yay....alomost forgot the opening para...




Uniondale, NY (Sports Network)

- Miroslav Satan's third straight game-winning goal propelled the Islanders past the New Jersey Devils, 2-1, ...




WHAT TEAM DID THEY PLAY AND HE SCOERD GAME WINNER...


OF CORSE....


"THE DEVILS"



looolololololllol!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

and of course, to make it fun,
i posted this on 11/13 @ 1:33 or 24/7 time is 13:33



lolololololololol!!!!!!!!!




if yo have strong faith like deonims wrote about, then yo dun be scarred of any mere nimbers, no maffer which ones they are....


only thins to worry about is govts., powers, principalties, rulers of darkness....

Anonymous said...

"...only thins to worry about is govts.




yah.....that seem do be a biggie right now.....



no queston, if nor for "the restrainer" that restraineth, (the HS) right now, govt. would no question kill us all.....none way or the nonther.....

mogel007 said...

Here's something that MOST PEOPLE DONT KNOW:

IS THE 5TH NUMBER IN YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER ODD
OR EVEN?

Have you heard anything about Social Security numbers,
and the 5th digit of your SSN?

Supposedly, if you are an African American or a minority, the 5th digit in your SSN is EVEN and ODD if you are white!

It has been said if you take a poll, most African
Americans will have an even 5th digit.

Rumor has it,
some companies are looking at potential employees SSN
to discriminate.

Companies that employ and lenders that lend wouldn't be interested in this information, or WOULD THEY, and the social security administration wouldn't purposely structure something like that, or would they? LOL

Take your own poll and find out if this isn't fantasy.

neodemes said...

Fantasy, it is.

http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/blackssn.asp

Scott from Vineland said...

hockeydonn said...
The note had value to it that was not disclosed to me. The back took that value and deposited it.
_________________________________
Why do you suppose that note had value to it?

Scott from Vineland said...

hockeydonn said...
So the note had value that was worth the amount of credit that I assigned to it with my signature.

__________________________________
Ohhhh, the note had value because it bore the signature of you, hockeydonn. No other reason? Then why don't we all just make a bunch of notes and cash in?

Scott from Vineland said...

Because that note is a promissory note. Operative word, "promissory". The note only has value because it represents a promise by hockeydonn, the maker, to repay under the terms stated therein. If the bank expected you not to repay under the agreed terms, do you still really believe that note would have any value whatsoever? Why do you people not get this part??? Do you still think the bank could sell it if there were no expectation of repayment?

Anonymous said...

ay yo!

who me?


yeah yo!

im talkin to yo!

i tole yo to get reddy.

chef salad maker in whit house,

stop makin salad.

cahnge yo cloths.


an get reddy.


JUS LIKE I SAYED, NOW YO IN LINE TO CHASE DOWN THE NOBODY WANNIT $$$$$$



OK, HAY IT IS.....

prove mayshal, yo OUT!

Chef salad maker, yo IN!


13 November 2007

THE PROVOST MARSHAL MAY NOW BE A CO-CONSPIRATOR




ok, now prove matal taking bribs too.....



HINT: white house shoo shinner, get reddy.

yo next if chef salad maker fails or is krupt too.

shin yo shoos.





I TOLE YO SO.
'

Anonymous said...

woldn it be funny, if they kep chasin the "shame of command" and it leed all the way down to jung beans in his raincoot.

he holdin up the wantum money.


lololololol!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Dr. Caligari said...

hockeydonn said...
The banl cannot loan it's own
capitol nor can it loan other depositors money TO CONSUMERS under the USC.>


Since you researched this yourself, and didn't just get it from some internet website, you could certainly tell me what section of the U.S.C. says so.

I'll wait.

Scott from Vineland said...

hockeydonn said...
If the bank is the holder of the note why won't they produce the orignal for my or a judges inspection.

6:51 AM

hockeydonn said...
Because they do not have it. Why because they gave the original to the Fed and kept only a copy.

6:52 AM
__________________________________
What do banks do with your note? They sell it. Usually to a bigger bank with greater assets and servicing capability. And that bank typically sells it to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac unless it is a non-conforming (ie, jumbo) loan amount, in which case they have to portfolio it (ie, hold it). What makes all you people think the Federal Reserve Bank is in possession of every promissory ever made? Contrary to what some folks apparently believe, FNMA and FHLMC are not synonymous with the Fed.

Scott from Vineland said...

And why won't your bank produce your note for you to inspect? Because they can't afford for something of such value to get lost or "misplaced" in the process of your "inspection". You people talk about your note like it was the same as a Federal Reserve Note. But then you wonder why the evil bankers won't just turn them over for your examination. It's really not that hard to figure out.

Scott from Vineland said...

I think I'll get all my friends to write me a bunch of promissory notes and take them into Wal-Mart and see how well they spend.

Anonymous said...

In order to avoid a catastrophe both for himself and for the entire world, the Provost Marshal General is required to procure the IMMEDIATE payment of the Ambassador’s hijacked and diverted $4.5 trillion TODAY.


The Ambassador has advised us that payment MUST BE MADE TODAY.
----------------------





yo, did yo HEAR THAT!!??


i talkin to the guy taht puts up the whit haus krismas trees.

yo need to get the meony TODAY.


SO, FOGET PUTTIN UP THE KRITMAS TREE AND MOOOOVE YO *SS AND GET THE WANTLESS MONEY.


YO HEEER ME!


NOW MOOOOOOVE!

Anonymous said...

NOW YO LISEN UP:


THE GUY THAT REFILL THE PAPER CLIPS IN THE WHITE HOUSE CONTAIENERS.



BE ON STAND-BY 24/7


YO MAY BE CALLED TO DOOTY.


KEP YO SELL FON ON AT AL TIMS.


SUM GUY NAM WANNA MYBE CALLIN ON YO.


LIKE THE RETARD OF OX SAY:


WANNA MAY CALL ON YO TO


"PERFOM A SMALL TASK"


(PS YO PROBLY GOT A BERTER CHANCE GET THE BROMSTICK FROM THE WINCH OF THE WEST THAN TO GET THE WANNA $$$$)

MAYBE DOROTHY CAN HELP YO WITH THIS.

Anonymous said...

ok, ok, yo got me!


gee, yo guys are good.



i will give back the 4.5T that yo put in my account.

i admint, it was my account that was "fickshus"


but, can i at lest kep 100Millons??

plessse!


pretty plessse!

i promis i wont coss any tubble!








WANTA $4.5 TRILLION PAID INTO A FICTIOUS ACCOUNT





According to sources (who have confirmed what follows) other than the Ambassador and Michael C. Cottrell, M.S., between 3.00 and 4.00 a.m. on Saturday morning 10th November, Citibank remitted the $4.5 trillion belonging to Ambassador Lee Wanta that had been unlawfully withheld from him since June 2006, to Morgan Stanley, New York.



----------------


btw, next sop we out of the WH.

so,

WH imployess:

gardner

tree cutter

guy that cut the grass, aka. landscraper

guy that repairs the lawn moaners


be on sandby:

Anonymous said...

sorry.

forgot to give the codes yo can get the $$$ back:


F.A.F.S. 34-82990-0RTE88-GXZ


SWIFT # 11920-99

ABA "sopsmoney"



if yo nedd any more bank cordinates, just lemee no......

mogel007 said...

What J.A.I.L. Would Have Prevented
by Lawrence Agee, MD



Dear Ron,

If JAIL had existed 10 years ago, my home would not now be in foreclosure. I am about to lose $350,000 of equity because of a sham judgment lien placed on my home. This lien was literally created out of thin air by a judge. He denied me due process in a divorce (7 month marriage). I sued him. His defense? "I'm immune."

JAIL would prohibit:
["no immunities shielding a judge from frivolous and harassing actions shall be construed to extend to"] j4j
any deliberate violation of law
fraud or conspiracy
intentional violation of due process of law
deliberate disregard of material allegations
judicial acts without jurisdiction
blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case
or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of [state] or the United States.
I alleged all of these things in my lawsuit against this judge. My lawsuit was dismissed on the grounds of "judicial immunity." No other defense was raised by the judge. He never denied he did those things I accused him of. It would have been hard to deny what was clearly obvious in a transcript.

Also, if JAIL existed then, I would not be unemployed for the last 7 years. After my lawsuit was "denied" from the US Supreme court, I was retaliated against. Can I prove retaliation? Yes, I can, with my evidence.

They took my money (wired it out of my accounts), they took my home (sham foreclosure, theft by lien, 12% interest on a phony debt). Then to completely ruin me, they took from me my career as a doctor. Soon, I will be back to living in my van....and wondering, wondering when this nightmare will end.

For those of you who think we don't need this legislation, look what they were able to do to me. It took them less than one hour in a "court of law" to ruin me. If they could rob me and cheat me at will, they can do it to you. if you challenge them, as it stands now, all they need to do is say: "you can't touch me, 'cuz I'm immune."

Lawrence Agee, MD
Lcagee@aol.com

Anonymous said...

AND.....

if anynone see taht guy that was levitating outside the WH on penn avenyu, let me no.


maybe he can help wanna???


afta all, if can lemitate, maybe he can letivate some $$$$ from these locked acouunts with wanna $$$$ in them.



rember the guy that i posted a video about on theis blaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhg.

Anonymous said...

important lesson here:



from turnips site:
(thanx for posting this to allow a lesson the be taught)



CHRISTIANS SPIT UPON BY JEWS IN JERUSALEM;
COMMON PRACTICE BY ULTRA ORTHODOX JEWS

You gotta love this story. Jews are constantly whining about everyone else being sensitive and tolerant. Yet as the TWO stories below prove (again) Jews themselves are the single most hateful, intolerant people on earth.

I advocate SPITTING ON JEWS when anyone sees them on the street. Let's all start spitting on jews immediately. I myself am doing it starting today. In fact, I think we ought to line up outside every local Synagogue every Saturday and spit on the jews who enter. Then spit on them again as they leave. If this sbehavior is good enough for jews in Israel to do to Christians, then it must be good enough for Christians to do to jews. Let's get it done.

Story from Israeli Newspaper Haarestz

Story from International Herald Tribune





1) yo dont know if the story is true


2)ever hear of CIA, INTEL AGIENCIS, ETC.

3) ever hear of agent provocateurs


these could be responsible for this

turnip, you could throw on a scullcap, pretend you are jewish and make the jews look bad, no??


after all the above, even if true and real jews did it, so waht??

didnt yeshua say to "bless those who persecute you, and do spit(e)ful things to you??

so, even if they did it, you are called to turn the other cheek

true taht jews do not beleive on yeshua, but you think YESHUA lookin on from heaven would approve you spitting on jews, do you??????


i mean, can you picture this???

this deserve a lolo!


"...yeshua, come on, let go over there and spit on some jews (of which yeshua was one) i let you go first"



sure, i will go first...

"get thee behind me"



thanx hal for allowing an instructive lesson here.

Anonymous said...

hal turner said...




"Let's all start spitting on jews immediately. I myself am doing it starting today."




reely??

let me tell you sumting fo yo own good,


YOU DONT WANT TO INCUR YESHUAs WRATH, BELEIVE ME!


how can anyone trust you to straighten out the govt. if you are gong to talk like this?????????????


yo as dangersous as those yo are criminalizing.



"trusted in small things, then later can be trusted with MUCH BIGGER THINGS"

Anonymous said...

goota get rid o the HATE, my friend.


it no good fo yo.


will eat yo up isside. :-(

Anonymous said...

lots of good stuff there, BUT this is def a MUST READ with dynomite fotos:



Photos Support Claims That George H. Scherf(f), Jr., was the 41st U.S. President



http://www.fourwinds10.com/
siterun_data/government/
fraud/gw_bush_ghw_bush/
news.php?q=1195005652




(copy/paste one line at a time to yo blowser)

Anonymous said...

WOW!!!


reading some of the article agian is.....



BLOCKBUSTER STUFF!!!!!!



YO GOTTA READ IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

notorial dissent said...

consolidated hockeypuck nonsense follows:
The note had value to it that was not disclosed to me.
The only value your note had was as a promise of repayment of the loan that you got to purchase the property and unless secured by the property only so much more birdcage liner. It’s value was disclosed, it was surety for the money loaned you.

The banl cannot loan it's own capitol nor can it loan other depositors money TO CONSUMERS under the USC.
By all means, please provide the statute. You won’t, there is none. This is the way banks have always carried on business, which if you knew anything about banking you would have known. Otherwise, the usual nonsense.

The intent of congress hasn't been confirmed/interpreted until there is an issue arised and the courts make a decision.
More nonsense, the court’s role is to interpret, not confirm, they have the added ability of being able to say a law is not valid, it is not a confirmation.

The money did not come from the banks resources at all. If it did they would be in violation of USC.
Please post the statute, otherwise more nonsense. Banks are primarily regulated by the states not the Fed, so again your knowledge is lacking.

The bank CEO during the trial, may CPA's, ex-IRS agents, Lawyers, scholars and many more see that these are not crack pot theories.
If there is some tiny trace of a coherent thought here, please lead it out of the dark, it is lonesome, and the answer is sure there are.

I gave you some case law sport.
You presented a melange of unrelated cases, none of which have anything to do with what you are nattering on about. Other than saying that you have to have valid and complete information to take action you have proven nothing.

Fiat money has been around longer than this country and you continually dismiss that because you are absolutely ignorant or blantently deceptive.
Strange, I don’t remember ever saying one word on that subject.

If the bank is the holder of the note why won't they produce the orignal for my or a judges inspection.
You have yet to present any proof to the contrary.

Because they do not have it. Why because they gave the original to the Fed and kept only a copy.
And why would they have given the original to the Fed, when it is of no value without the DOT, and since you present no evidence that anyone other than the actual holder has ever tried to collect you have in fact proven nothing.

So the note had value that was worth the amount of credit that I assigned to it with my signature.
BS. The note is only of value as evidence of the debt you owe for the funds loaned, and is only of value for moneys to come in over time.

The bank took that value and deposited it in their account and loaned it back to me charging interest.
More nonsense, and evidence of your lack of knowledge of accounting. The bank increased the value of their loan portfolio acct when they made the loan and decreased their cash on hand acct. The transactions match, credit to the loan portfolio, debit to the cash account.

They did not loan anyone elses deposits to me.
Sure they didn’t.

The bank can however invest/loan their capitol/notes/depositors money on the secondary markets.
They can invest their funds in any way not prohibited by law, up to an including making direct loans.

Why did they give it to the fed? Because it was the note that was used for the Fed to issue credit/money.
Who says they gave it to the Fed, based on what evidence. The note and DOT go together as a package. The Fed would have no use for a real estate note other than as collateral for a loan to the bank, and the bank would have to redeem their pledge or the note and DOT would be sold to another holder, but they wouldn’t be separated.

I too wish you would find out how banking practices work.
You could do something novel like crack an economics or accounting or banking practices manual, or take a class in banking mechanics, but then you wouldn’t get the answer you want.


Moogey don’t open your mouth too wide your feet will fall out Notarial Dissent in speaking of Dr. Larry Bates, a banking & financial expert criticizes his credentials:
When I can’t find any record of someone of such supposed prominence in their field, and the only record I can find of them is on their own websites puffing whatever snakeoil they are peddling currently I tend to dismiss them for the frauds and charlatans they are. Curiously, I found several different sites that couldn’t seem to agree on what the “good” Dr’s credentials actually were. So if you have something to add, please do, but I do find that there is no traceable reference to the good Dr other than what he is spreading about. Like I said Moogs, if you can find something verifiable, then please post it. I’ve looked and haven’t found anything so far, and until I do he remains another con-artist out plucking the dim and bewildered. You might look at the sites involved, as they don’t much inspire one to feelings of confidence either.

Moogey’s mouth is moving, we can tell by the nonsense dribbling out of it The esteemed doctor said: "IF the bank lent you money, it obviously was not yours. Which is why the bank is not required to show in court where the money came from."

Moogs, you are making even less sense than usual here.

Ah Moogey, ever ready to twist one thing into something else and then pretend he is being profound So if I own shares in a bank, it is none of my business where the banks is getting their money, even if they are getting their money illegally & possibly laundering ill gotten gains?
Gee Moogs, did I say anything about you being a stockholder, NOOOO, I don’t think so.... There is a world of difference between being a shareholder, and being a customer. Again, Moogs, I never said anything about Credit Unions either, but with your astounding ability to read a balance sheet, I don’t suspect any CU you have anything to do with will be long in business. Don’t seem to remember saying anything about securities law either, so your point is????? However, in answer to your poorly framed remark, unless you happen to be on the management or audit committee of the CU you have no special responsibility, unless you happen to have special knowledge pertaining to the organization.

Again Moogs, was I talking about deposits, NOOOOOO, I was talking about paying off a loan. Now if you choose to pay in cash, you may come under scrutiny if the payment is large enough, but don’t flatter yourself, you’ll never have to worry about the currency requirements. Nice try at deflection, but like all the others, it falls flat.

As long as you pay your loan on time, the bank doesn’t care if you got the funds working a corner, panhandling on the boardwalk, or bilking innocent suckers with whatever mortgage elimination scheme you are peddling this week.

And then just for good measure Moogey demonstrates just how gullible he really is Here's something that MOST PEOPLE DONT KNOW: ...Supposedly, if you are an African American or a minority, the 5th digit in your SSN is EVEN and ODD if you are white!

notorial dissent said...

Actually if you want case law, check out the Fed Civil case dim and dimmer lost, along with all the state injunctions and court losses, that will do for civil to start with, then have Moogs give you all the case numbers from around the country of all the Dorean victims who have lost their homes when the courts ruled their arguments were nothing but fumes. And then lastly you can review cr-05-00611 which is criminal dealing with the same matter.

Anonymous said...

"Japan now has a satellite in orbit around our moon and are sending back high def photos and video ...

remember me talking about independent 3rd party verification of the alleged apollo moon landings ...

are we about to face "reality" regarding this issue ...

the main science topics include recent "cleansing" of science on the internet and discussion of google and wikipedia joining forces to create the largest web of disinformation the world has ever know ...

you do not have to pass a law to restrict the internet ...

all you have to do is gain control of these two entities and ... WALA ... you have a lot of "power" at your disposal ...

but the last few weeks has seen a real surge of putting up new "disinformation" as well as a cleansing of the web

Anonymous said...

DISGUSTING!!!!


so this is waht it come to???


may yeshua come QUICKLY!




Updated 13 November 2007 2131 HRS EDT


80,000 RESERVE U.S. TROOPS CALLED-UP FOR IRAN INVASION
UNDERGOING SPECIAL TRAINING;

EVEN HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT FOR JANUARY DEPLOYMENT

Word has reached my ear that the USA will, in fact, invade Iran in January. The U.S. has quietly called-up eighty thousand (80,000) reserve troops and is presently retraining them in specialized combat tactics. One strange aspect of this training is that military is using adult pigs to allow troops to practice slitting throats in hand-to-hand combat. The live pigs are being used to simulate cutting human throats, with the amount of pressure needed, the feel of skin, sinew and muscles to be cut and the spray of warm blood hitting troops in the face.

I am told this action will NOT be simply air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, but an actual invasion with ground troops.

habakkuk said...

Notorial Dessent said...."When I can’t find any record of someone of such supposed prominence in their field, and the only record I can find of them is on their own websites puffing whatever snakeoil they are peddling currently I tend to dismiss them for the frauds and charlatans they are."
___________________________________


Dr. Larry Bates is an Economist, Author, Editor of Economic magazine, Publisher...If you have been studying this stuff for any length of time you should have at least heard of this guy.

If you're interested in hearing Larry Bates here's an interview:

http://www.sidroth.org/site/News2?abbr=rad_&page=NewsArticle&id=5443

But BE WARNED, he may use the name JESUS a few times and i know that scares some people on this blog.

mogel007 said...

Scott from Fantasyland said: And why won't your bank produce your note for you to inspect? Because they can't afford for something of such value to get lost or "misplaced" in the process of your "inspection".
________________________________

And yet, despite their alleged great efforts to keep the note safe, when someone files in court to prove the original existence of the note is not with the existing lender, most often the lender will STILL SAY IT'S BEEN LOST OR MISPLACED & in court will end up showing only a copy of the note and the Judge will usually go along with that. Go figure.

Course we all knowing showing a note under security present, and losing a note is tantamount to the same because that's what Scott is saying. Obviously Scott from Fantasyland is not very creative, because the note COULD be shown by a escrow company who is in the business of protecting both parties, BUT OH NO, THAT'S TOO MUCH OF A RADICAL & INNOVATIVE IDEA TO PRESENT.

If a borrower went to the lender's office to see the note where in fact it can't be stolen, the lender would STILL NOT SHOW IT TO YOU, because the original note has already been long gone & already sold for value.

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "Don’t seem to remember saying anything about securities law either, so your point is?????
________________________________

My point is that you are too stupid to understand that "mortgaged backed paper" IS sold as securities in the secondary markets. Must I say everything & spell out everything for you? I know you are smarter than you lead people to believe.

If the note & the deed of trust are INTERTWINED as you say, since they are sold in the secondary markets as securities, than, security laws apply, but I guess that's too deep for you to follow.

Remember Kurt's past blog that promissory notes are "securities" NOT a "negotiable instrument" & there is a world of difference between the two & the reasons why he said that? If you don't understand that, than go back & read Kurt's blog on the subject matter.

Every meaning seems to be needed to be spelled out to you and verbally defined I guess.

Since you have trouble understanding the fiduciary responsibilities & obligations of a bank, like the legal obligation to disclose and protect depositors, I can understand why you still have a difficult time understanding what a "security" really is.

For someone that can't even tell the difference between a "subrogation bond" and a "surety bond", I will give you a little slack, since you are a little slow in understanding that difference too.

Course listening isn't your greatest skill either. No one said that "real estate" and the UCC go together. You seem to think that real estate and a promissory note which is personal property, NOT REAL PROPERTY, are the same thing too. Go figure. Or maybe it's just your way of twisting the truth of what people DIDN'T SAY.

As for Dr. Bates, the fact that you admit he was a representative in the State of Tennessee, despite the ignorance of your friends that say otherwise, shows that he isn't some dim witted person with no past or no credentials. Don't forget he was also a CEO of a major bank.

I'm sure if you want more information on Dr. Bates, the man I would suggest for the job would be Nemo. I'm sure he can find all about his family, where they work, what the names are of their family, phone numbers, emails, and whatever you need. I'm sure he'll do a thorough google search for you on whatever you want to know about Dr. Larry Bates. And if that isn't good enough, I'm sure Pauligirl could find much more than you're even capable of ever finding.

Here's a little hint... When you can't get all of the research you need, ASK FOR HELP.

Anonymous said...

i thins that tehy cuverin up fo jung beans, who reely hole the key to the wampum $$$$



watch out jung beens, these gees are relly upset bout this.



don take off yo raincoot, o they mite hang yo by yo bowls.....


frosted flaks anynone???


OUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCHHHHHH!

Dr. Caligari said...

As for Dr. Bates... Don't forget he was also a CEO of a major bank.

Which bank?

Anonymous said...

speaking of cereal, yo no that in ancient times, when yo was called in front of the triburinal, yo had to "testify"


the root word of "to tesify"
meens that yo had to stand in front of the triburinal and give yo testimony while yo was holdin yo bowls....


this is true.


dont no why, but its true.


the root word of test' ify is obviously, "tentacles"

so, yo had to hold on to yo tentacles while yo 'testify'


sometin jung beans no about, he sit behing the bench in a raincoot with holes in the pokets, an all the does is play with his tentacles....



what jeenious invented this form of testimoney???


seriously, that is f****d up.


maybe an expert on it like jung beans can tell us how that came to be????

neodemes said...

Moogie insists:

"most often the lender will STILL SAY IT'S BEEN LOST OR MISPLACED & in court will end up showing only a copy of the note and the Judge will usually go along with that."

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

Do you happen to have an actual court case w/transcripts to back up what is otherwise a presumptive statement?

Has anyone heard what the current status of the trial is?

Scott from Vineland said...

Moogie said...
If a borrower went to the lender's office to see the note where in fact it can't be stolen, the lender would STILL NOT SHOW IT TO YOU, because the original note has already been long gone & already sold for value.
___________________________________
And you have tried this personally?

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent says in reference to Dr. Larry Bates: "I find it curious, in the not surprising sense, that the only thing you can find on the esteemed gentleman is his own puffery, that and an article in Wiki would seem to pass as a fine bona fides in some circles. I actually did find the verification that he had served in the Tennessee House. I am curious if he actually has any real banking experience other than be the parking lot attendant at their drive up."
________________________________

Well, doing a google search, there is 1.51 million hits that come up.
I guess you must have checked out every hit then, huh? You did make an honest effort didn't you? YOu did exhaust all of the resources out there to find out completely about him, didn't you? OF COURSE YOU DIDN'T.

Course you didn't even attend the trial in person to hear him testify, & you already had an opinion about him THAT HIS TESTIMONY WOULD BE MEANINGLESS.
LOL LOL LOL

Course you're slipping though!!!! An article in Wiki gives him credibility even by your own admission. I'll assume that admission on your part was a mistake though. LOL

mogel007 said...

The fact of the matter is Dr. Larry Bates is considered an expert on many subjects in many circles. He is paid as a lecturer, author, and has been on radio shows & has given presentations around the country.

The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what evidence or testimony is shown, the naysayers will still have their prejudicial opinion on what reality is & in the end, will still not be moved.

Course Notarial Dissent seems to think he knows more than Dr. Larry Bates.

Hey, Notarial Dissent, do you have Dr. at the head of your name?

Didn't think so.

Scott from Vineland said...

I'm not saying that Notes are not sold, Moogie. Nor am I saying that Notes have no value. But I'm going to say this again for the umpteenth friggin time...that value is based solely on the maker's promise to repay the Note. Apart from this, there IS NO VALUE. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

Scott from Vineland said...

And of course you can't walk into the 1st National Bank of Hooterville and see your original Note. This is a concept almost too stupid to address. But if you really want to see your original Note that badly, try getting a court order for for Wells Fargo or Chase or BofA (or FNMA) to produce it. Of course I can save you the trouble because I already know what it says: "Pay to the order of: (insert name of BIG EVIL BANK or MORTGAGE COMPANY here) without recourse". Signed, Dewey Cheatam, Vice President, 1st National Bank of Hooterville.
And this is what you people are so upset about? I think some of y'all really need to get laid.

near the end said...

Hey Scott why don't you go "FUCK YOURSELF."

Anonymous said...

dun trust weakipeedia....even jung bowls can post as* an orthorty there....govts. favoirte sorce to edit weakipeedia to make yo think how they want yo to think.




Thought Control Department, II

Yeah, I source Wikipedia a lot around here - darned useful source for all kinds of information and all, but there's a level to it you need to be aware of.

It is a list of "anonymous Wikipedia edits from interesting organizations." Top government departments (or computers therein)

re-editing wiki's: NASA, the Veterans Affairs folks, state of California, and the Department of Homeland Security. See the "most common .gov's" list.

Or, democrats 55 edits,
republicans 129 if I read it right.



Other resources: Wired has been tracking some of this rewrite the net wikis stuff, too.



Now, this isn't to say that organizations, such as government agencies and specific corporations are deliberately doing wiki revisions. But, when IP's (internet protocol numeric addresses [go read up on the OSI model]) are pinged, they seem to come back to the addresses tabulated on that edit tracking site. And the edits may come from just plain folks, not some kind of grand conspiracy.



And, to take that even one step further, could this all be IP spoofing by some very clever 'other party'? Oh, uh, sure. Still, it's a data point to keep in mind: even in the open world of the internet's wikis, there's the potential/reality of a lot of edits by editors who may have a vested interest in a little 'thought forming'.

mogel007 said...

Scott says: "value is based solely on the maker's promise to repay the Note. Apart from this, there IS NO VALUE. Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?"
__________________________________

The maker of the note was qualified & approved for the loan long before the promissory note was sold, so apparently you're logic holds no water because the note is sold regardless of whether the maker of the note challenges the loan or not after the sale of the note.

The lender made his fee and GOT PAID paid regardless of what you think & regardless of whether there is value or not. SINCE THE LENDER GOT PAID, THERE IS VALUE.

What is so difficult about that to grasp? And I'll only say it once.

mogel007 said...

Near the End said: Hey Scott why don't you go "FUCK YOURSELF."
__________________________________

I think he's too busy doing it to his "so called friends" of early childhood.

With friends like him, WHO NEEDS ENEMIES??????

mogel007 said...

Scott said: "Of course I can save you the trouble because I already know what it says: "Pay to the order of: (insert name of BIG EVIL BANK or MORTGAGE COMPANY here) without recourse". Signed, Dewey Cheatam, Vice President, 1st National Bank of Hooterville.
And this is what you people are so upset about?"
________________________________

How about misrepresentation and forgery and changing the intent of the original agreement for starters?

Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dr. Caligari said...

How about misrepresentation and forgery and changing the intent of the original agreement for starters?

What was misrepresented?
What was forged?
What part of the intent of the original agreement was changed?

Sphinx Forex said...

Jury came back with guilty verdict on all counts including Obstruction of Justice.

Johnson did not show a reaction to verdicts and Heineman was visibly shaken.

Princess1975 said...

I said I would be back one more time to say just one thing to Moogie......I TOLD YOU SO!!!
I know...there is ALWAYS the APPEAL right? Good luck with that!

neodemes said...

justice7777777 said...

Jury came back with guilty verdict on all counts including Obstruction of Justice.

Johnson did not show a reaction to verdicts and Heineman was visibly shaken.

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

Well, so much for self-proclaimed prophets and the wind bags that fill their balloons.

Let's hear no more false promises regarding administrative judgments.

Speaking of judgments, it seems to me there are still some brokers in possession of assets who aren't 'going away'.

Dorean Victims Unite

Anonymous said...

justice7777777 said...

Jury came back with guilty verdict on all counts including Obstruction of Justice.

Johnson did not show a reaction to verdicts and Heineman was visibly shaken.






even if this ever was to hoppens, they win by "losing"


thay sayed so thaysefs....

Anonymous said...

btw, not to distrac yo to much, but anonone no that on nov. 27th, thay havin a BIG POW WOW in appelis md to affirm the oslo accords peace treety???



apackolips near?? now??


"...and the (AC) shall confirm the pact with israel..."



pack yo bags...

goin' up???

"yes, top flo, pleeze..."



they got dg programs in hayven??????

Anonymous said...

and also btw, yo no that comet holmes is now the LARGEST VISUAL OBJECT in the sola sytem.


larger than the sun, even.

check it out.


its low on the horzion near the constellation perseus.


could this be the comet wormwood of book of revelation????


it will turn the water so bitter, that alomost evrynone will die, even junge beans....





if it is, take yo dg money and buy a space shuffle and shuttle of to the moony.

Anonymous said...

and if was dg, i would say...



"i dun care what junge beans say, becasue "I won" and if no, then i will take marbles and go home. HA!"

Anonymous said...

well, i can now leeve this blaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhg in good hansel til tomorry.


leeve it the "night pasters"


was that song.."they only come out at nite"

neodemes said...

Good night. Maybe someone will delete you while you're gone.

neodemes said...

In case you missed it, Byron, I replied to your diatribe in the previous blog thread:

Conversation With A Mormon

There isn't much left to talk about at this blog, but, if you can be civil, you are welcome to continue the conversation there.

Don't be a stranger, eh?

(P.S. - SOPs need not apply)

Leo said...

Judge,
It would seem that the basis of all this is whether or not there was full disclosure within the mortgage contracts.A mortgage contract is no different than any other contract in this respect. Namely, if the borrower was led to believe by the broker that they were the "lender" of the funds, and through implication had a risk, therefore charging interest for the use of "their" money and the accompanying risk, and they in fact were not in fact the provider of the funds, and in fact had no risk, then the borrower was intentionally mislead as to true nature of the transaction.

One must agree if the funds put forth actually came from a lender, and that actual lender is the broker or bank purporting to be the lender, then of course it is no ones business where the bank or lender got those funds.
The problem of full disclosure arises when ALL information required to make the decision to enter into the mortgage agreement, is not forth coming when the one side had certain knowledge of what was really happening in the transaction and withheld that full disclosure so both parties had full understanding of every part of the transaction and therefore entered into it with FULL knowledge of everything involved. If a borrower does not know everything about the transaction how can it be said there was an unrestricted meeting of the minds? If one side withholds information such that if the other side were in possession of that knowledge, he may have not wished to enter into the contract, then that meets the definition of fraud in the inducement, pure and simple.

In such an event, any contract between those parties is null and unenforceable. If it was incumbent and a duty on the so called lender to reveal certain facts and they did not, then due to the "lenders" in these mortgage contracts being corporations, the creation of fraudulent contracts constitutes an ultra vire, again vitiating any such contract. "The law leaves a wrongdoer where it finds them, and they may not profit from their wrongdoing".

I truly believe that many borrowers even if told the whole and complete truth would enter into these contracts anyway.
The problem is, they WERE NOT! And there lies the rub. It is hard to believe that a borrower wants whatever is offered so badly that under the real particulars of modern banking they would agree to such a screwing, but I suspect that many, if not most, would.

We have heard many times the bank "didn't lend me anything". Actually they did. True enough, its source was the promissory note, which is never revealed, but once that note is stamped "pay to the order of" and deposited in the borrowers deposit account, the bank has monitzed it and created a transactional account creating bookentry "money". Perfectly legal in banking. Once that has been done, the book entry " money" is the banks and if it issues a check from that account, it does come from "their money", does it not? Of course they have a liability to the depositor in that amount, and those bookentry funds become assets of the bank to do whatever they want with them.

However, the next part becomes very tricky because let us not forget the bank has a liability to the depositor exactly the same as cash. Now the question arises, when does the depositor get his cash represented by his deposit account? When is it, or was it revealed by the bank that they converted, without his knowledge, his promissory note into a cash deposit in his name?
Where in banking law does it say that a depositor is less than an entitlement holder of that deposit account, and if so, under what conditions?
Now, if the bank writes a check and places it into the escrow from the transaction account created by the act of conversion of the promissory note, in order to pay the seller, has not that check come from bank "funds"? Yes, of course it has. However, does not the altering of a negotiable instrument without the knowledge and permission of the creator of the instrument, void the instrument? If so, could it not be said that at that point forward it all becomes fruit from a poisoned tree?

Worse yet is that the bank or broker as the case may be, then sells the mortgage for cash to someone else! Fannie Mae, Ginny Mae, or ?? That is a very valuable piece of paper, that mortgage. So what did the bank give for that valuable piece of paper for which they receive cash? The buyer has left escrow without any problem, he has the banks check and deposits it in his bank. The buyer is sitting with a mortgage he assumes was created through borrowing someone else's money so the seller could be paid. But where are his offsetting deposit funds that he doesn't even know he has?

Either give him his deposit funds or the cash received for the mortgage from the purchaser of the mortgage in exchange for the buyers promise to pay according to the terms of the mortgage. It's his mortgage that was sold wasn't it?
This whole thing would seem a lot more legitimate if the money received by the bank from selling the mortgage was the source of the funds given the seller because that money came from a lender. It was their money and they are at risk if it isn't paid back. But what risk does the bank have here? They used the transaction account to pay the seller. So have they not been unjustly enriched through the sale of the mortgage and not giving the money to the property buyer who gave them the mortgage under what is clearly false pretenses? Why should the bank keep the money from the sale? Why doesn't the bank inform the buyer of the property in this transaction he has a very large cash deposit at the bank, when the bank knows it?
None of this is EVER revealed to the buyer so he could make an informed decision if he wants to go along with such an arrangement. Is he told how long it will be before his monthly payments will be applied to the principal of the loan or that almost all of his payment for years will go to pay interest only? Where is all this laid out in the original loan documents? The answer of course is, it is not revealed, and that non-disclosure is intentional.
How can anyone say that this does not have the unmistakable smell of FRAUD?

Leo said...

notorial dissent,
Excuse me for correcting you, but a bank CANNOT LEND DEPOSITORS FUNDS. The depositor is the entitlement holder and those funds may not be jeopardized in any way. A bank cannot lend depositors funds or lend credit. They can borrow funds from somewhere else, like the Fed Reserve and then lend it out, or only use funds of their own. Book entry " money" created from promissory notes are the banks assets, and that they can lend it because it is theirs.
Leo

Leo said...

Scott,
I'm afraid you are incorrect. A plaintiff suing for money must present the original note to prove they are the holder in due course. If they can produce it, the original, not a copy, they have proven to the court they have standing to bring forth the case. Without it, they have no standing to bring suit, therefore the court has no jurisdiction for there is no valid plaintiff. If anyone could go into court and claim someone owes them money without producing the original note and you paid them, what happens next week when someone else claims you owe them for the same debt? The reason no bank ever (or almost never) produces the original note is they have sold it to someone else for money. The other fellow has the note and holds unto it dearly, for without it he cannot make a valid claim for collection, or sell it to the next fellow.
Leo
----- Original Message -----

Leo said...

Moogl007
A judge has no immunity if he steps outside the bounds of his duties covered by his oath. If he does, you demand him to recuse, if he refuses, you appeal his failure to recuse to head of the judicial circuit. Bet if you check, you might find he had no oath of office when he handled your case, and if so, the judgment is void. Also if he had no oath on file, he is guilty of acting under color of law and he is really cooked. Look into it, all is not lost. He would be liable in his private capacity and his bond is also invalid if he was not properly oathed at the time.
Leo

Leo said...

SOPSBACK,
Gotta read what please? This post gives no article
Leo

Leo said...

Neodeems,
It is true that when asking for a plaintiff to produce the original note, invariably they will say it has been lost, stolen, burned up in a fire, misplaced or produce a copy asking the court to validate it for the purpose of the case. You had better NOT let them get away with that. Object, and do not consent to allow the judge to accept it. If you do, your screwed! If you don't, they are screwed for they have no way to prove they are the holder of the note. It must be the original, not a copy, if they can't come up with it, which they can't, you ask for a dismissal for failure to prove standing.
Leo
----- Original Message -----

Leo said...

Scott from vineland,
The lender doesn't have the original note, it went with the mortgage bundle, (if your talking about mortgages)
Leo

neodemes said...

Leo said...

"Is he told how long it will be before his monthly payments will be applied to the principal of the loan or that almost all of his payment for years will go to pay interest only?Where is all this laid out in the original loan documents? The answer of course is, it is not revealed, and that non-disclosure is intentional."

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

Leo,

Its refreshing to see polite discussion.

In regard to your question, however, all loans I've utilized come with an amortization schedule which clearly depict principle/interest payments with total costs. Even without them it would be very easy to figure out the cost based on loan amount, interest amount and term of loan.

Even if everything you spelled out were exactly right, Dorean's scheme had the fatal flaw of premeditated re-finance in full belief and knowledge of the alleged situation you described, with intent to enrich the principals, brokers, agents and home owners.

If you smell a fraud, it just might be coming from the Dorean scow that just got scuttled.

Take care.

notorial dissent said...

Actually Moogs it would help if you were even a bit coherent once in a while. Not that we were talking about "mortgaged backed paper", but so what. You don’t need to spell anything out, wouldn’t want to strain your delicate constitution, but it would help if you would at least stick to any one topic without expecting people to read your mind. And yet again, you are wrong and exhibit your ignorance. The note and DOT, if bundled they are merely commodities backing the actual security. Big whoop!!! Depending on how they are handled will determine what laws govern, but so what??? There is no difference between selling blocks/pools of mortgage paper and individual pieces. If you have a point please try and come to it.

Hate to break it too you Moogs, but your hero got that one wrong too. A PN, like a check, is a negotiable instrument, not a security. Stocks and bonds are securities. Other than that he was making it up as he went along, I neither know nor care. He was still wrong.

Poor Moogs, wasting a perfectly good rant on a topic that wasn’t even under discussion, but just as well since he doesn’t have a clue about what he is talking about.

Just what pray tell is the bank not disclosing to their depositors, that they are a bank??? that they are in the business of loaning money???? that the money comes from deposits of one kind of another from their depositors, or investments that bank has made in one form or another??? Don’t tell me you slept through basic economics like you did through the ethics and history classes you snored through??

Moogems, two teeny little problems. One the term "subrogation bond" as you insist on using it does not exist in anyone’s mind other than your’s and Kurt’s. The way you both use it, it comes across as a surety bond, which is an insurance product. Irrelevant in any case since none existed.

Again Moogs, your penchant for trying to twist things to say what you want them to say gets tiresome and repetitious. I said that real estate transactions DO NOT come under the UCC. I never anything about real property and the note being the same thing, you’ve sniffing your socks again, and you are really going to have to quit, you’ve suffered quite enough brain damage as it is. If you are going to misquote me, at least have the courtesy to be a little more original.

As to Larry Bates, I said I had found an independent reference to him being in the TN legislature, a far cry from saying it was true. The rest of his credentials do not check out, his title was apparently awarded by a small diploma mill, he has no academic qualifications to claim to be an economist, and his banking credentials are not verifiable. What is verifiable is that he attaches himself to wingnut religious groups, paytriot and fringe radio talk shows, and websites that sell every variety of snake oil imaginable. Curiosly his name does not show up in any of the banking reference I have been able to check, so that does not bode well either. I do know that he spends most of his time with the crackpot looney toon the world is coming to an end fringy groups, and that is verifiable. So I would not say his bona fides amount to much at this stage of the game. If you have anything concrete to add please feel free.

quoting Scott from Vinland And you have tried this personally?
Scott, expecting Moogs to actually do any real research is an exercise in futility. If he can’t find it on the internet he isn’t interested, he is much more interested in apochryphal stories that are unprovable.

quoting Moogey making a further fool of himself Well, doing a google search, there is 1.51 million hits that come up.
Actually Moogs if you do it right there are about 364 actual hits, most of whom are not the infamous “Dr Larry”. I do at least know how to set a search that is useful. Actually, a fraud testifying for two con artists pretty well sums it up. Moogs, an article in Wiki is right up there with Kurt’s protestations of innocence, of no probative value whatsoever.

quoting Moogey rattling on without actually knowing what he is talking about The fact of the matter is Dr. Larry Bates is considered an expert on many subjects in many circles. He is paid as a lecturer, author, and has been on radio shows & has given presentations around the country.
The fact of the matter is that “Dr Larry” is considered an expert only in his own mind and in the crowds he frequents who haven’t read anything more complicated than a cereal box in decades. The lecture circuit it the moonbat fringy crowd since no on respectable will have anything to do with him, and his so called book in the one review I could find of it referred to it as poor fiction and wishful thinking, and is of the class of books called remaindered.

Actually, I probably do, I actually have real world experience in the field he pretends to, and I know that the Dorean bilge is just that. Had I felt the need, I could have any number of the equivalent titles from one of the local diploma mills, I just didn’t feel like wasting the $20.

Moogie again displays his ignorance of what a note actually is and why it has value. A notes value is directly related to the credit worthiness of the maker, and nothing else. The note has nothing to do with the loan and is only the finalization of the loan, not the reason for the loan.

If the loan were being challenged, the note would not be sold until the matter was settled, if in the event the loan was voided, the idiot will get his note back along with a cancelled DOT, and will lose the rights to the property purchased, so I don’t see what the point is of ending up with nothing.

Again more Moogey nonsense, there is no forgery since nothing on the note has been changed or altered, and there is nothing in the agreement that has been changed.

quoting justice7777777 Jury came back with guilty verdict on all counts including Obstruction of Justice.
Well, I only missed it by a day or so, hadn’t counted on the court taking a five day recess. Still defense on Tue, closing and guilty on Wed. Wonder how long it took them.

neodemes said...

Leo said...

"Neodeems,
It is true that when asking for a plaintiff to produce the original note, invariably they will say it has been lost, stolen, burned up in a fire, misplaced or produce a copy asking the court to validate it for the purpose of the case."

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

Interesting. I'd still like to see actual court case(s) with transcripts...it sounds like there should be numerous cites.

notorial dissent said...

And then we have Leo, Moogie’s latest sock puppet, no wiser, and no more entertaining, just way more wordy.

thus spake Leo Excuse me for correcting you, but a bank CANNOT LEND DEPOSITORS FUNDS.
Oh really, and you base this profound truth upon what???? Since banks have only been doing this since the beginning of banking, it would seem it is you who are in serious need of correction. I would suggest you read you banking bylaws from your bank some time, and then try reading a book on banking theory and practice. It totally disagrees with all your pet theories, but then so does reality, oh well. Banks are, and always have been in the business of lending their depositor’s funds out at interest, that is why they are called banks, otherwise they would be called depositories and you would be paying to leave your funds with them for safekeeping. You would also not be getting the interest the bank pays you for the privilege of borrowing your money to make loans with.

Leo, you peddling the same nonsense and mythology that Moogie has been trying to sell, and other than the fact that you are far windier than he is, it is still mythology and nonsense. It has been blown down every time it has gone to court, and it will continue to be tossed out for the simple fact that it has no basis in fact of reality.

Reality and the courts have spoken, both civilly, and criminally, it is a crock, always was a crock, and it will remain a crock. Go waste someone else’s time.

Scott from Vineland said...

NTE,

Looks like the end is here, dude. Sorry things didn’t work out better.

Leo,

I have to concur with Neo. While I don’t agree with your words, at least they are delivered largely without the venom possessed of so many here. Please understand that I am not contending that Notes do not change hands after the loan is closed. They certainly do, sometimes frequently. What I am trying to get across is that they are legally sold on a secondary mortgage market, not deposited to some perceived “account” with the Federal Reserve. Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t that part of the bank malfeasance that all the conspiracy theorists here are asserting? And if you feel that the sale of your Note was not legal or was in violation of the agreed terms, you need to go back through the stuff you signed at application. Chances are about 99.9% that your lender had you sign a disclosure regarding the assignment, sale or transfer of your loan. If they didn't, then they did not comply with RESPA and you may have a case, otherwise....

I have seen many Note endorsements. They all say “Pay to the order of _____, without recourse”. I have yet to see one that says “For deposit only”, as some here have been led to believe. Haven’t any of you ever paid off a mortgage? I’ve refinanced mine several times and I have always gotten my original Notes back marked paid in full along with my recorded cancelled security instruments. My current mortgage is with Wells Fargo now. They’re a Freddie Mac shop and I have a conforming loan amount so I have a very good idea of where my original Note is… and it ain’t the Federal Reserve Bank.

Moogie,

All I have ever done here is speak things I have seen to be true. Not out to screw anyone over, not even my old friend. Kurt has not been the only casualty among my South Jersey friends. It’s quite possible he won’t be the last. And despite what you think of me and my intentions, the truth is I don’t hate Kurt Johnson. I hate the fact that his life has taken this direction. And like it or not, all of you folks who buy into this banking conspiracy BS and have elevated Kurt to his messianic status... you are more to blame for his current predicament than I am. You should all be proud.

near the end said...

Hey Scott; Ya want a cookie!!!

Leo said...

Neodemes,
I think your right that some agreements contain this info and some do not. However, the basic premise is there is a greater or lessor degree of non-disclosure in all bank loans.
Leo

Leo said...

Notorial Dissent,
Sorry to disagree, but no bank can lend depositors money.Credit Unions can and do, but not banks. Their primary duty is to protect depositors money, so "lending" it out is not allowed. When you deposit money into your deposit account, you have created a demand deposit relationship with the bank, however what it really is, is a loan of your funds to the bank, and you have become a creditor and they are the debtor. They take the funds and they become the assets of the bank, just as if they lent you funds. The funds are yours to loan spend, whatever, but you are debtor to the bank to repay those funds in the same manner the bank owes you for your deposit. To protect the ability of the banks to repay all the depositors they owe, a 10%reserve is required to be placed with the Federal Reserve. The other 90% of the book entry assets is then available to loan out to others. These loans are coming from bank "assets" and NOT depositor funds.

strat said...

you guys are all talking different definitions for what you are trying to say! lol

The law is a bank cannot 'loan CREDIT', although it issues it first, and THEN does a little swaperoo of the funds and it magically "becomes" a DEMAND DEPOSIT to loan out. In guess who's name? you know who.

A bank, at other times, can and does loan funds and capital and money and that is legal.

Scott from Vineland said...

near the end said...
Hey Scott; Ya want a cookie!!!

Yes, one of those large ones with white chocolate and macadamia nuts would be nice. Thank you!

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland said: "all of you folks who buy into this banking conspiracy BS and have elevated Kurt to his messianic status... you are more to blame for his current predicament than I am."
_________________________________

So when is following the Lord's will, tantamount to messianic status? You're perversion of words and meanings are unbelievable.

I or anyone else am not responsible for blame for the choices of others. Get a clue.
Stop trying to justify your past behaviour with excuses, it just makes you look like a bigger fool. If you had genuine humility, you would give the person the benefit of any of your doubts, which obviously, you are incapable of doing.

Lastly the banking conspiracy is not BS. Call it what you like, but a label doesn't make it so.

You're a piece of work. You alienate the trust of Kurt, but still want a close relationship with him. Sorry bud, close relationships don't work that way. You don't trust what Kurt says or even believe what he says as being genuine, or coming from his heart, but you want a genuine and friendly relationship. Are you really that stupid how close relationships really work? Obviously you are. No, my friend, I'm the one that should pity you.

notorial dissent said...

Leo, again, quite simply, you are wrong. Banks can and do lend their depositor’s funds, always have always will. Don’t know where you get the idea, it is wrong.

You are correct in that it is the bank’s responsibility to protect the depositor’s money, but protect it by investing it wisely and taking precautions not to have too many non performing loans or investments. Part of your summation is correct, the deposits are a loan to the bank, that is the nature of banking, but the terms of the deposit are spelled out in the acct by laws and even a demand account isn’t necessarily an “immediate” demand account, the by laws control. The deposited funds become assets of the bank in the form of cash on hand, the demand account, is a liability of the bank. The two accounts must always balance. The 10% reserve is an arbitrary number, depends on the banks credit worthiness as to what it actually is, but is not a deposit with the Fed, that is not what they are for, or do, it is the amount they must retain in house to cover whatever they have at loan or invested. For convenience sake we can say that the bank much maintain 10% of its asset base to cover day to day transactions. You are correct in that the remainder of the available assets are then available for loan. Part of the assets the bank is loaning comes from the deposits made by customers, when you make a deposit with a bank, it doesn’t go into an envelope marked Leo’s deposit and then sit there until you withdraw it. Your deposit account is credited for the deposit, and the cash goes into the banks cash on hand account, from which loans and investments, as well payments for checks and the like are made after debiting the customer’s account for the matching item. If you take the time to think about it, there is no bank in existence that could pay out every depositors account at one time for the simple reason that they funds deposited have been loaned out. The bank maintains enough reserves to cover usual day to day transactions, and that is it. If they needs additional funds, they can borrow short term from other banks, or the Fed, but it must be paid back, and cuts into the bank’s profit. If enough loans go bad, the bank cannot repay the depositors, and it goes bust, actually into receivership and is then sold to another bank sans the bad loan items, and the deposit insurance money covers any underages and helps the new bank take over the expenses.

stat lol, I really wish people would learn to read, the case you are alluding to and obviously haven’t read says that a bank may not loan IT”S own credit, not that it cannot issue credit. A bank in it’s own right cannot lend it’s corporate credit to someone else, in other words, it cannot act as a co-signer for someone. There is nothing in the case, or law that says a bank cannot extend credit to an individual for whatever purpose as long as they do it in a reasonable and legal fashion, which is why there are all the state and Federal credit laws regulating what can and cannot be done, and oddly enough, a great many of them are directed at how and when a bank can extend credit to a customer.

strat said...

I ALREADY stated in my last post that a bank can and does issue credit legally.
Why are you beating a dead horse?
It can NOT loan it.
issuing a line of credit and loaning are 2 different things.

Please stop redundantly posting things I already said.

I suggest that YOU, take your own advice: and learn to read the post.
and then you accuse someone else?

lol idiot, you are about as bright as beans is

:)

Scott from Vineland said...

Moogie,
I'm thinking that if you and I were both to apply for the job of fool, your resume would guarantee you the position. I alienate Kurt's trust??? This comment is a perfect example of how dense you truly are. Do you think Kurt could ever trust me under our current circumstances? I'm the enemy, Moogs. I'm the evil bankster who is fleecing the flock. The chances that he and I would ever be able to talk frankly with one another again are nil. There are moments that I wish we could be friends once more but then the nostalgia slips away, clarity rears it's ugly head and I remember where Kurt is and where he is going next. Would I like to see Kurt again? Sure. Will he and I ever be best buds again? Seems pretty unlikely no matter how you slice it. Don't profess to know my intentions, Moog... sometimes I am not 100% sure myself.

Scott from Vineland said...

Mogel007 said...

Duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________________________
I think this pretty much sums up what Moogie can contribute.

Scott from Vineland said...

mogel007 said...

No, my friend, I'm the one that should pity you.
__________________________________
And at what point did I state or even imply that I pitied you? God forgive me for saying so but I can find no pity for you whatsoever. You show none of the kindness, generousity, humility or any of the other virtues I have come to associate with the faith you claim. You are the biggest blight on this blog... no small feat, Moogs!

near the end said...

Scott; so are u my friend so are u!!!

jhonsam said...

Great post!! conventional loan visit and get this now . Thank you all of you.

milky9 said...

I'm extremely inspired along with your writing abilities as neatly as with the layout on your weblog.Very nice and helpful blog.Thank you.
You can also visit - nature lover sweetheart fave goal

Admin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shariful said...

Loose Conversations (Loose Convos) is a subsidiary of Loose Media. Our aim is to provide a safe space for unorthodox conversations through storytelling. Loose Conversations

Carpet Tiles said...

We will not only provide you with the best quality carpets tiles but will also help you in the installation process.
Carpet Tiles

Shariful said...

Online sbobet agent is one of the best and most trusted soccer gambling places in Indonesia. Where almost the average player is dominated by young people to adults. Website

Shariful said...

Read Prison School / Prison-School-Manga Best Manga Online in High Quality prison school manga

Shariful said...

Mất tiền là giấc mơ mà nhiều người gặp phải. Vậy giấc mơ này mang đến những điềm báo gì và mơ bị mất tiền đánh con gì để dễ dàng trúng lớn khi chơi lô đề? mơ mất tiền đánh con gì

Shariful said...

Nằm mơ thấy nước đánh số gì trúng lớn? Giấc mơ này đem lại điềm báo gì cho chủ nhân. Cùng giải mã giấc mơ này qua bài viết dưới đây của chúng tôi nhé! nằm mơ thấy nước đánh số gì

Shariful said...

Mơ thấy đám cưới đánh con gì là câu hỏi của rất nhiều người khi chiêm bao thấy điều này. Theo dõi bài viết dưới đây để có thông tin bổ ích nhé! mơ đi ăn cỗ đám cưới đánh con gì

Shariful said...

Đề về kép hôm sau đánh lô gì là thắc mắc của nhiều người. Để được giải đáp thắc mắc này của mình, đừng bỏ lỡ thông tin được chia sẻ trong bài viết sau. đề về kép hôm sau đánh lô gì

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

Sở hữu giấc mơ thấy chim đánh con gì để ăn to trúng lớn? Trong bài viết dưới đây, chúng tôi sẽ giúp bạn giải đáp thắc mắc này. Cùng theo dõi nhé! mơ thấy chim đánh con gì

Shariful said...

Nằm mơ thấy lửa đánh con gì? Đây là một câu hỏi được rất nhiều người quan tâm, tìm hiểu. Cùng giải mã giấc mơ này qua bài viết dưới đây của chúng tôi nhé! nằm mơ thấy người chết cháy đánh con gì

EnrgTech said...


The article is much informative which i was searching for .Nice intro good explanation thanks for sharing.
https://www.enrgtech.co.uk/

EnrgTech said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
nazmulhasan0178 said...

I will be your private virtual assistant Here are the services that will I provide

Shariful said...

Spotify gives you instant access to millions of songs – from old favorites to the latest hits. Just hit play to stream anything you like. funky house mix

Shariful said...

Spotify gives you instant access to millions of songs – from old favorites to the latest hits. Just hit play to stream anything you like. best house songs

Barone Chemeicals said...

buy ielts online
Buy ielts certificate online
Buy ielts online without exam



buy ielts online
Buy ielts certificate online
Buy ielts online without exam
Buy resident permits online
Buy national identity card online



buy drivers license online
Where to buy drivers license online
Buy ielts certificate online
Buy ielts online without exam
Buy resident permits online
Buy national identity card online





buy drivers license online
Where to buy drivers license online
Buy fake passports online
Buy passports online
Buy resident permits online
Buy national identity card online




buy drivers license online
Where to buy drivers license online
Buy fake passports online
Buy passports online
Buy resident permits online
Buy national identity card online

SarkariNaukriHona Team said...

listoutnow.com hey! Great work buddy.

SarkariNaukriHona Team said...

listoutnow.com commendable work...

Shariful said...

Training for a 40km Time Trial takes dedication and kowledge of the time trial workouts you need. Our Cycling Coach can help plan these for any TT event . time trial training

SarkariNaukriHona Team said...

listoutnow.com you are really good at this !

SarkariNaukriHona Team said...

listoutnow.com keep doing good work like this !

SarkariNaukriHona Team said...

listoutnow.com applauding job !

SarkariNaukriHona Team said...

listoutnow.com Awesome !

Richard Silverstein said...


The popular web blog post site . Richard Silverstein Thanks for you sharing

Md Shimul Hossain said...



Hello Dear sir,profile,blog comment,facebookmarketing,classified ads post Backlink 100% apporve step by step Home content & link publish. please click and profile my gig. I'll do it the same for you. Blog Comment Thank you for sharing

SarkariNaukriHona Team said...

listoutnow.com Professional !

security companies in london said...

Thanks for this post. It proves very informative for me. Great post to read. Keep blogging.

If you are looking for the top security companies in London that provide its customer with remarkable security services. Check out this site for security services and security guard companies near London

Day Blinds said...

It's really a nice and useful piece of information. I am satisfied that you shared this helpful info with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.

Looking for Roller blinds, Wooden blinds, Cheap blinds, or Curtains and Venetian blinds, and more, in Nottingham and surrounding areas like Derby, Mansfield, Leciester, East Midlands or Luton? Day Blinds offers superior window solutions at unmatched prices.Visit our site for Wood Venetian blinds London

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 338 of 338   Newer› Newest»