Friday, February 01, 2008

Actual Closing Statements (January 24, 2008)

I have provided you with my closing statements. Now you must remember I could care less about winning this trial at this level. I have already won and that is why you won't understand my battle plans until I have finished my course. I can say for a certainty that I was well underpaid for my service to you. In the end you retards will even be thankful for my diligence and grace towards you. What you will recognize is that I had a brief opening statement where I asked for a guilty verdict and that I reference that in my closing. The time between these statements was about a month but 15 actual trial days. Some might suggest that I shot myself in the foot and guaranteed my conviction by that request. If that is true I'm amazed that the question “why” hasn't surfaced much. Even my prosecutors have never stopped to ask themselves why is it that Kurt and us have the same goals? Imagine 25 years of doing this job and they admittedly come across an intelligent and sophisticated defendant that has a strategy not seen before and they never ask why. Hell the "art of war" gives you a hundred warnings about this behavior. I'm certain 90 percent of these government drones have read this book. Well it will all be understood soon. Too late for my enemies and I guess not soon enough for my clients. If you guys make any real profession of Christ as God how can you truly believe His timing is faulty? I can understand from one suffering how I would like God to use my timing but never has that tempted me to dethrone Him for myself. These closing statements are just a small glimpse of the trial it hardly reflects the real trial that is happening. This was just one act in a much larger drama. The actual plot is far outside what was presented here. I have no respect for the retards that were gathered to supposedly try my life. If they had sense enough to try their own lives they would never be a juror. You have to be a dupe to be on the pool list. Yes I know I am going against all the respected advisers like your government and clergy but these all work together to steal from you. Their advice is self serving, always will be. If you follow it, it will be to your own demise. Do you really think if I was prosecuted before that I would subject myself to the same device without adaptation? This makes no sense. After having discovered that the myth of justice wasn't justified, you think I would naively think a second chance was wise. Somebody with my IQ wouldn't be that ignorant. It’s only those of you who have not been prosecuted by these fraudsters that still believe in the myth. From your wonderland anything can happen. Those who have been possessed with a little reality don't think like you. If I didn't have a winning strategy from the inception of Dorean I wouldn't have started it. If I was a crook I would have had a better exit strategy at least. Someday when you start using your mind for yourself instead as a serf yes man then you'll understand how obvious this statement being true is. Enjoy, I sure did. I hope someday these words will be used as an example of courage and wisdom because they expose the secret of knowledge not yet revealed but soon to be known.

177 comments:

Yetter said...

From the Devils Advocate,starring Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino.
LOMAX. Why the law?Cut the shit dad. Why Lawyers? Why the law?
MILTON. Because the law, my boy, puts us into everything. Its the ultimate backstage pass, its the new priesthood,baby.

habakkuk said...

Yetter,
thats a good one...I saw the movie but missed that significant line.

Scott from Vineland said...

kurt said...
You have to be a dupe to be on the pool list.
___________________________________
Should we gather from this that anyone who votes is a dupe in your estimation?

habakkuk said...

Psalm 82
An Asaph Psalm
1 God calls the judges into his courtroom, he puts all the judges in the dock.

2-4 "Enough! You've corrupted justice long enough,
you've let the wicked get away with murder.
You're here to defend the defenseless,
to make sure that underdogs get a fair break;
Your job is to stand up for the powerless,
and prosecute all those who exploit them."

5 Ignorant judges! Head-in-the-sand judges!
They haven't a clue to what's going on.
And now everything's falling apart,
the world's coming unglued.

6-7 "I commissioned you judges, each one of you,
deputies of the High God,
But you've betrayed your commission
and now you're stripped of your rank, busted."

8 O God, give them their just deserts!
You've got the whole world in your hands!

Scott from Vineland said...

kurt said...
You have to be a dupe to be on the pool list.
___________________________________
Should we gather from this that anyone who votes is a dupe in your estimation?

mogel007 said...

Wall Street & lenders being sued for fraud and accounting fraud due to the suprime mess:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20080218/ap_on_bi_ge/subprime_
wall_street

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent believes that there WERE NO PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS IN THIS TRIAL. He is basing his vast knowledge on his understanding of the subject of law and his reputation and truth of his words, on this conclusional belief.

Some of us believe otherwise though. Not only that, a higher court would also have to agree to this idea below since this is basic:

"If the Grand Jury believes the proffers of the prosecution and renders an indictment, the prosecution MUST on all occasions of amending that true bill HAVE to return to the Grand Jury for a “Constructive Amendment”. Never guess what the prosecution failed to do four out of five times during the “Unnecessary Trial”? Failing to not perform just once is a “Fatal Failure”; they missed on four occasions. As a result of this fatal flaw the Lad’s are entitled to an Acquittal."

One an acquittal is had, the Defendants go free, "double jeopardy" applies, and a petition and claim to sue for a financial settlement for clients will begin.

If setencing doesn't happen timely on March 18, 2008, which the naysayers believe will be the final blow, than more credence to this post will be shown.

Fire up the grill Imbigo!!!! I'm read to feast!!!!

mogel007 said...

Strike planned on March 15, 2008:

http://www.youtube. com/
watch? v=yP2JpY- J8MA

That will be a few days just before the Dorean acquittal date of March 18, 2008.

notorial dissent said...

Comes now the Bilge Report for January 24, 2008.

Wherein Kurt begins with a lie and continues with more self delusion, agrandizement, and self pity.

Kurt BS 1
I have provided you with my closing statements.

Oh, and where might this great work reside?

Kurt BS 2
Now you must remember I could care less about winning this trial at this level.

Liar!!

Kurt BS 3
I can say for a certainty that I was well underpaid for my service to you. In the end you retards will even be thankful for my diligence and grace towards you.

Yes, I know, poor picked on and abused Kurt, gonna go eat worms now.


Kurt BS 4
What you will recognize is that I had a brief opening statement where I asked for a guilty verdict and that I reference that in my closing.

Got your wish then I see.


Kurt BS 5
Some might suggest that I shot myself in the foot and guaranteed my conviction by that request.

Not a suggestion, just plain fact.

Kurt BS 6
Even my prosecutors have never stopped to ask themselves why is it that Kurt and us have the same goals?

Probably because they recognize a pompous, blowhard, self destructive fool when they see one. And you proved them right.

Kurt BS 7
This was just one act in a much larger drama.

No, this was the one and final act in a very boring and tawdry little drama, that is very shortly to end with you in a prison cell.


Kurt BS 8
I have no respect for the retards that were gathered to supposedly try my life.

Anymore than you have any respect for anyone else.

Kurt BS 9
Do you really think if I was prosecuted before that I would subject myself to the same device without adaptation?

Yes, because you are incredibly egotistical, stupid and self destructive, as witness three marriages, and how many other lives destroyed or irreparably damaged by your lies and deceit, and overblown ego.

Kurt BS 10
After having discovered that the myth of justice wasn't justified, you think I would naively think a second chance was wise.

Why, you got justice in both instances, the only pity is that they didn’t lock you up longer the first time, as you obviously didn’t learn anything from it.

Kurt BS 12
Somebody with my IQ wouldn't be that ignorant.

IQ does not indicate common sense or actually intelligence, just the ability to pass a particular test. A genius can still be a total fool, and since you have shown nothing to evidence otherwise, I would question your self serving self assessment. A true genius would have figured out that this little enterprise had only one inevitable bad ending, that being with you sitting behind bars, so I would say that pretty well puts paid to your claims there as well as all the rest of your lies and puffery.

Kurt BS 13
If I didn't have a winning strategy from the inception of Dorean I wouldn't have started it.

Is that anyway related to your winning strategy to avoid going to court, or to jail, or to prison, seems to have misfired from where I am sitting. Other than providing a great deal of comic relief, I can’t see that you have accomplished much.

Kurt BS 14
Someday when you start using your mind for yourself instead as a serf yes man then you'll understand how obvious this statement being true is.

Oh, you mean when your victims finally wake up and realize that you scammed them not only for the $3000 you got out of them to begin with, but then cost them their houses, and probably most of their ongoing life. Yup, that’ll be quite an awakening. Particularly when they recognize you for the colossal joke that you are, except I somehow don’t think they will get much of a laugh out of it.

Like I said Kurt, you are a liar from beginning to end.


Moogie’s mouth moves and more nonsense issues forth
Notarial Dissent believes that there WERE NO PROCEDURAL VIOLATIONS IN THIS TRIAL. He is basing his vast knowledge on his understanding of the subject of law and his reputation and truth of his words, on this conclusional belief.

Let’s put it this way Moogs, I will stack my twenty some years of experience in the legal, banking, finance, and real estate industry working with the actual documents, processes, and laws you are so woefully ignorant of than I would in your obvious ignorance and Kurt’s buffonery.

Moogie nonsense
Some of us believe otherwise though. Not only that, a higher court would also have to agree to this idea below since this is basic:

What you believe is irrelevant, since I’ve heard some of the things you believe, and aside from the fact that you are a total tool, the only opinion here that will count is the appeals court.

more Moogie nonsense
If the Grand Jury believes the proffers of the prosecution and renders an indictment, the prosecution MUST on all occasions of amending that true bill HAVE to return to the Grand Jury for a “Constructive Amendment”.

Moogs, you don’t get a superceding indictment without going back to the grand jury, and you can’t honestly think that even a rank new prosecutor would do anything otherwise, or that a sitting judge with the experience that this one has would let something like that pass?? Get a grip on reality Moogs, it doesn’t happen. You can believe whatever foolishness you want to, but even for you this is ridiculous. And again you are dreaming, at the very worst all that would happen is that the matter would be retried, and the result would still be the same, and in the next trial, they might decide to go after all the charges.

further Moogie nonsense
One an acquittal is had, the Defendants go free, "double jeopardy" applies, and a petition and claim to sue for a financial settlement for clients will begin.

Again, you are delusional, you do not get an acquittal on something like that, and even if they were acquitted, which is strictly in the fantasy realm, they still would have no recourse. Dream on Moogs, your ignorance is still showing.

At this point, there is no reason to believe that the sentencing won’t go forward, except in your land of fantasy, self delusion, and confusion.

near the end said...

ND that's your take on it. Your in fantasy land.

near the end said...

ND; That's your take on it your still in fantasy land.

near the end said...

ND; That's your take on it your still in fantasy land.

near the end said...

ND; That's your take on it your still in fantasy land.

near the end said...

ND; That's your take on it your still in fantasy land.

near the end said...

ND; That's your take on it your still in fantasy land.

near the end said...

ND; That's your take on it your in fantasy land. Say Hi to Mickey Mouse lame brain!!!!!!!!

judge allslop said...

Way to hum my little bilge buddy,a fine broadside by the jolly roger into the side of this mumbo jumbo roguery. I have far to many juristictional hooks for these fools to slip threw and being a superior trier of fact, johnson and heineman will never escape my justice.Hey I found some crash dummies at DOT and were going to fit them electronicaly to respond to my voice, nodding there heads up and down in approval. We won't have to deal with jury pools and will win more cases and save dollars. I let you know how it works out.

mogel007 said...

Notarial Disssent said: "Moogs, you don’t get a superceding indictment without going back to the grand jury, and you can’t honestly think that even a rank new prosecutor would do anything otherwise, or that a sitting judge with the experience that this one has would let something like that pass??"
_________________________________

That's the claim, that the Judge & the prosecution screwed up 4 different times & didn't follow proper procedural protocol when the indictments were amended. If that is the case, which is the basis of the appeal of the jury verdict, than this is serious.

Now, you can see why Kurt isn't lying, when he said, he wanted to lose in the trial, and there is method behind the seeminging madness. By losing, he wins in the end. He shows the prejudice and corruption of the trial process & Judge.

Course I do believe anything is possible with Judge Alsup's already nonsensical fantasy, not based in fact statements already. Judge Alsup & Mr. Walker Todd don't agree on facts which is a fact. Why is that? Here are some of the statements of Judge Alsup that prejudiced the Jury and the outcome of the trial:

1. "Never in the history of the universe can the defense theories on banking have any merit."

2. "In insturction 18, Judge Alsup states that the '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."
_______________________

Kurt continues: "This is incorrect and a misstatement of the law. The testimony of Walker Todd, the Federal Reserve Expert witness in support of the Fed publications in evidence made it very clear that the BANK DOES NOT LOAN OUT OTHER DEPOSITOR FUNDS, BUT CREATES THE MONEY ON THE SPOT IN A LENDING TRANSACTION." The banks are NOT FREE TO GO TO THE FED which was made euqally clear in that they have to bring assets to the Fed to borrow. They are not free to go to the Fed to obtain money and then lend to obtain an asset. Lastly, banks are prohibited by law from lending their equity which is measured by their capital stock, as stated by revised statute 62 also known as the National Banking Act which is still positive law and which provision has not been repealed, amended, or modiied by an further acts of Congress. The court was put on Mandatory Judicial Notice of this fact months before trial. The Federal Reserve Act did not change this prohibition.

"The jury heard testimony that the (1) depositors funds were not used,(2) the promissory note was monetized, and that (3) the bank did not borrow from the Fed to fund the alleged loan, so they must have relied upon Mr. Alsup's bad law instruction to arrive at the bank putting up consideration through their equity to acquire a property right supposedly protected by the charging statutes.

Kurt continues: Throughout Judge Alsup's instructions, he prejudices the defense to the jury by making claims that apply legal theory at the expense and obliteration of the facts. One example, is, "Under no circumstances, however, can the loan and collateral obligations simply be eliminated with the borrower allowed to keep the loan money." Though this is sound legally, it is put in a context where the very thing he appears to be prosecuting is the very thing he is protecting.

The banks using the promissory note to fund their liability instrument ARE GETTING A FREE LOAN THAT THEY SIMPLY GET TO ELIMINATE WITHOUT RETURN OF THE COLLATERAL with the assistance now of a federal judge."

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "At this point, there is no reason to believe that the sentencing won’t go forward, except in your land of fantasy, self delusion, and confusion."
_________________________________

If you look at the presumptions of the Court, you might see reasons why the Dorean Group can't or won't or shouldn't be sentenced if you believe in justice, full disclosure, and fair play, which obviously you don't, since you can't see past your own ego:

PRESUMPTIONS:

1. Court presumes that the UNITED STATES had a relationship with the defendants,

2. Court presumes that the defendants and the natural men were the same party.

3. Court presumes that the natural men have agreed and were willing to take liability as surety or an accomodation party for the defendants, as if they actually had a contract with the UNITED STATES.

3. Court presumes that the statutues are binding upon the defendants, and/or the natural men,

4. Court presumes that this court had jurisdiction

5. Court presumes that the banks actually made a loan

6. Court presumes that the banks were financial institutions as required by the statute,

7. Court presumes that the commerce clause was relevant when there was no definition of money and possibly no money involved in any of the transactions in question,

8. Court presumes that any device or scheme is fraudulent and covered by the statutes used.

9. Court presumes by the judge's own confession that a 'possible sentence for the rest of their natural lives" which could only be had if financial institutions were victims.

Course bank fraud was never proven, AND THOSE CHARGES ACTUALLY DROPPED, just like the contempt of court charges being dropped for lack of evidence. Nor were any witnesses of bank fraud every supplied, no accounting experts by the prosecution, no books and accounting were ever entered in the proceedings either by the prosecution, DESPITE SUBPOENAS of the defendants to get vital information, information THAT WERE DENIED & IGNORED by the Judge. Money was not defined more specifically, whether a promissory note was money at law, yet it was deemed of no value by fiat from the bench.

"If promissory notes are not to be deemed as cash or cash equivalent as a checkbook money of account deposit in this debt based economy through the Federal Reserve System, then the American people must be informed that the Federal Reserve Note is a promissory note of no value legislated as fiat to their detriment in accordance with the public policy of full disclosure."

In essence and in summary, the court required NO PROOF OF CLAIM.
No proof, no record of facts to support a conviction or even proper jurisdiction, there shouldn't be any sentencing, but there needs to be an acquittal at some point.

Please don't say that the Court had jurisdiction merely by quoting a statute. The jurisdictional hook was never proven, and if the court had it, they certainly lost it through presumptions and denial of due process, and through unfair play and also due to the unclean hands doctrine.

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "Again, you are delusional, you do not get an acquittal on something like that, and even if they were acquitted, which is strictly in the fantasy realm, they still would have no recourse."
_____________________________

The logic isn't too hard. If the Dorean Group is acquitted, than it isn't hard to conclude that there were due process violations, FALSE CHARGES BROUGHT TO INTIMIDATE AND DAMAGE THEM, illegal kidnapping by THE FBI, illegal confiscation of bank accounts, business and civil right violations, and false charges brought that financially harmed the Dorean Group, stole their freedoms wrongfully & damaged dorean clients.

How do you spell relief?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Martin Luther King had a dream too. It was eventually realized, but in his day, it seemed like a fantasy too. The corruption AND INEQUALITY of his day, HAD TO BE RECOGNIZED first as a reality, and changes and perceptions had to change, until his dream was met.

I'm patient enough. Whatever it takes, or as long as it takes. Justice and truth prevails in the end. A lie can't be hid forever. Only God knows the beginning to the end of all things. Just because you see no recourse, doesn't make it so.

neodemes said...

You have a long wait, moogs.

There will be no acquittal.

However, years from now you can greet an aged Kurt upon his release.

Don't forget to bring the grille.

notorial dissent said...

And now for Moogie’s fantasy life
That's the claim, that the Judge & the prosecution screwed up 4 different times & didn't follow proper procedural protocol when the indictments were amended.


According to whom? Kurt? Kurt, that fount of all wisdom and veracity? Get a clue Moogs, there are enough people, people incidently who do have a clue, who have been watching this carnival act who would know and would say something if there had been some irregularities and there has been a resounding silence, except from the reality challenged. Federal judges don’t get to be Federal Judges by not knowing how things are properly done, and they don’t stay Federal judges by letting something like happen.

Moogie desperation is showing
Now, you can see why Kurt isn't lying, when he said, he wanted to lose in the trial, and there is method behind the seeminging madness. By losing, he wins in the end.

Right Moogs, Kurt who hasn’t uttered anything truthful throughout this entire farce, Kurt is a liar and a fraud, and has not even a nodding acquaintance with the truth. By losing, which was pretty much a far gone conclusion since there is no question of his innocence in any of this, Kurt got exactly what he had coming.

Moogie who can’t keep his lies straight anymore
Judge Alsup & Mr. Walker Todd don't agree on facts which is a fact.

Moogs, you really do need to get your lies straight, or at least attempt to keep better track of them. The only thing Mr. Walker (grab the money and run) Todd had to contribute was that he had spoken with the dim duo, and he did not utter any of his nonsense in court since 1) it wasn’t part of the trial, and 2) it would have netted him a contempt charge. So nice try, no cookie yet again.

Instruction 18, is factual and the truth, so other than that what is your complaint.

Kurt lies some more
"This is incorrect and a misstatement of the law. The testimony of Walker Todd, the Federal Reserve Expert witness in support of the Fed publications in evidence made it very clear that the BANK DOES NOT LOAN OUT OTHER DEPOSITOR FUNDS, BUT CREATES THE MONEY ON THE SPOT IN A LENDING TRANSACTION."

Two lies in a row, way to go Kurt. Inst 18 is the absolute truth, is reality, and is how banking is carried on. Todd made no such testimony, so lie two. Actually the whole statement is a lie from beginning to end, so much garbage all in one place, amazing.

further Kurtian lies
"The jury heard testimony that the (1) depositors funds were not used,(2) the promissory note was monetized, and that (3) the bank did not borrow from the Fed to fund the alleged loan, so they must have relied upon Mr. Alsup's bad law instruction to arrive at the bank putting up consideration through their equity to acquire a property right supposedly protected by the charging statutes.

Oh, in which fantasy? Certainly not at the real trial.

Kurt lies some more
Throughout Judge Alsup's instructions, he prejudices the defense to the jury by making claims that apply legal theory at the expense and obliteration of the facts. ... that... “Under no circumstances, however, can the loan and collateral obligations simply be eliminated with the borrower allowed to keep the loan money."

Again, since this happens to be the truth, I can only imagine it prejudices the defense case, such as it was, by calling a liar and a fraud a liar and a fraud. Life is rough when you are an inept con man.

purest of Kurtian BS
The banks using the promissory note to fund their liability instrument ARE GETTING A FREE LOAN THAT THEY SIMPLY GET TO ELIMINATE WITHOUT RETURN OF THE COLLATERAL with the assistance now of a federal judge."

BS from start to finish.

Moogs tries again and fails yet again
If you look at the presumptions of the Court, you might see reasons why the Dorean Group can't or won't or shouldn't be sentenced if you believe in justice, full disclosure, and fair play, which obviously you don't, since you can't see past your own ego:

Moogs, your presumptions 1 - 9, are just that presumptious nonsense, all long discredited and farcical.

The bank fraud charges were dropped at the prosecutions discretion, just as they can yet be brought. With them dropped the remaining charges were mail fraud, and they were proven to the satisfaction of the jury. The rest of your tirade is pointless since it is about charges not brought.


Moogie proves clueless yet again
"If promissory notes are not to be deemed as cash or cash equivalent as a checkbook money of account deposit in this debt based economy through the Federal Reserve System, then the American people must be informed that the Federal Reserve Note is a promissory note of no value legislated as fiat to their detriment in accordance with the public policy of full disclosure."


I have no idea where you found this bit of nonsense, but that is all it is. Promissory Notes are not, and never have been deemed to be “cash or cash equivalent as a checkbook money”. Promissory notes have always been historically, factually, and legally securities. They are not money and never have been. Conversely, Federal Reserve Notes are not and never have been legally or otherwise, promissory notes, they have been and are historically, factually, and legally bank notes specifically currency.

In short, and in long for that matter, neither you nor Kurt have a clue about what you are gibbering at, and the longer and more you gibber the more obvious it becomes.

Moogs, the Federal Statutes give the court the jurisdiction, using the mails was the violation of law. For something that wasn’t proven and didn’t exist, the dim duo are still sitting in a federal jail cell, so I would say reality trumps wishful delusion on yours and Kurt’s part.

Moogey spins another pipe dream
The logic isn't too hard. I

No, actually, the logic is non existent. There will be no acquittal, and the rest is total nonsense, try asking someone who actually knows Federal criminal procedure, and when they quit laughing at you they will tell you to run a long and quit smoking whatever it is you are on since that is the only way you could come up with such utter and total nonsense.

Moogey deludes himself
'm patient enough. Whatever it takes, or as long as it takes. Justice and truth prevails in the end. A lie can't be hid forever.

You’re a delusional idiot, that I’ll grant. I do agree, justice will prevail, and with any luck it will be to the tune of 400 years a piece. Kurt seemed to think he could keep his lies hidden, except they all seem to have come home to roost.

Moogs, I wish I could say I find your fantasy life fascinating, but it is really just very very pathetic.

mogel007 said...

Nortarial Dissent says: "Moogs, the Federal Statutes give the court the jurisdiction, using the mails was the violation of law."
________________________________

The Federal Statute is vague & doesn't apply to the Dorean situation. There were no financial institutions that were a victim when the bank fraud charges were dropped, so the statute doesn't apply. Originally the mail fraud statutes intent when it was drafted up in the 1800's was to protect property rights. What property right has been infringed upon by the Dorean Process in the context of the trial? Since the dorean clients were the alleged victim of the mail fraud, what property right did the dorean process take from the clients?

Using the mails to do what? Where was the proof the mails were used to take away a property right from the clients? No postmaster come to testify that the mails were used.

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "Todd had to contribute was that he had spoken with the dim duo, and he did not utter any of his nonsense in court since 1) it wasn’t part of the trial, and 2) it would have netted him a contempt charge. So nice try,"
_________________________________

There was a court case in Michigan where Todd did say those things, under oath & on the court record, and he has testified before of exactly the things I said previously. He got no contempt of court in the Michigan trial he acted in as an expert witness.

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "when they quit laughing at you they will tell you to run a long and quit smoking whatever it is you are on since that is the only way you could come up with such utter and total nonsense."
__________________________________

Sorry, but good Mormons DON'T SMOKE. Maybe you missed that important fact when you studied about the different religions in school. There's an important doctrine in the Mormon church called, "the word of wisdom", which means total abstinence from tobacco, alcohol, coffee, & tea.

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent: The affidavit of Walker F. Todd does say in the Michigan trial the things I said previously & he is in total disagreement with the instructions by Judge Alsup:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/
cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;
read=117291

Don't believe this is true, than call Walker F. Todd yourself.

mogel007 said...

Here is Walker F. Todd's address & phone number:

http://pview.findlaw.com/view/2186132_1

mogel007 said...

Here is the complete affidavit of Walker Todd in that Michigan trial:

http://freedom-school.com/affidavit_of_walker_todd_1-20-04.pdf

Notarial Dissent, I guess this affadavit makes YOU AND YOUR BUDDY, JUDGE ALSUP, THE LIAR. Unless of course, you want to get Mr. Walker to recant this affidavit, by supplying another affadavit. Do you have that?

sopsback said...

test post©

cantbelieveeverythingyouhear said...

But just because Walker Todd said it, does that make it true???????

Not to mention that was from another case, NOT the Dorean case.

Scott from Vineland said...

mogel007 said...
There was a court case in Michigan where Todd did say those things, under oath & on the court record, and he has testified before of exactly the things I said previously. He got no contempt of court in the Michigan trial he acted in as an expert witness.
___________________________________
As I recall, Kurt and Scott were tried in Northern California, not Michigan.

cantbelieveeverythingyouhear said...

Hello, McFly? My point exactly.

Monty P. said...

mogel007 said...
There's an important doctrine in the Mormon church called, "the word of wisdom", which means total abstinence from tobacco, alcohol, coffee, & tea.

What, no tea??? So what do wash your buttered skones down with, laddie?

Scott from Vineland said...

Face it Moogs... you're seriously outclassed arguing points of law against ND. Maybe it's time to cut your losses...

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland said: "Face it Moogs... you're seriously outclassed arguing points of law against ND. Maybe it's time to cut your losses..."
________________________________

Mr. Walker's affidavit was put in the Michigan court as evidence, so it doesn't matter which court it was filed in, it's still a factual statement of facts. An affidavit is true in all 50 States.

What part of the affidavit don't you understand Scott?

Walker Todd trumps Notarial Dissent's experience & knowledge, sorry to say & shows him to be a bunch of hot air and flatulence.

Scott from Vineland said...

mogel007 said...
Notarial Dissent, I guess this affadavit makes YOU AND YOUR BUDDY, JUDGE ALSUP, THE LIAR. ___________________________________
Ha Ha Ha!!! I completely missed this comment earlier. If nothing else, you are good for a laugh sometimes, Moogs. The "Affidavit of Walker Todd" that you guys view as incontrovertable truth is merely an affidavit. I could swear in an affidavit that I'm qualified in matters of national security and express my conviction that we should nuke Canada immediately. Someone might even get it entered into the record in some court proceeding. So what? Does that prove that Canada poses an immediate threat to our national security? And your commentary makes you sound like a petulant 3rd grader.

mogel007 said...

"But just because Walker Todd said it, does that make it true???????"
__________________________________

No, but he is considered an expert witness, by those in the industry, and he said it under oath, and his testimony is congruent with what the Federal Reserve publications say also, so there is no reason not to believe him as an expert witness that he is.

mogel007 said...

Here is a history of the Federal Reserve written by Mr. Walker F. Todd:

http://www.drfurfero.com/books/
read/frhistory.html

Can'tbelieveeverythingyou hear: Is there anything in this article that makes you think he isn't an expert on how banking & lending works?

Scott from Vineland: When is the last time that you were able to find any publications or books written by Notarial Dissent on the world wide web? I'll give up when you can find anyone declaring Notarial Dissent AN EXPERT, OK, or you can show that he has more experience on this subject than Mr. Todd.

However, I guess it's par for the course for you, Scott from Vineland, to believe a fool over an expert. Maybe you are the one that needs to cut their losses?

mogel007 said...

Here's a list of experts on the subject:

http://www.fame.org/ABOUT_FAME.asp

Scott from Vineland: I didn't see your name, or Notarial Dissent's name on this list, why is that?

I did see Walker F. Todd's name towards the end of the list though. LOL LOL

My goodness, fools would rather believe a moron over an expert & would rather discredit facts made under oath.

cantbelieveeverythingyouhear said...

Mogel007 said . . .

Scott from Vineland said...
mogel007 said...
Notarial Dissent, I guess this affadavit makes YOU AND YOUR BUDDY, JUDGE ALSUP, THE LIAR. ___________________________________
Ha Ha Ha!!! I completely missed this comment earlier. If nothing else, you are good for a laugh sometimes, Moogs. The "Affidavit of Walker Todd" that you guys view as incontrovertable truth is merely an affidavit. I could swear in an affidavit that I'm qualified in matters of national security and express my conviction that we should nuke Canada immediately. Someone might even get it entered into the record in some court proceeding. So what? Does that prove that Canada poses an immediate threat to our national security? And your commentary makes you sound like a petulant 3rd grader.

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

Yeah, what Scott from vineland said.

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland:

Did you read Walker F. Todd's qualifications on paragraph two of this affidavit?

http://freedom-school.com/affidavit_of_walker_todd_1-20-04.pdf

Obviously you didn't, otherwise, you wouldn't make the insane comments that you do.

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland said: "I could swear in an affidavit that I'm qualified in matters of national security and express my conviction that we should nuke Canada immediately."
_________________________________

Ok, would you then, and swear under oath that you are an expert, and then list your 20 years of experience as a terrorism expert too & then come & post on this blog that you are a sincere Christian always speaking & looking for the truth and good of humanity and that's why Canada should be nuked?

On second thought, forgot about answering that question. I think you would based upon your previous unbelievable comments on this blog. LOL

If you have no respect for experts, affidavits, or experience, than, what floats your boat? A flattering lie maybe that supports your living?

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland: I think you look like the 3rd grader when you don't bother to read the whole affidavit of Walker F. Todd & try to understand it, and are unable to realize that in the affidavit he listed his experience & qualifications.

Yea, you could pretend to be an expert on terrorism, just like you pretend to be a good friend of Kurt's by discounting everything he says. After all, friendship means "never having to say you are sorry." Friends have a license to say & do whatever they want. LOL

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland:

Did you read Walker F. Todd's qualifications on paragraph two of this affidavit?

http://freedom-school.com/affidavit_of_walker_todd_1-20-04.pdf

Obviously you didn't, otherwise, you wouldn't make the insane comments that you do.

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland said: "I could swear in an affidavit that I'm qualified in matters of national security and express my conviction that we should nuke Canada immediately. Someone might even get it entered into the record in some court proceeding. So what? Does that prove that Canada poses an immediate threat to our national security?
___________________________________

Could your prove your qualifications of a terrorism expert by years of experience & back it up if you had to from corroborating testimony, especially if someone else offered an affidavit that contradicted your view & said you were a crackpot with such inane ideas?

Do you have an affidavit from anyone in the banking field of experts, that contradicts Mr. Walker F. Todd? Of course you don't. Maybe it's because you are the one acting like a 3rd grader from your comments.

I'd be embarassed to bring up on a forum board how I grew up with someone & was good friends with them, and wanted to rekindle that friendship at a later date, after I made a mockery of the things they believed by slandering them & dissing that previous relationship.

Course that's just my paradigm, and how I was raised & taught, not your way of thinking & acting obviously.

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland:

An UNCONTESTED affidavit, becomes factual in a court of law. Course I'm sure I could provide evidence that you are a nut if you intend for me to take your analogy as being serious that Canada is a risk.

Still looking for an affidavit FROM YOU that PROVES beyond a reasonable doubt that Walker F. Todd lied. Can you provide it, or do you just enjoy acting like a
3rd grader?

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland:

I take it then, you don't believe in the concept of "money creation" either, since you believe that Mr. Walker Todd is an idiot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation

habakkuk said...

cantbelieveeverythingyouhear said...
Hello, McFly?........

___________________________________

LET ME GUESS..."BACK TO THE FUTURE"...RIGHT?

I LOVE MOVIE TRIVIA :-)

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland: If you are such an expert to criticize Kurt and if your hero, Notarial Dissent is such an expert that he claims to be, than both of you can answer this exam, and we'll see how
the both of you do. Fair enough? Both of you, give me your answers to these.
I PATIENTLY AWAIT. If either of you get question 14 wrong, than you admit, you aren't smarter than a 3rd grader, OK?

If either of
you ignore taking this exam, you both agree that you are full of hot air and flatulence. We'll see who is "good for a laugh".

Here are the questions of your exam. The answers will be provided later & please don't cheat, answer them now without any research or studying:

QUESTIONS:

1. The Fed creates the monetary base of the U.S. in the form of Federal Reserve notes and bank reserves on deposit at the Fed. True or False?


2. Banks create monetary base money when they issue loans. True or False?


3. A bank's reserves consist of its vault cash and its deposits at the Fed. True or False?


4. The central bank controls the size of the monetary base. True or False?


5. A bank is required to hold reserves at least equal to a prescribed fraction of its total deposit liabilities. True or False?


6. The Fed can increase the total of bank reserves by purchasing Treasury securities from the public. True or False?


7. A bank loses reserves whenever it pays out cash or transfers funds by wire for its depositors. True or False?


8. When a bank's reserves are just sufficient to meet the required reserves against demand deposits, it must wait for additional deposits before it can continue lending. True or False?

9. Complying with the reserve requirement guarantees a bank's solvency. True or False?

10. Some countries do not impose a minimum reserve requirement on their banks. True or False?


11. The Fed does not control the amount of bank lending. True or False?

12. The Fed funds rate is the interest rate the Fed charges banks to borrow from its discount window. True or False?

13. As aggregate bank lending increases, the Fed must increase banking system reserves in order to maintain control of the Fed funds rate. True or False?


14. Banks lend the money they receive from their depositors. True or False?


15. A bank's own money is at risk when it issues a loan. True or False?


16. Non-bank financial institutions cannot accept demand deposits. True or False?


17. When a bank issues a loan, its liabilities and reserves increase by the amount of the loan. True or False?


18. The use of credit cards increases the M1 money supply. True or False?


19. Eurodollars are U.S. dollars issued by a European bank. True or False?


20. Most of the money used in the private sector is bank credit money rather than monetary base money. True or False?

Scott from Vineland said...

mogel007 said...
No, but he is considered an expert witness, by those in the industry, and he said it under oath, and his testimony is congruent with what the Federal Reserve publications say also, so there is no reason not to believe him as an expert witness that he is.
___________________________________
Except that the Michigan Court summarily rejected the learned Mr. Todd's affidavit. But you probably already knew that, didn't ya Moogs?

Scott from Vineland said...

You did know that, didn't you? I mean I would hate to know you were holding forth this affidavit to support your position without having done your homework.

mogel007 said...

Good website on how "banks create money":

http://ecedweb.unomaha.edu/
ve/library/HBCM.PDF

Scott from Vineland said...

mogel007 said...
What part of the affidavit don't you understand Scott?
___________________________________
Apparently I understand the nature of an affidavit a little better than you, Moogs. I understand that this one didn't do Dave & Dave much good up there in Bloomfield Hills. Ya reckon that's why Mr. Walker F. Todd, Esq. didn't care to repeat that performance before Judge Alsup?

Scott from Vineland said...

If you don't have a white flag you can borrow my t-shirt, Byron.

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland: "Money IS CREATED when the bank makes loans to new customers":

http://coursework.mnsfld.edu/
yacovissi/Eco101/Offline/
Lesson%209-2.htm

Isn't this the theme of what Walker F. Todd testified to?

All you have to do is google, "Money creation", and you'll get hundreds of websites affirming what Walker F. Todd testified to.

Pauligirl said...

Affidavit of Walker F. Todd was attached to the Bank One vs Harshavardhan Dave and Pritima Dave case. According to one of the lawyers that tried the case, the affidavit was never allowed in, as it had no bearing on the case. (I called and taked to the attorney) Order granting Plantiffs’ (Bank One) Motion for summary Disposition was handed down 1/8/04 again Dave in the amount of $256,763.35 by Hon. Edward Sosnick, and filed in the circuit court for the county of Oakland, State of Michigan under file # 03-047448-cz. Judgment was satisfied 9/21/04.

Circuit court files are generally not available online, but I have a copy of the judgment.

So much for Walker F. Todd.

Scott from Vineland said...

Will someone please give the moderator a nudge? They seem to have dozed off for the last 4 or 5 hours.

Scott from Vineland said...

mogel007 said...
An UNCONTESTED affidavit, becomes factual in a court of law.
___________________________________
Hmmm, whether or not that's so hardly seems relevant seeing as how Mr. Walker F. Todd's grand affidavit WASN'T uncontested.

Scott from Vineland said...

mogel007 said...
Course I'm sure I could provide evidence that you are a nut if you intend for me to take your analogy as being serious that Canada is a risk.
___________________________________
You can't possibly be THIS stupid, Moogie. There is no way on earth you can be this stupid.

Scott from Vineland said...

mogel007 said...
Mr. Walker's affidavit was put in the Michigan court as evidence, so it doesn't matter which court it was filed in, it's still a factual statement of facts. An affidavit is true in all 50 States.
___________________________________
Whoops, I neglected to address this LIE. This is a LIE! Moogie is a LIAR! I beleive that Moogie probably knew when making this statement that it was a LIE. Otherwise he is monumentally STUPID!

Scott from Vineland said...

The affidavit of walker todd was NOT entered as evidence in the MI case, as Pauligirl can also attest.

Scott from Vineland said...

An affidavit is an affidavit in all 50 states. An affidavit is not incontrovertably true simply because it is a sworn statement in affidavit form.

Scott from Vineland said...

mogel007 said...
When is the last time that you were able to find any publications or books written by Notarial Dissent on the world wide web?
___________________________________
Ahhhh, the good old WWW. Where all are honest and pure of heart. Where truth and accountibility reign supreme. Get a clue, Moogs.

Scott from Vineland said...

mogel007 said...
Still looking for an affidavit FROM YOU that PROVES beyond a reasonable doubt that Walker F. Todd lied.
___________________________________
Don't take my word for it. Go ask the Hon. Edward Sosnick what HE thought. It was his opinion that mattered in the Bloomfield Hills case.

Scott from Vineland said...

mogel007 said...
However, I guess it's par for the course for you, Scott from Vineland, to believe a fool over an expert.
___________________________________
Mogel = Pot
SFV = kettle

Scott from Vineland said...

mogel007 said...
Ok, would you then, and swear under oath that you are an expert, and then list your 20 years of experience as a terrorism expert too & then come & post on this blog that you are a sincere Christian always speaking & looking for the truth and good of humanity and that's why Canada should be nuked?

On second thought, forgot about answering that question. I think you would based upon your previous unbelievable comments on this blog.
___________________________________
No, no... I WANT to answer this one. Here is my answer: No, I am not an expert on terrorism; Yes, my claim to be a Christian is sincere and I do seek the truth; No, I do NOT beleive that we should nuke Canada. Only question I have a tough time with is this one: Is Moogie a moron or a clever con-man and spin-meister? He HAS to be one or the other.

Scott from Vineland said...

Pauligirl said...
Affidavit of Walker F. Todd was attached to the Bank One vs Harshavardhan Dave and Pritima Dave case. According to one of the lawyers that tried the case, the affidavit was never allowed in, as it had no bearing on the case. (I called and taked to the attorney) Order granting Plantiffs’ (Bank One) Motion for summary Disposition was handed down 1/8/04 again Dave in the amount of $256,763.35 by Hon. Edward Sosnick, and filed in the circuit court for the county of Oakland, State of Michigan under file # 03-047448-cz. Judgment was satisfied 9/21/04.

Circuit court files are generally not available online, but I have a copy of the judgment.

So much for Walker F. Todd.
___________________________________
If I ever need to be represented in a court of law, I want my attorney to be named Mike Hammer. There has to be a major psychological advantage there! ;-)
Did you talk to him YESTERDAY? If so, he was probably wondering what the heck was going on. (I e-mailed him with the same question.)
Might not be a bad idea to post that judgement here (or a link to it). Show Walker Todd's fans here that he might need to confine his expertise to the WWW in the future.

Scott from Vineland said...

BTW, this comment moderation is a major nuisance. I mean, "All comments must be approved by the blog author"? Does that mean Fred has to run everything by Kurt before he posts it? No wonder it took 4-5 hours for our comments to post yesterday. ;-)

Scott from Vineland said...

mogel007 said...
If either of you ignore taking this exam, you both agree that you are full of hot air and flatulence.
___________________________________
Silence is acceptance, eh Moogs?

Scott from Vineland said...

mogel007 said...
both of you can answer this exam
___________________________________
Before I take the exam, I want to know who will be grading it?

Cameron Frye said...

Notorial Dissent, your my hero!!!

Scott from Vineland said...

Moderation delay is greatly improved this AM. Thank you! It really helps to maintain the flow of the conversation.

Scott from Vineland said...

SFV said...
...helps to mantain the flow of the conversation.

Scott from Vineland said...

Hello?

Scott from Vineland said...

Where is everybody?

sopsback said...

hey, anynone seen judge 1/2 slop latly???

where he been at?

make hisself scarced...


soory, i mean judge allslop, dont want to take any slop away from him that he's due...


maybe he can strat a court tv show...

"have slop, will travel"


LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!

near the end said...

Mogel; I think they are researching the questions.


Did you really think they were capable of answering those questions on there own.

You no ND is not smart enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

mogel007 said...

Pauligirl said: "According to one of the lawyers that tried the case, the affidavit was never allowed in, as it had no bearing on the case."
_________________________________

I disagree with that conclusion. Pauligirl, how do you figure it wasn't relevant to the case? I think it shows that the court will protect the lending fraud at all costs.

The court would only not allow the affadavit because it presents the truth & the courts don't like the truth entered in the record on this subject of lending by any expert. Kurt & Scott found the same problem with Judge Alsup's court too getting certain facts put on the record. I see a pattern and similiarity between the two cases here.

Just because a court disallows the truth to be entered, doesn't negate the validity of the affadavit where an expert is affirming the truth as he has stated it. I wasn't aware that the affadavit wasn't allowed to be entered into the Michigan court, although I was aware that the case was lost in Michigan.

Scott from Vineland, I think it's interesting & sad how you completely twisted this around making the truth a lie & inferring that Walker is a liar & not an expert on this subject simply because the Michigan case lost.

Scott from Vineland said...

near the end said...
Mogel; I think they are researching the questions.

Did you really think they were capable of answering those questions on there own.
___________________________________
Of course we are. We don't just pull facts out of our @$$ the way some people like to do. In fact, William F. Hummel himself is tutoring me so I can pass the exam. (C'mon, you all didn't think Moogie came up with all those questions on his own did you? He's cheating again, his book has all the answers in the back!)

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland said: "Apparently I understand the nature of an affidavit a little better than you, Moogs."
________________________________

Apparently you don't when you think you can make a statement, about Canada and then say you would never affirm it, because you admit it is a lie and assume no one is going to refute what you originally intended to say. An affadavit is suppose to be the truth that you WOULD DEFINITELY AFFIRM on the record & under oath. Mr. Todd was willing & able to affirm the truth, the problem is that the court didn't want the truth on the court record. Why you want to come to other conclusions is beyond me. Give me a break from you silly accusations of me being a liar based upon your own foolishness and guesses of what you believed I knew.

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland said: "No, I do NOT beleive that we should nuke Canada."
______________________________

So in the first place you attempted to originally deceive me about your presumed affadavit or had less than honorable motives when you presented this in the first place? What does such behaviour have to do with a real affadavit that you claim to be such an expert upon?

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland: "Show Walker Todd's fans here that he might need to confine his expertise to the WWW in the future."
________________________________

Why? Because the Court is the source of ALL TRUTH? I thought you were a Christian & that God is the source of all truth?
You sure are a presumptous character, aren't you? Of all of the possibie reasons or conclusions in the universe, this is the ONLY conclusion that is available and acceptable to your consideration? That's very sad indeed. You're like concrete, thoroughly mixed up and permanently set. You're not too open-minded are you? You could never be accused of that.

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland said: "Hmmm, whether or not that's so hardly seems relevant seeing as how Mr. Walker F. Todd's grand affidavit WASN'T uncontested."
________________________________

Spoken like a true closed minded person that you are. Since the truth isn't considered, it most certainly can't be relevant. Yea, you're logic comes from the closed minded type.

That's like saying the Jews rejected Christ, along with Pilate not recognizing him to be God either, and so the law had him crucified, so Jesus's godhood and claims were truly irrlevant.

So you must also believe all unheard claims ARE IRRELEVANT TOO? Have you ever been accused of being unreasonable?

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland said: "It was his opinion that mattered in the Bloomfield Hills case."
_________________________________

However, before that, you talk about TRUTH AND ACCOUNTABILITY. The Judge wouldn't even consider the truth, and wasn't accountable to even allow Mr. Todd to enter his affidavit of truth.
I think you are the one that is good for a laugh. Keep talking! You'll make my points much better than I ever could. LOL

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland said: "The affidavit of walker todd was NOT entered as evidence in the MI case, as Pauligirl can also attest."
_________________________________

If the affadavit was attempted by Mr. Walker to be put into the court as evidence, it isn't his fault it was disallowed for whatever reasons the court wants to pretend as to why.

That doesn't make Mr. Walker a liar or me a liar, or anyone else a liar for an honest attempt to tell the truth. If you attempt to tell the truth & you aren't heard, does this make you a liar? My goodness Scott, do you have problems with communications with most of your peers like this by prefering to label people, rather than to try & decipher the facts first?

Kurt & Scott attempted to get alot of evidence also entered into the court record & recognized by the Court. Some things were even stripped from the record by the Court. Scott from Vineland, do you remember Kurt talking about this? I don't recall, you calling your friend Kurt, a liar, or maybe that's a conclusion, you just think is true about Kurt, but aren't quite as vocal with him, huh?

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland said: "Is Moogie a moron or a clever con-man and spin-meister? He HAS to be one or the other."
___________________________________

This is another perfect example of your black & white mentality. The colors have to always be either black or white, they could never be conceivable as being gray or some other color.

In your sad universe, only two possibilities exist. This is NOT factual in my universe to explain a persons heart & actions BY SUCH A SIMPLISTIC APPROACH. It's much too limiting.

near the end said...

Now; Scott I think Mogel has got you on this one dude.

mogel007 said...

Scott said: "Before I take the exam, I want to know who will be grading it?"
_______________________________

Well, it won't be me since I didn't originate the questions, and I didn't originate the answers, an expert did & his website will affirm the answers there, so no prejudice you think I have, will will affect the answers. So you can take the test without any fear of me putting any spin on the answers. I await your answers, and I await Notarial Dissent taking the test.

mogel007 said...

Near the End said: "You know ND is not smart enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
______________________________

Maybe he doesn't have the COURAGE to expose himself to take a real test?

mogel007 said...

Scott said: "Silence is acceptance, eh Moogs?"
_______________________________

Yes, unless you want to challenge that by taking the test & giving me your answers. It's a fair test.

Of course, I have the answers to this quiz. I'll give them to you by sending you to the proper website after you are scored, and after Notarial Dissent takes the test too.

Anyone sincerely interested in finding the truth out on the lending issue can find it since the internet has MANY experts saying the same thing over & over again, and this goes against the conclusions of the courts.

neodemes said...

Byron,

You pushed a "100% proven" mortgage elimination scheme and you have the nerve to lecture on TRUTH??????????

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scott asked:
"Is Moogie a moron or a clever con-man and spin-meister? He HAS to be one or the other."

Scott,

There is a third option...moronic con-man and spin-meister.

sopsback said...

not good...

from world renown scientist j mccanney....



ake note ... ALL INDICATORS are pointing to a huge earth wide shattering economical collapse in the next weeks with a resulting social upheaval to follow ... this is actually part of the new world order plan to "unify the world" in one economic banking system but the collapse of the US economy is needed before that can happen ... do not expect a new election to help ... this will be all over but the crying as they say long before any new election (and all of the front runner candidates are part of the "approved" new world order agenda anyway) ... here are the rules you must follow ... stay in your houses and remain calm ... do not let economic pressures force you from your dwellings (the banks are going to have tons of houses ... another 1 million foreclosures of middle to upper end houses in the next 6 weeks) ... be prepared to TAKE CARE OF YOURSELVES and your immediate family ... do not leave your homes for supplies ... be prepared in advance ... WATER (you will need a portable emergency water filter like the Berkey) ... basic food and shelter ... you will be on your own ... jim mccanney



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


hipefully my HIYPs will pay before then....mabye even those wiating for the dg.....

notorial dissent said...

Moogy goes out on a limb already chopped off
The Federal Statute is vague & doesn't apply to the Dorean situation. There were no financial institutions that were a victim when the bank fraud charges were dropped, so the statute doesn't apply.

Still don't have a clue do you Moogs, the statute is anything but vague, it refers to using the mails to commit fraud, the fraud was in sending forged and false documents for recording, and the fact that they involved financial institutions was the aggravating factor. You are just proving that you can't read plain English, there is nothing in that statute that says what you are claiming, it says very plainly to use the mails to commit fraud of any kind. The statute specifically mentions “money and property” and says nothing about property rights. The rest is just your nattering nonsense and wishful thinking, it was using the mails to commit fraud.

the limb falls further
There was a court case in Michigan where Todd did say those things, under oath & on the court record, and he has testified before of exactly the things I said previously.

Gee Moogs, you mean he didn't say that at the Dorean trial like Kurt and you tried to make out!!! Todd never appeared in court, and his so called affidavit was never accepted at trial. What ever lies he tried to tell in a Michigan trial is irrelevant to the matter at hand since it was never brought up at trial. You mean he pretended to be an expert witness. Todd has been selling his snake oil to the foolish and gullible for several years now, and his track record, like the Dorean bozos is still 0 for all. If you had bothered to finish with your false attribution, you would have found that Todd's "expert testimony" was soundly and roundly debunked in the aforementioned trial, that he never testified and the affidavit was never entered into the trial, and incidently, the bozos who hired him to run his dog and pony show LOST!!!!!! and lost big. The case was Bank One vs Harshavardhan Dave, MI 03-047448-cz. They tried a variation of the Dorean nonsense and lost it all. Since then he has avoided actually appearing anywhere where he could be put under oath as he really would like to hang on to what little remains of his questionable law career.

Incidently, I am quite familiar with the Todd nonsense, and it is nonsense and fiction from beginning to end. He very carefully couches his answers so that they have no real value when it comes to a positive statement. Todd can make any asinine statement he wants to, but it doesn't change the fact that it is complete and total nonsense, and has been rebutted and destroyed in court every time it has been broached. So I guess it really isn't worth the paper it is printed on. The fact that it has never been accepted in any court case puts paid to your delusional belief in it. It is and remains a work of bad fiction.

Sorry Moogs, the affidavit of a whore for hire is usually not worth the paper it is printed on, and in the case, it is worth even less. Todd is a joke, and while the clueless and totally brain dead may continue to believe he is an expert, no one with any standing in any of the fields he abuses does, and his material is regularly tossed our of court cases as having no validity. There is no one in the financial industry that considers Todd anything but a pathetic clown, and the legal field finds him an embarrassment.

And as far as an affidavit is concerned, I will stick with reality, and the fact that banking and accounting predate the Fed by a good number of centuries and have not changed in all that time. The technology has changed but the principals and practices have not. Try your nonsense on someone who actually teaches finance or banking and see how long it takes for them to start laughing at you.

Moggey does the two step
Sorry, but good Mormons DON'T SMOKE. Maybe you missed that important fact when you studied about the different religions in school.

No Moogs, I am quite familiar with it, but there is also the bit about honesty and integrity and something about bearing false witness that you seem to conveniently forget all the time, so I figured this was just one more of your little lapses from grace.

and trips
Just because a court disallows the truth to be entered, doesn't negate the validity of the affadavit where an expert is affirming the truth as he has stated it.

Actually it does matter. The courts seem to have an aversion to having nonsense entered as fact, and in the end it is their determination that prevails. The fact that it is the sworn statement of a liar and a fool just adds to the reason it is of no value.

Scott said
C'mon, you all didn't think Moogie came up with all those questions on his own did you? He's cheating again, his book has all the answers in the back!

Oh, come on, he doesn’t even understand the questions, let alone the answers.


Moogie, you are wasting your time. Todd is as big a fraud as the dim duo. None of his nonsense has ever been accepted in any court setting where it has been attempted. If you can show otherwise, please do so, otherwise go find some other nonsense to trumpet.

Scott from Vineland said...

mogel007 said...
Pauligirl said: "According to one of the lawyers that tried the case, the affidavit was never allowed in, as it had no bearing on the case."
_________________________________

I disagree with that conclusion. Pauligirl, how do you figure it wasn't relevant to the case? I think it shows that the court will protect the lending fraud at all costs.
___________________________________
Way to spin, Moogs!!! First, hold forth the affidavit and pretend that it is actual legal precedent and then, when you get busted on THAT, hold forth the affidavit's LACK of consideration by the court as evidence of judicial bias. How can you lose?

Scott from Vineland said...

Moogs said...
Scott from Vineland, I think it's interesting & sad how you completely twisted this around making the truth a lie & inferring that Walker is a liar & not an expert on this subject simply because the Michigan case lost.
___________________________________
Actually, I was just pointing out that what you were implying about the affidavit being a legal precedent was untrue.

Scott from Vineland said...

Byron, in case you truly haven't figured it out yet, I would NEVER have sworn in an affidvait that I thought we should attack Canada. What I was doing was intentionally using a ridiculously extreme example of why an affidavit, in and of itself, does not always represent truth. Did you REALLY not get that?

Scott from Vineland said...

moogs said...
I thought you were a Christian & that God is the source of all truth?
___________________________________
Yes and Yes. But how does this statement deflate my argument that the opinion of Walker Todd and various other WWW mythology are NOT truth?

Scott from Vineland said...

Moogs said...
You're not too open-minded are you?
___________________________________
Byron, do you believe that God is open-minded? Who does scripture tell us that we are to model our behavior on? Sometimes open-mindedness is over-rated.

sopsback said...

WAKE UP! DEFEND YOSELF!

PRIMER ON MARICRIME LAW


Jordan Maxwell discussing who really runs the United States of America, illuminati, business and family ties among the elite, International ...Maritime Admiralty Law and more exposing the reign of British royalty over the American citizens of the USA including the english-speaking world in general.

Also interviewed are Michael Tsarion, Jim Marrs, John Greenwald discussing generally about the New World Order and some other details pertaining to this sort of topic.

If you are really interested in International Maritime Admiralty Law in the sense of practical application in a courtroom, the best interview with Jordan Maxwell I have come across on this subject is an interview he did with Laura Lee for her talk show. Laura Lee's show has a website with downloadable past interviews but Jordan Maxwell's is not present there at the time of this writing. However, it is available from file sharing networks such as Emule and BitTorrent. Just search for "Laura Lee" and/or "Jordan Maxwell" and/or "Maritime Law" and you should find it. It is approximately two hours in duration. The one example Jordan Maxwell gives of a person who goes into court, knowing how to defend themselves with knowledge of how the Law of the Sea in imposed upon civilans, is priceless and worth seeking this interview for alone.

TO VIEW THIS IMPORTANT VIDEO CLICK ON:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=
YiHOP2P_NTA

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


warning: tho you will need dsl/boredband to watch

i only have a dilup and it take forever to load. gave up. would take 10 hours to load and connection would time out.

Scott from Vineland said...

Truth is absolute, not relative. Now, I can believe one thing and be wrong. That doesn't change the truth. I just means I don't believe it. If everything that you and Kurt believe turns out to be true, then guess what... I will have been wrong. But since I don't think this is going to happen, I will continue to argue what I believe to be truth. What else would you have me do, Byron? To do otherwise would be to disobey what God tells each of us who are called by His Name to do.

In the end there is only one Belief that truly matters. This world and everything in it is temporary, fleeting. In eternity, this entire argument will count for nothing. Sometimes I wonder why I continue with this.

Scott from Vineland said...

Moogs said...
I don't recall, you calling your friend Kurt, a liar, or maybe that's a conclusion, you just think is true about Kurt, but aren't quite as vocal with him, huh?
___________________________________
I took my direction from you and NTE here. You guys railed on and on about what a jerk I was for taking my childhood friend to task for his actions. So I stopped.

Actually, I have to question you guys' perception of friendship as well. Is it wrong to rebuke a friend when you see them doing something you believe is wrong? Granted, I may have used some ill-chosen words and a poor venue to do that but it was the best one available to me at the time.

Scott from Vineland said...

Moogs said...
In your sad universe, only two possibilities exist.
___________________________________
Yes, I suppose I do see the universe largely in black and white. I don't find this sad at all. I think God is a black and white kind of personality. Most things are either right or they're wrong. I don't see a lot of room for gray.

Scott from Vineland said...

near the end said...
Now; Scott I think Mogel has got you on this one dude
___________________________________
Nah, I think my arguments stand up well against his. We could take a poll. :-)

Scott from Vineland said...

Moogs said...
Anyone sincerely interested in finding the truth out on the lending issue can find it since the internet has MANY experts saying the same thing over & over again, and this goes against the conclusions of the courts.
___________________________________
The WWW has an equal or greater number of experts saying otherwise. Again, we all make our own decisions as to who we want to believe and I suppose we all have our personal reasons why we make those particular decisions. The truth is still the truth, black or white.

habakkuk said...

Proverbs 8:13

13The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

mogel007 said...

Scott said: "First, hold forth the affidavit and pretend that it is actual legal precedent..."
________________________________

Where in my words did I EVER say or infer that? You are the one spinning things. I have said that the courts have continually rejected the idea of "creation of money". Courts seem to infer that lenders lend their own money.

Scott, go ahead & take the test & post your answers. Notarial Dissent probably is afraid to take a real test. He won't look past the courts for any truth.

mogel007 said...

Scott said: "The WWW has an equal or greater number of experts saying otherwise."
________________________________

I really doubt that. Please list even 3 websites where experts talk about lending in terms of what Judge Alsup decreed on the bench. If you can't do that, I'll assume you just made up that statement up on the spot with no basis to believe otherwise. Find me some websites that have an affadavit that contradicts Mr. Walker Todd's affadavit too, while you are at it.

mogel007 said...

Notarial dissent said: "No Moogs, I am quite familiar with it, but there is also the bit about honesty and integrity and something about bearing false witness that you seem to conveniently forget all the time,"
______________________________

Well when you infer that I am smoking an illegal drug, I don't find that to be very honest, so you're not one to lecture me on honesty.

If you are so honest, take my test I presented. If you are really such an expert on this subject as you claim, you should do very well on the test. It's only 20 questions, & won't take any longer than your usual long posting.

mogel007 said...

Scott asked: "Is it wrong to rebuke a friend when you see them doing something you believe is wrong?"
_________________________________

I don't think rebuking in good faith is the issue.

What do you believe Kurt has done that is wrong that you can strongly rely upon?

Have you ever read a complete presentment sent to the bank in behalf of a Dorean client? Or did you judge Kurt before having completely read one & before completely understanding the Dorean Process & justifications?

near the end said...

Scott and ND; Why are ya'll afraid to take the teast?

near the end said...

Scott I would never throw a friend under the Bus like you did Kurt. Espicially a chilhood friend that's just wrong Man!!!

near the end said...

Scott I think Mogel has got you again.

Scott you and ND just take the test and prove him wrong dude's.

cantbelieveeverythingyouhear said...

Looks like this William F Hummel guy is a jack of all trades.

notorial dissent said...

Scott from Vinland said
Way to spin, Moogs!!! First, hold forth the affidavit and pretend that it is actual legal precedent and then, when you get busted on THAT, hold forth the affidavit's LACK of consideration by the court as evidence of judicial bias. How can you lose?

Easy, just like Dave did in MI and like the dim duo have in every court they got hauled into, TOTALLY!!!!!! Fiction, even very legal sounding fiction doesn’t last long when it gets into a real courtroom, and particularly not when it is presented by an idiot.

Moogey whined
Well when you infer that I am smoking an illegal drug, I don't find that to be very honest, so you're not one to lecture me on honesty.

It was actually a rhetorical expression, and (the illegal drug part is your interpretation-not what I said) but if you’re that sensitive about it, the old phrase of “me thinks the man doth protest much to much” comes immediately to mind. I notice you didn’t bother responding to the second part of the statement, which pretty well answers that as well, now doesn’t it?

Moogey whined some more
Have you ever read a complete presentment sent to the bank in behalf of a Dorean client? Or did you judge Kurt before having completely read one & before completely understanding the Dorean Process & justifications?

I’ve read the entire tedious piece of drivel, and it is nothing but poorly used legal sounding nonsense, with no actual legal or real world standing. It is nonsense from beginning to end and trying to pretend it is anything else doesn’t change that fact. If the client had a legitimate valid legal complaint there were perfectly legal and functional channels to go through, the last of which actually being going to court. Anything else is just a waste of time and money, and total nonsense, which is why it failed so utterly and miserably and caused so much damage.

You don’t get to make up a document, send it to someone, demand that they do something, or else you will get special rights to do something and get away with it. It doesn’t work, as the current fiasco so handily has demonstrated. The law is quite specific about those sorts of things and your insistence on pretending otherwise notwithstanding, doesn’t change that fact.

real Moogey silliness
Anyone sincerely interested in finding the truth out on the lending issue can find it since the internet has MANY experts saying the same thing over & over again, and this goes against the conclusions of the courts.

Yes, and there are probably also sites that will give you instructions on do it yourself brain surgery, how to legally not pay taxes and the latest sure fire cures for how to improve your sex life, or whatever ails you, and I give them the same credence I give your so called “experts”, which is to say next to none. I will stack my twenty some years of working in the fields in question and actually working with these process and documents as opposed to your “experts” whose only claim to fame is that they have access to the internet and a computer.

near the end said...

ND is affraid to take the test because he's affraid of lookin like the idiot he appears to be on this Blog.


Don't worry ND we all know your an idiot!!!!!LOL.

judge allslop said...

Easy my little bilge rat, Diaboli virtus in limbis est. Our plan to slowly change America contiues,adapting each generation just a little more,not enough to wake them up, but moving them a little furthur from the basis of the declaration of independence and a little closer to total tyranny. The people still have not learned that the laws were made by other men, are never for them.The illusion must be kept before them that they are the beneficiuaries,but like everything else told to the people are lies.It is because of the kings privialage to make the laws. They must never know a right comes from the one true god,a privilage comes from other men.

Scott from Vineland said...

near the end said...
Scott I would never throw a friend under the Bus like you did Kurt.
___________________________________
Unfortunately, Kurt was already wedged firmly under the wheels long before I arrived on the scene. As a childhood friend I suppose I could have tried to defend him but doing so would have violated my own beliefs and principals. Is that what you guys think I should have done?

The other thing I could have done was to stay out of the conversation altogther but the irony of Kurt's direction in life vs. my own was too great for me to ignore.

Scott from Vineland said...

near the end said...
ND is affraid to take the test because he's affraid of lookin like the idiot he appears to be on this Blog.
___________________________________
Appearances are obviously VERY subjective on this blog. The names of the idiots and geniuses all depends on who you ask.

Taking the test would be pointless because it was undoubtably put together by someone who shares Byron's perception of monetary issues and finance.

near the end said...

Are you 2 guys just affraid of tests?

Scott from Vineland said...

mogel007 said...
Scott said: "First, hold forth the affidavit and pretend that it is actual legal precedent..."
________________________________

Where in my words did I EVER say or infer that?
___________________________________
You're kidding, right???

Scott from Vineland said...

mogel007 said...
Scott said: "The WWW has an equal or greater number of experts saying otherwise."
________________________________

I really doubt that. Please list even 3 websites where experts talk about lending in terms of what Judge Alsup decreed on the bench. If you can't do that, I'll assume you just made up that statement up on the spot with no basis to believe otherwise. Find me some websites that have an affadavit that contradicts Mr. Walker Todd's affadavit too, while you are at it.
___________________________________
http://www.quatloos.com/mortgage-credit_elimination.htm

http://www.geocities.com/
CapitolHill/Embassy/1154/flaherty.html

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/
aier_on_conspiracy_04.html

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/
MoneyBanking/FederalReserve/
FRconspire/FRconspire.htm

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/
flaherty/flaherty9.html

http://www.politicalhobbyist.com/
debunked/fedmyth.html

http://www.adl.org/special_reports/
control_of_fed/print.asp

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/
prouty_fed.htm

I found all these sites within the first 5 pages of my 37,000 page Google search. OK, so I DID misspeak about one thing here... there are, in fact, WAY more web-sites devoted to promoting vapor money/Fed conspiracy than debunking it. So you got me on that one. But maybe that disparity is telling in and of itself. I could also weasel out here by pointing out our conflicting definition of "experts" but I think we both know what I meant so I will stand corrected.

If it's really that important to you that an affidavit exists to refute the Walker Todd affidavit, I would be happy to write one myself and post it on this page. All my legal docs are on my computer at work so I'll try to do it Monday if I'm not too busy. It will be fun!

near the end said...

Calm down Scott ya'll quit avoiding the test by talkin bout other shit.

Come on Man just take the test don't be a scardy cat,

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "It doesn’t work, as the current fiasco so handily has demonstrated. The law is quite specific about those sorts of things and your insistence on pretending otherwise notwithstanding, doesn’t change that fact."
________________________________

Take for instance the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. The need to validate a disputed debt is a borrowers right, and the lender is obligated to respond on a timely basis.

mogel007 said...

Here is the website with the answers to the quiz:

http://wfhummel.cnchost.com/money_quiz.html

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland & Notarial Dissent believe that this statement is true BASED UPON THEIR RHETORIC & LIES.

14. Banks lend the money they receive from their depositors. [False]

A deposit received by a bank becomes a part of its reserves, which it may hold to back increased lending, or it may use to purchase other interest-earning assets. When banks lend they CREATE NEW DEPOSITS without affecting existing deposits, and thereby INCREASE THE MONEY SUPPLY. Conversely when bank loans are paid off, the money supply decreases.

mogel007 said...

17. When a bank issues a loan, its liabilities and reserves increase by the amount of the loan. [False]

Lending INCREASES a bank's ASSETS AND LIABILITIES, but not its reserves. The additional deposit liability created by the loan, reduces its reserve ratio. If the ratio falls below the requirement, it must increase its reserves which it can do by borrowing funds in the money market.
________________________________

Why doesn't the bank pay THEIR LIABILITY? That's the fraud when the lender ignores their liability BY THE LIES THEY TELL, by pretending and believing a lie that the courts protect.

It's interesting to note that two men were convicted of fraud when people like Scott from Vineland OPENLY ADMIT that most of the internet sites is agreeing with the Dorean Group's point of view how lending process really works. Despite this, the Alsup
Court still allowed no hard evidence to convict the Dorean Group since if the lenders are committing fraud, there can't be any mail fraud on the part of the Dorean Group. Scott, did any of these so called experts you listed on these websites speak in the Dorean trial?

With such a heated debate, why would Judge Alsup's court or jury believe that the intend of the Dorean Group was willful and evil, when it's obvious there is a real divergency of views and a more prevalent belief on the subject of lending on what is being done with the promissory note to unfairly enrich the lender.

When the lender takes the promissory note without consideration, they are increasing a liability they owe, a liability they pretend they don't have to pay back. Because of this, they are coming to court with "unclean hands".

Scott from Vineland, the list of websites you gave are those protecting the lie and interests of the lenders. They aren't experts on banking & lending.

Can I look any of these people up promoting these websites in any recognized canon that prove them to be authorities on the subject of lending & banking by their experience and training & recognition?

Can you also produce some affadavits for me too from some of these experts that were entered into a court of law espousing your point of view? Why are these so called experts unwilling to put their point of view into evidence as an affadavit? Could it be that they are lying & don't want to take the risk of possible perjury down the road?

The Dorean Process presentment provided an affadavit for the lender to sign which is exactly the point of view that you are espousing. Guess what? None of the lenders signed this affadavit. What's the big deal here? That question OF WHY NOT ANSWER, was NEVER ANSWERED. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the lenders know their lie, and don't want to aggravate the problem by increasing their liability through an affadavit.

Just like you, you want to pretend that Canada is at risk to the U.S., & speak of war, but of course YOU WOULD NEVER SIGN AN AFFADAVIT TO THAT EFFECT. Are you really that stupid?

Yep, you speak in deceptions, just like a true banker/lender, but are of no substance in putting your money and reputation where your mouth is, nor do you have the character to do what Scott & Kurt has done. You would much rather criticize & judge an old friend who has conviction and courage who is willing and able to put his life, liberty and happiness all on the line.

Course when you openly and maliciously criticize someone, you immediately assume that you are on HIGHER MORAL GROUNDS THAN THEY ARE, even when you also openly admit that MORE PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH YOUR POINT OF VIEW according to the internet. LOL

That's the problem I have with you, not that you think you are willing to chastize a friend in order to help him.

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "I will stack my twenty some years of working in the fields in question and actually working with these process and documents as opposed to your “experts” whose only claim to fame is that they have access to the internet and a computer."
_______________________________

What exactly have you done for a living for the past 20 or so years?

mogel007 said...

Notarial dissent said: "You don’t get to make up a document, send it to someone, demand that they do something, or else you will get special rights to do something and get away with it."
________________________________


"You don’t get to make up a document, (PROSECUTION CHARGES AGAINST KURT & SCOTT) send it to someone, (GRAND JURY) demand that they do something, (INDICT OR NOT) or else you will get special rights to do something and get away with it. (SPECIAL RIGHT TO PUT SOMEONE AWAY IN JAIL FOR 300 YEARS OR SPECIAL RIGHT TO SUE FOR DAMAGES FOR UNLAWFUL & UNPROVEN CHARGES).

Yea, I'm with you buddy, I understand your logic. Did you read that on the internet or did you come up with that logic all on your own with your 20+ years of special experience? LOL

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland: Great website, other than it has been removed or deleted. Obviously, you didn't read this website, did you to check out anything!!! LOL


http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/alter_on_conspiracy_04.html

mogel007 said...

Scott also produces this site:

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/
MoneyBanking/FederalReserve/
FRconspire/FRconspire.htm

In it we have Myth 13: "Banks charge interest on money they costlessly create out of thin air."

The problem is the full aricle AGAIN HAS BEEN DELETED OR REMOVED. LOL

mogel007 said...

Scott lists this site as EXPERTS:

http://www.quatloos.com/mortgage-credit_elimination.htm

Since when are nameless usernames considered to be experts that can go on an affaidavit? LOL

mogel007 said...

Scott lists this site:

http://www.geocities.com/
CapitolHill/Embassy/1154/flaherty.html

Problem is this site only talks about the Federal Reserve. You need to get more specific on the subject of lending to be relevant on the real subject of the Dorean Group.

mogel007 said...

Scott lists this site as an authority:

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty9.html

Again this site doesn't get specific, only talks about the possible reasons of the Kennedy assasination. No experts here either.

mogel007 said...

Scott: Your last site has also been deleted or removed:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/
prouty_fed.htm

Scott from Vineland: You've got to be kidding, don't you? You're going to have to do better than that. Your authorities look like you haven't even bothered to do your homework. LOL

sopsback said...

LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!111


the federal reserve is about to -DELETED-


----DELETE UPON OPEN---

***********************
***********************
****FEDERAL RESERVE****
***********************
***********************




Upon deletion, logo should like this:


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

IF it does not, then please report this to Provo Marshmallow immeditely!

near the end said...

Scott; I expected more from you.


You just got toasted by Mogel.

Now I'm beginning to see why you and ND won't take the TEST!!!!!! LOL.

notorial dissent said...

Oooh, Moogies on a rant, rather like a chihuahua trying to tell off a great dane.

and Moogie proves once again that he can’t tell apples from oranges
Take for instance the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act. The need to validate a disputed debt is a borrowers right, and the lender is obligated to respond on a timely basis.

And, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that FDCPA applies to collection of consumer debt, NOT mortgages. Nice try though.

Moogey exhibits further ignorance
Scott from Vineland & Notarial Dissent believe that this statement is true BASED UPON THEIR RHETORIC & LIES.

14. Banks lend the money they receive from their depositors. [False]


Not a question of believing it Moogs, it is a fact. That is what a bank does, that is what a bank has always done, try reading a little history sometime.

Moogs tries again
17. When a bank issues a loan, its liabilities and reserves increase by the amount of the loan. [False]

Lending INCREASES a bank's ASSETS AND LIABILITIES, but not its reserves. The additional deposit liability created by the loan, reduces its reserve ratio. If the ratio falls below the requirement, it must increase its reserves which it can do by borrowing funds in the money market.


The first part of the statement above is true, the rest is nonsense. A loan is not a deposit, it is a liability on the banks books. The banks reserve ratio remains constant UNLESS a loan is defaulted and the bank has to cover the loss to assets, at which point they take a charge to reserves to cover the loan liability. The last part of the statement is equally nonsense. If a bank’s reserve ratio falls below it’s require point the bank has to liquidate some asset to cover the discrepancy. When a bank is below reserve requirements, it usually doesn’t have the credit to be borrowing anything from anyone.

Moogey displays further ignorance
Why doesn't the bank pay THEIR LIABILITY? That's the fraud when the lender ignores their liability BY THE LIES THEY TELL, by pretending and believing a lie that the courts protect.

Moogs, you really do not comprehend accounting terminology any better than you do real estate or legal terminology. Oh, sorry forgot who I was dealing with, of course you don’t!!!! By this statement alone you have proven that you haven’t got a clue about what you’ve been carrying on about.

In accounting, a liability is money that is owed or at risk, in this case money that has been loaned out from the bank. The liability is money owed to the bank, not money the bank owes.

Nothing like not having a clue about what you’re jabbering about eh moogs?

more Moogey drivel
It's interesting to note that two men were convicted of fraud when people like Scott from Vineland OPENLY ADMIT that most of the internet sites is agreeing with the Dorean Group's point of view how lending process really works.

Pathetic, but hardly interesting. There are a great many sites on the net swearing that the earth is flat, that the world is being ruled by lizard monsters from outer space, or that the vapor money theory is fact. Just because a thousand idiots swear at the top of their lungs that Moogey is a genius doesn’t change the fact that they are idiots or that Moogey is a fool. Try actually reading an accounting or banking text Moogs, and get some real information instead of the fiction you keep looking for on the net.

Regardless of the braying of the thousand fools, or Moogey or Kurt for that matter, the trial was not about vapor money, or little green men, or any of a number of other things, it was about mail fraud, and since mail fraud has nothing to do with vapor money, it had not place at the trial.

and yet more Moogey drivel
With such a heated debate, why would Judge Alsup's court or jury believe that the intend of the Dorean Group was willful and evil,

The only “heated debate”, is in your fevered imagination. There is nothing to debate, it is a crock, it has been adjudged a crock repeatedly by every court that it has come in contact with, and realistically, and factually it is nothing but poorly disguised fraud.

Moogie found some more nonsense to come up with
When the lender takes the promissory note without consideration, they are increasing a liability they owe, a liability they pretend they don't have to pay back. Because of this, they are coming to court with "unclean hands".


Again, more of your ignorance. The promissory note is given in exchange for the proceeds for the loan. The liability is money they have out at loan, not money they owe. You really ought to check out one of those accounting textbooks if you are going to keep pretending you know what these terms mean.

What exactly have you done for a living for the past 20 or so years?

Well, let’s see, while you were working on acquiring your first refrigerator box, I have worked for a major national bank, a major and several not so major brokerage companies, SIPC, and a very active corporate law firm.

Moogie tries again, and fails
"You don’t get to make up a document, (PROSECUTION CHARGES AGAINST KURT & SCOTT) send it to someone, (GRAND JURY) demand that they do something, (INDICT OR NOT) or else you will get special rights to do something and get away with it. (SPECIAL RIGHT TO PUT SOMEONE AWAY IN JAIL FOR 300 YEARS OR SPECIAL RIGHT TO SUE FOR DAMAGES FOR UNLAWFUL & UNPROVEN CHARGES).

Get a grip Moogs, legal process is that a charge is made, the prosecutor takes it to the grand jury, they get an indictment, charges are filed, and the parties are brought before the court to have the matter tried, the judge presides, the jury determines guilt, and the process is complete. The difference, if it has escaped your iron trap of a mind is that the judicial process is sanctioned, controlled, and spelled out in law, while the Dorean nonsense is just that and is not. You don’t like it, tough, it has been that way since the Republic was founded, and before that under the Crown.

And no, I didn’t get it off the internet, I got it the hard way, by going to school, paying attention in class and reading civics, history and law books, you might try cracking one sometime. But then you wouldn’t like them much, as they won’t agree with your crack pot notions either.

Scott from Vineland said...

Mogel said...
It's interesting to note that two men were convicted of fraud when people like Scott from Vineland OPENLY ADMIT that most of the internet sites is agreeing with the Dorean Group's point of view how lending process really works.
___________________________________
The internet has always been the forum of choice for fringe elements, Moog. There are fewer web-sites disputing the Fed Reserve conspiracy theory because the overwhelming opinion in this nation is that banking as we know it is a legitimate function of our society. Your arguments are so weak sometimes.

Scott from Vineland said...

Mogel said...
Scott from Vineland, the list of websites you gave are those protecting the lie and interests of the lenders. They aren't experts on banking & lending.
___________________________________
Of course, Moogs. Their opinions differ from yours so they MUST be part of the conspiracy. I wouldn't have expected any different response from you here.

Scott from Vineland said...

Mogel said...
Scott from Vineland: Great website, other than it has been removed or deleted. Obviously, you didn't read this website, did you to check out anything!!! LOL
___________________________________
Don't be a doofus, Byron. Do you think I would have posted a site without even LOOKING at it to see what position it took? Especially when, as we have already noted, most of the web-sites you will find are devoted to propagating the Vapor Money/Evil Fed myth. Either the page is down or you're too stupid to find it.

Scott from Vineland said...

Mogel said...
Can I look any of these people up promoting these websites in any recognized canon that prove them to be authorities on the subject of lending & banking by their experience and training & recognition?
___________________________________
What do you consider a recognized canon?

Scott from Vineland said...

Mogel said...
Can you also produce some affadavits for me too from some of these experts that were entered into a court of law espousing your point of view? Why are these so called experts unwilling to put their point of view into evidence as an affadavit? Could it be that they are lying & don't want to take the risk of possible perjury down the road?
___________________________________
Affidavits carry an awful lot of weight with you don't they, Moogs? Could it be that you don't see such affidavits because those who represent banking and finance are willing to actually show up in court and testify? As opposed to hiding behind an affidavit to avoid a potentially dicey cross-examination?

Scott from Vineland said...

Mogel said...
Just like you, you want to pretend that Canada is at risk to the U.S., & speak of war, but of course YOU WOULD NEVER SIGN AN AFFADAVIT TO THAT EFFECT. Are you really that stupid?
___________________________________
Byron, you're undoubtedly the only person reading this blog who STILL fails to grasp this. I do NOT... repeat, do NOT feel that Canada is a threat or that we should nuke them. I will explain this to you one more time; The point was, I can say ANYTHING I want to in a affidavit but that does not make it TRUE. Many affidavit are not worth the paper they're written on. Are YOU really this dense?

Scott from Vineland said...

near the end said...
Scott; I expected more from you.

You just got toasted by Mogel.

Now I'm beginning to see why you and ND won't take the TEST!!!!!! LOL.
___________________________________
Byron knows it's pointless to ask me to take the test anymore because I found it's source. So I now have all the answers too. The only problem is I'm not sure if ALL of the opinions expressed by Mr. Hummel are accurate.

NTE, Moogie is an internet snake-oil salesman. He tries to back his program up with conspiracy-peddling web-sites that are maintained by people who have some gripe, real or imaginary, with "The System". The fact that the courts have ALWAYS ruled against this ideology should tell you something. But of course they have that built-in, can't fail retort that the courts are part of the conspiracy. So they accept no one's wisdom or authority but their own. They will try to tell you they stand for God but the scripture they offer as proof does not always readily translate to contemporary situations.

Believe what you will, NTE. I know what I believe.

Scott from Vineland said...

Mogel said...
You're going to have to do better than that. Your authorities look like you haven't even bothered to do your homework.
___________________________________
I put my list together with a 15 minute Google search... how long have you been compiling your "evidence"?

Scott from Vineland said...

I wouldn't expect you to give credibility to ANYTHING I find anyway. I certainly don't buy into anything YOU say.

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "And, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that FDCPA applies to collection of consumer debt, NOT mortgages."
_______________________________

So lenders like World Savings DON'T COLLECT ON CONSUMER DEBT? A mortgage isn't considered consumer debt? That's funny, because that's what they tell people when you are late on your payments that they are acting as a "debt collector". They give the same notice that debt collectors (assignees of the original debt) are required to give. Why do you think that is? So mortgagees aren't acting as a debt collector when a lender asks for the monthly payment through the mails each month when they send out statements? I've even heard that same disclaimer warning on their telephone recordings in their "collections department" that "they are acting on the collection of a debt & that they are notifying you of that fact".

mogel007 said...

Nemo said: "You pushed a "100% proven" mortgage elimination scheme and you have the nerve to lecture on TRUTH??????????"
________________________________

Bruce, I doubt the words "100%" &
" mortgage elimination scheme" were ever used by me or any other Agent/Broker. Maybe your spinning the truth a bit?

Besides I don't think it's TRUTHFUL
to say that your conclusions are necessarily factual, since it's not over yet and I believe all resources haven't been exhausted yet, nor have the final authorities even spoke yet, so your conclusions are premature.

Course I don't want to argue semantics with you. The PROVEN PART of the process was that once the default of the lender took place, it was proven that a "discharge of mortgage" followed. The clients received that. No cheating or deceiving there. Anyone that understood the process, certainly understood that from the beginning.

I think you are contending that the PROVEN PART of the process was a fraud, specifically "mail fraud" by the Dorean Group, but if the lender never lent you anything, the recording of the mortgage discharge, certainly CAN'T be a fraud or a scheme, since the lender can't have what he is not entitled to because that would be unjust enrichment. Clients entered the process because THEY SINCERELY BELIEVED that they were cheated by their lenders and that the trustees would make things right.

Clients that entered the process understood that "no consideration" was given in the lending process, and they expected to receive a discharge of mortgage for paying their upfront fee because they believed the value of their promissory note in essence funded the loan anyway.

How ironic it would be-- if NO RECORDING of a discharge of mortgage, followed in the dorean process, would there be a successful conviction of 4 Defendants? Probably not, if you believe Notarial Dissent, because bank fraud being proven was irrelevant.

Would the clients cry, "foul" if they didn't get what they expected, "the proven part". I would say they would!!!!! So either scenario seems to be a no win situation when the dorean group took on the task of being a trustee.

Yet filing the mortgage discharge (what the clients wanted AND EXPECTED & believed was just), is what netted the mail fraud convictions for the defendants by the Jury.

Yet giving what the clients wanted- makes the clients the victims!!! LOL That's how ridiculous it becomes to believe that the dorean clients were the victims of "mail fraud". Yea, that's right, give someone what they want and expect, and also call them a victim. I always thought that was termed, "good service". LOL

If there was no bank fraud, & none was ever proven, or put in the court record, the process certainly can't be labeled a scheme either. Course if it was a scheme, all dorean clients participated in it, so how can they be a victim, if by mere participation alone? I always thought "victims" were innocent.

If the average client didn't understand the whys & wherefores & justifications of the dorean process, than didn't they enter the process believing there was some loop hole or scheme that would in essence give them something for nothing? If that is the case, they certainly aren't guiltless either, & don't qualify to be considered a victim, immune from any conspiracy charge by their intent and knowledge alone. According to the prosecutions pleadings, mere participation to further the scheme, was enough to show to prove guilt & knowledge of how the scheme played out was considered irrelevant.

Yet if you are guilty, you can't be innocent, & if you aren't innocent, you certainly can't be termed a victim since you are part of the problem.

If a client truly believes the process to be a scam, and he was truly a victim, than he certainly didn't listen to what the prosecution pleaded, and has no common sense, and believes black is white and white is black.

It the dorean process were truly a scheme, than the "victims" have no recourse or remedy, by the "unclean hands doctrine", and can't be by definition considered to be a victim or even plead their cause. Yet that is exactly what the court made them out to be, the victims, even though that defies reason. These unclean people, also became defective witnesses too for the prosecution of the alleged crimes of the defenants, yet did the court mirandanize beforehand all these dorean witnesses by their impending testimony, or did they forget that important obligation too?

mogel007 said...

When a bank issues a loan, its liabilities and reserves increase by the amount of the loan. True or False.
______________________________

Notarial Dissent, are you saying that this statement above is true?

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland said: "The internet has ALWAYS BEEN the forum of choice for fringe elements, Moog."
__________________________________

So are you saying PRIOR TO THE INTERNET, that fringe elements DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE? :o)

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent says: "A loan is not a deposit, it is a liability on the banks books."
_______________________________

WHO does the bank owe then, when it CREATES a loan? A liability has to be paid back doesn't it? How is that liability paid back?

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "In accounting, a liability is money that is owed or at risk, in this case money that has been loaned out from the bank. The liability is money owed to the bank, not money the bank owes.
__________________________________

A national Bank according to Supreme Court precedences is not allowed to put depositors accounts at risk, so how can they lend those monies out & still be in accordance with public policy and the law?

A liability is money owed, I agree, yet you agree that in a loan, the banks liabilities increase, than you also agree that the bank TAKES UPON A LIABILITY that needs to be paid back. When & to whom is this paid back?

Will someone explain this statement: "The liability is money OWED TO THE BANK , not money the bank owes."

If money is owed to the bank, doesn't this make the money owed to the bank, a BANK ASSET on the banks balance sheet?

I thought we were talking about the banks accounting, in terms of assets and liabilities, not the borrowers accounting balance sheet. Don't you recall the text AND CONTEXT HERE:
"17. WHEN A BANK issues a loan, IT'S ASSETS AND LIABILITIES BOTH INCREASE ......" You already agreed with that premise, then you changed it in your argument TO TALK ABOUT SOMEBODY ELSE OTHER THAN THE BANK?????

Nice try, but you don't get a cookie.

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "Regardless of the braying of the thousand fools, or Moogey or Kurt for that matter, the trial was not about VAPOR MONEY, or little green men, or any of a number of other things, it was about MAIL FRAUD, and since MAIL FRAUD has nothing to do with VAPOR MONEY, it had no place at the trial.
_________________________________

How does this sound if you change the word, "vapor money" with "property rights". This is what you get & the logic you hear:

"Regardless of the braying of the thousand fools, or Moogey or Kurt for that matter, the trial was NOT about PROPERTY RIGHTS, or little green men, or any of a number of other things, it was about MAIL FRAUD, and since MAIL FRAUD has nothing to do with PROPERTY RIGHTS, it had no place at the trial.

In other words, according to Notarial Dissent, the banks COULDN'T have been defrauded of anything by the Dorean Group's actions & bank fraud could NEVER exist, because the trial WASN'T about any property rights the lenders had, whether they gave a loan or not or whether they had any righteous security interest in the clients property.

If the banks had no property rights in the property,and/or IS NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT TO NOTE OR PROVE, than most certainly, recording an instrument totally IRRELEVANT TO ANY PROPERTY RIGHTS the bank had OR DIDN'T HAVE, could not be considered a scheme, artifice, or scam, & HENCE NO MAIL FRAUD EITHER since PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE RECORDING ISSUE of discharging liens, the dorean group did & IRRELEVANT TO THE CENTRAL ISSUE OF THE TRIAL WHICH WAS MAIL FRAUD & THE LENDERS WEREN'T HURT.

HENCE CHARGE # 1, THE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BANK FRAUD IS IMPOSSIBLE TOO-- BEING IRRELEVANT. If the banks weren't being harmed, certainly the clients COULDN'T IN ALL CONSISTENCY & FAIRNESS be harmed EITHER by the process. If the banks weren't being harmed, the process has to be considered A LEGAL PROCESS, legitimate and true by definition, which makes it also impossible for the clients to be the victims of mail fraud or a scam.

Notarial Dissent, you are admitting without realizing it, that the things the 4 defendants were charged and convicted with-- is IRRELEVANT too. GOOD JOB. I AGREE.

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "The promissory note is given in exchange for the proceeds for the loan."
______________________________

If you wanted to buy a car from me, and I took your cash money immediately & said, I'll give you the car in exchange, but wait 3 days & come back later for the car, would you give me the cash now? Would you trust me not to drive the car or wreck the car in the meantime? Of course you would do business with me since it's a fair & timely exchange, isn't it & you have no reason not to trust me.

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland said: "What do you consider a recognized canon?"
_________________________________

Give me a name of a recognizeable & famous expert, a book or article he wrote, a website showing his credentials, his education, an affidavit, too, that shows how lending works according to your view & Notarial Dissent's view that "money is loaned from deposits it collects from depositors". I couldn't find any of that from the websites you produced. It's not that I'm stupid, I did really try to find that in the websites you gave, but most were indeed erased & I can't find something that isn't there.

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland said: "Could it be that you don't see such affidavits because those who represent banking and finance are willing to actually show up in court and testify?"
_______________________________

You mean like the Dorean Group CRIMINAL trial where there was a plethara of many bank witnesses & many bank affadavits & many bank officials who ACTUALLY came forward to show that the banks were defrauded & HARMED BY THE DOREAN PROCESS THAT TESTIFIED of bank fraud? LOL

Or are you talking about civil case trials where original promissory notes aren't required or requested by the Judge & where affidavits aren't needed, just a COPY of instruments & paperwork & a 3rd party testifies as to the facts, who wasn't even a party to the original transaction?

Give me a website where I can see these affidavits you refer to, OK? Maybe they exist just like the MANY websites you READ & copied that miraculously got deleted the same day you? POSTED? Must be one of those conspiracies you refer to.

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland said: "The point was, I can say ANYTHING I want to in a affidavit but that does not make it TRUE.
______________________________

No, the point is that you are not willing & not stupid enough to create a false affidavit, and you can't find an affidavit ANYWHERE that supports your view of lending from a bonfified lender.

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland said: "So they accept no one's wisdom or authority but their own."
_________________________________

I BELIEVE you were talking about me HERE, but maybe the evidence if not the facts show that you were referring to yourself here?

I'm still waiting for these affidavits or hard core experts on lending that support your MORALISTIC & FACTUAL POINT of view that have shown that you have taken the high road, and Kurt & Scott, the convicted, have taken the low road.

Maybe even another article that opposes the view of Mr. Hummel COULD EVEN HUMOR ME!!! I'm not that hard to deal with. Give me anything, but in the very least, give me your best.

Maybe there's really not enough interest in the lie that you support so it's difficult even on the internet to find anything of substance or any real experts or humble people to come forth????

Notarial Dissent can't even admit when he's being illogical OR WHEN HE TAKES A STATEMENT TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT, WHEN IT'S AS PLAIN AS DAY even to him. Lies are always illogical & NEVER IN THE PROPER CONTEXT of the true & COMPLETE subject matter.

mogel007 said...

Scott from Vineland said: "I wouldn't expect you to give credibility to ANYTHING I find anyway. I certainly don't buy into anything YOU say.
____________________________

That's just it. Half the websites you found are nonexistant. I do believe you wouldn't buy into anything I say either. This goes along with my belief that you aren't very humble or open minded.

The difference between me & you, is that I THINK YOU ARE MORE VALUABLE THAN JUST 15 MINUTES OF MY TIME, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS A LIE.

notorial dissent said...

and Moogie is off and running at the mouth again
So lenders like World Savings DON'T COLLECT ON CONSUMER DEBT? A mortgage isn't considered consumer debt?

Now where did I say the former, and if you don’t know the answer to the later why are you even trying ? There is a considerable difference between consumer debt-unsecured, and mortgage debt-secured, and very different laws pertaining to each.

Moogie still trying
So mortgagees aren't acting as a debt collector when a lender asks for the monthly payment through the mails each month when they send out statements?

Get real Moogs, there is a considerable real, and legal difference between invoicing for the monthly payment due, and trying to collect on an unpaid debt.

Moogie still doesn’t have a clue
When a bank issues a loan, its liabilities and reserves increase by the amount of the loan. True or False.
______________________________

Notarial Dissent, are you saying that this statement above is true?


Still can’t read a plain English sentence can you? That is not what I said at all.

Moogie nattering at Scott
Scott from Vineland said: "The internet has ALWAYS BEEN the forum of choice for fringe elements, Moog."
__________________________________

So are you saying PRIOR TO THE INTERNET, that fringe elements DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE?


No, they just had to hunt harder to find the snake oil salesmen, they did it by word of mouth and by holding meetings and seminars. Slower, but the result was still the same, people buying nonsense with money they couldn’t afford to waste, and getting taken repeatedly by the same huckster. Today it is a whole lot easier and they can take advantage of a broader class of fool than they used to be able to, but the end result is still the same. Fools get taken, somebody eventually complains, and huckster eventually ends up in jail.

Moogie again
WHO does the bank owe then, when it CREATES a loan? A liability has to be paid back doesn't it? How is that liability paid back?

Still can’t read and comprehend plain English can you. I told you to go crack an accounting book. An accounting liability is money at risk, money that has to be repaid, or debts that have to be paid. A loan is a liability because it is depositor’s money the bank has at risk for being loaned out, a loan the bank has taken out for some purpose is a liability, customer’s deposits are a liability. The loan made to a customer ceases to be a liability when it is repaid by the customer. The loan taken out by the bank ceases to be a liability when it is paid off by the bank. A deposit ceases to be a liability when the customer withdraws their funds from the bank.

Moogie making it up out of whole cloth
A national Bank according to Supreme Court precedences is not allowed to put depositors accounts at risk, so how can they lend those monies out & still be in accordance with public policy and the law?

Oh, and just what precedent is this based on? Since that is the way banking has always been and is to this day carried on. Please cite your precedent, not that there is one, since this is made up out of whole cloth.

Moogie proving he still can’t read
A liability is money owed, I agree, yet you agree that in a loan, the banks liabilities increase, than you also agree that the bank TAKES UPON A LIABILITY that needs to be paid back. When & to whom is this paid back?

No, I do not agree!!! A liability in the case of a loan is money that is OWED to the bank, it is payed back to the borrower to extinguish the liability.

more Moogie illiteracy
Will someone explain this statement: "The liability is money OWED TO THE BANK , not money the bank owes."

If money is owed to the bank, doesn't this make the money owed to the bank, a BANK ASSET on the banks balance sheet?


Again, you seem to be impervious to plain English. The liability is money the bank has at risk by having loaned it to someone. Thereby, the bank is out that amount of money, and if the loan defaults the bank is out that money and posts a loss. That is why it is a liability.

and still more Moogie illiteracy
I thought we were talking about the banks accounting, in terms of assets and liabilities, not the borrowers accounting balance sheet. Don't you recall the text AND CONTEXT HERE:
"17. WHEN A BANK issues a loan, IT'S ASSETS AND LIABILITIES BOTH INCREASE ......" You already agreed with that premise, then you changed it in your argument TO TALK ABOUT SOMEBODY ELSE OTHER THAN THE BANK?????


Not very much you thought. I made no such change, when a bank issues a loan, it’s assets increase by the amount of the promissory note and it’s liabilities increase by the amount of the loan made.


Moogie trying desperately for a grip, and missing
How does this sound if you change the word, "vapor money" with "property rights". This is what you get & the logic you hear:

You can play whatever word games you want to Moogs, it doesn’t alter the fact that the that the charges concerned acts of fraud committed using the mails and wires, what the fraud was related to is irrelevant to the charges filed. They committed fraud using the mails, the fact that it was for the most part unsuccessful matters not in the least.

Moogie being clever....
If you wanted to buy a car from me, and I took your cash money immediately & said, I'll give you the car in exchange, but wait 3 days & come back later for the car, would you give me the cash now?

And this nonsense has what to do with anything?? I realize you are trying to be clever, but you do it so poorly that I’ll just let you sputter some more.

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "it is payed back to the borrower to extinguish the liability."
______________________________

I've never seen this done: Monies "paid back to the borrower by the bank. So are you saying that if I deposit money into a checking account & those monies are loaned out by the bank, that I can expect to be paid back at some point for a loan unbeknownst to me that took place between the bank & someone else?

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "The liability is money the bank has at risk by having loaned it to someone. Thereby, the bank is out that amount of money, and if the loan defaults the bank is out that money and posts a loss. That is why it is a liability.
_____________________________

Seems to me if the bank is loaning depositors money, the depositor is at risk, NOT the lender. Why would a depositor take such a risk, and is that risk disclosed?

Also seems to me the depositor is out that money if the borrower defaults, not the bank. Seems to me the depositor should report a loss, not the bank, unless you are saying the deposits ARE the lenders money too. Why would a depositor deposit in such a make believe bank?

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "A deposit ceases to be a liability when the customer withdraws their funds from the bank."
_________________________________

How can a customer withdraw their funds from the bank if those funds were loaned out by the bank? LOL

So are you saying if a depositor deposits funds at a bank, he may not be able to withdraw those funds at will because they may have been loaned out to some borrower?

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "I made no such change, when a bank issues a loan, it’s ASSETS INCREASE by the amount of the promissory note and it’s liabilities increase by the amount of the loan made.
_______________________________

If a bank's assets increase by the amount of the promissory note, than isn't the bank recording the promissory note as an asset?

If I make a personal loan to an individual, do my assets & liabilities BOTH INCREASE TOO? Would my accountant record debits & credits in the same way?

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "when a bank issues a loan, it’s assets increase by the amount of the promissory note"
______________________________

How does that statement jive with your other statement that promissory notes have no monetary value? Don't all assets have monetary value?

notorial dissent said...

Moogey 1
I've never seen this done: Monies "paid back to the borrower by the bank. So are you saying that if I deposit money into a checking account & those monies are loaned out by the bank, that I can expect to be paid back at some point for a loan unbeknownst to me that took place between the bank & someone else?


Congratulations Moogs, you caught me in a typo. I typed “to” instead of “by”. No, Moogs, I’m not. The correct statement is “it is payed back by the borrower to extinguish the liability.” When you deposit money into a bank, a loan to the bank, you get paid back in either interest or services for that loan. That is all!!!

Moogey 2
Seems to me if the bank is loaning depositors money, the depositor is at risk, NOT the lender. Why would a depositor take such a risk, and is that risk disclosed?

So you did pay attention after all, amazing. Of course the depositor is at risk, where have you been Moogie boy, that is how banking works. You loan your money to a bank/savings and loan/credit union/fill in the blanks, you get interest for the privilege and that is how it works, that is how it has always worked, and that is how it will continue to work. You obviously have never read an account by-law have you? What do you think the FDIC/FSLIC is all about?

Moogey 3
Also seems to me the depositor is out that money if the borrower defaults, not the bank. Seems to me the depositor should report a loss, not the bank, unless you are saying the deposits ARE the lenders money too. Why would a depositor deposit in such a make believe bank?

Seems like there are a lot of things you haven’t a clue about. It is the bank loaning funds that have been loaned to it, and it is the bank at risk unless and until the bank becomes insolvent, see previous note about FDIC/FSLIC that you have no clue about. The depositor would only have a loss if the bank failed. For the purposes of business the deposits are the banks, that is the nature of the business. Again, where have you been for the last 20 years.

Moogey 4
How can a customer withdraw their funds from the bank if those funds were loaned out by the bank?

Still clueless as ever Moogey boy?? As long as a bank remains solvent, they will have funds to cover a percentage of their deposits, and can always borrow more from the Fed or other banks for short term needs. That is why a bank has cash reserves, and is required to keep a reserve on hand.


Moogey 5
So are you saying if a depositor deposits funds at a bank, he may not be able to withdraw those funds at will because they may have been loaned out to some borrower?

No. I am saying that deposited funds are used in the lending process. There should always be enough funds available to handle run of the mill withdrawals. Some accounts also have restrictions about when and how they can be withdrawn, you know, time deposits, money market certificates and accounts, high interest accounts???? No, I know you haven’t got a clue about what I’m talking about, but you asked the question.

notorial dissent said...

Moogey 6
If a bank's assets increase by the amount of the promissory note, than isn't the bank recording the promissory note as an asset?

And it took you how long to figure this out?

Moogey 7
If I make a personal loan to an individual, do my assets & liabilities BOTH INCREASE TOO? Would my accountant record debits & credits in the same way?

Amazing!!!

Moogie 8
How does that statement jive with your other statement that promissory notes have no monetary value? Don't all assets have monetary value?

You are working very hard to misinterpret what I said. A PN has monetary value in the same way a stock certificate or a bar of gold has monetary value, or just plain value. It is however, NOT money. There is a significant difference.

Scott from Vineland said...

Mogel said...
The difference between me & you, is that I THINK YOU ARE MORE VALUABLE THAN JUST 15 MINUTES OF MY TIME, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS A LIE.
___________________________________
Wow, I think that's the first kind thing you've ever said to me. I'm actually kind of touched. Thanks, Moogs.

If I can find any more or better resources on-line, I will let you know. I just haven't had a lot of time to devote to the conversation lately. And I'll recheck the previous ones. I know they're there. Maybe some problem with my copy & paste.

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "For the purposes of business the deposits are the banks, that is the nature of the business."
____________________________

The deposits are the banks???? Is that disclosed when you open up a checking account that your funds may be used in loans? If not, wouldn't that be considered a misappropriation of funds in light of no disclaimer or notice? So you must be saying a bank is never a real fiduciary of the accountholder because they can do whatever they want for the "purposes of business". Sounds like the same thing a woman says to her spouse: "what's hers is hers, & what's yours is also hers for her purposes & spending habits". LOL

mogel007 said...

Notarial dissent said: "The liability is money the bank has at risk by having loaned it to someone. Thereby, the bank is out that amount of money, and if the loan defaults the bank is out that money and posts a loss. That is why it is a liability."

How does that comment of yours on how lending works jive with what the courts have said about the limitations on banks?


ULTRA VIRES

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

mogel007 said...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

In addition to these three points, consider also that moral arguments (arguments based in equity), verses legal arguments (arguments based in law), are only upheld if the party seeking to enforce the agreement comes to the court with “clean hands.” This concept is known as the clean hands doctrine. What this doctrine means is that if a bank desires to enforce an agreement based on equity (morality), then they must have acted equitable (moral). In the case of credit, if the banks know that the law prevents them from loaning credit (there is over a hundred years of case law on this point) and they do it anyway, then they simply do not have clean hands, and cannot argue their case in equity. Therefore they must argue in law. MEANWHILE, THE LAW PREVENTS THEM FROM LOANING CREDIT. There are penalties and forfeitures attached to what the bank did. In this case there are. In fact there are penalties attached to national banks going beyond their express powers in that they are exposing depositor’s money to loss in contradiction to the bank’s primary duty. Therefore, the issue that can be raise is the argument of ultra virus and not only is the contract void, but even if the borrower did receive a benefit, the borrower was not unjustly enriched. If the contract is void then both parties walk away as if there never was a contract. .


ADDITIONAL BORROWERS RELIEF

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

notorial dissent said...

Moogie tries to do incredulous and comes across as dim
The deposits are the banks???? Is that disclosed when you open up a checking account that your funds may be used in loans?

Like I said previously Moogs, you ever actually read an account by law?? Obviously not. Or bother to read up on principals of banking? No of course you haven’t, just a rhetorical question. In the sense you mean, the bank has a fiduciary responsibility to invest any funds they have wisely, and according to the law, and that is what most banks do. That is where small commercial and signature loans come from. As long as the bank is able to pay out funds at withdrawal and honors their interest obligations, there is no problem.


Moogey hallucinates
How does that comment of yours on how lending works jive with what the courts have said about the limitations on banks?

If you had a clue about 1) what banking was, or 2) what the court decisions you so assiduously cribbed from someone else, I might take you seriously, but we both know better by now. When they coined the phrase “hasn’t got a clue”, they had to have had you in mind. Happily you start off with a prime example and prove my point.

Do you have even the inkling of clue as to the difference between credit and money as it is used in First National Bank of Tallapoosa vs. Monroe? No, of course you don’t or you wouldn’t have chosen it, but at least you are consistent.

“Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat’l Bank”, refers to the same thing, as does “Howard & Foster Co. vs. Citizens National Bank of Union”, as does “Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat’l Bank”, “Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank”, as do all the rest of the cases you mention.

A really impressive waste of bandwith and time, considering it is all predicated on your inability to read and comprehend a plain English sentence. There is no controversy that a bank can “lend it’s credit to or for another”, the problem is that you do not comprehend what the term means, and have built an elaborate and fictional premise on a statement you either do not or intentionally do not comprehend.

Since I have already bloodied your nose on this nonsense twice before I am not going to waste any more time on it.

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "As long as the bank is able to pay out funds at withdrawal and honors their interest obligations, there is no problem." ________________________________
WHAT A VERY HUGE LIE!!!!!!!
You have misrepresented the law & how banks CAN operate IN YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS & EVEN IN THIS LATEST POST OF YOURS. You have also misrepresented the law & how banks CAN operate. You have completed ignored the cases I have cited below WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC RESPONSE TO THESE CASES ALREADY SETTLED BY THE COURTS THAT CONTRADICT ALL YOUR WORDS & FANTASY WORLD HOW BANKS CAN OPERATE:

There is a huge problem how national banks are conducting business; they are acting "ultra vires" when they do things they are disallowed by law to do:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: There is no controversy that a bank can “lend it’s credit to or for another”,
________________________________

Cite me a court precendence that says that. All the cases I cited for you SAY OTHERWISE, and even more, they are very plain in their language that they contradict what you say and believe.

The fact is BANKS CANNOT LEND THEIR CREDIT. Extending credit is NOT extending money to someone.

I think you bloodied your own nose this time by avoiding the issues again & only resorted to name calling.

If your lending views are flawed, SO IS YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF ACCOUNTING as it relates to the subject.

notorial dissent said...

ooh, Moogie’s nostrils are flaring and he’s repeating himself
WHAT A VERY HUGE LIE!!!!!!!
You have misrepresented the law & how banks CAN operate IN YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS & EVEN IN THIS LATEST POST OF YOURS.


I really do wish you would 1) learn to read for comprehension which you obviously haven’t mastered yet, and 2) actually read the cases you post and pretend to understand, which you so very obviously haven’t.

Moogs, you have taken a great deal of time to steal something from someone else, without even knowing what any of it means or is about.

A bank, like any other corporation or entity has a credit rating, specifically how much they can borrow at any given point against what they are worth-their value as a company. What all those cites you so assiduously cribbed refer to, is a bank lending it’s credit, it worth on behalf of another person. The closest equivalent would be for you to cosign a note for someone, pledging your credit on their behalf. There is no question legally or otherwise that a bank is not allowed to do that.

However, what you are trying to make it say is that they cannot extend credit within house, specifically to make a loan to someone, and that is not what those cases were about or what the law in those cases said.

The remainder of the cases you cribbed refer to banks being prohibited from acting as, now watch this closely, since I know you have a real problem with this concept, as agents for any of their depositors by making loans on the depositor’s behalf.

What those cases do not say is that banks cannot lend out the aggregate of their depositors funds, since at that point they are acting for the bank and not any one or group of people. Perhaps a subtle distinction to the reality challenged, but a distinction none the less.

So let me repeat, they say, A bank CANNOT act as agent for a depositor in making a loan, they do not say that they cannot loan out the money on deposit with them.

Moogey pointed out
Notarial Dissent said: There is no controversy that a bank can “lend it’s credit to or for another”,

I was unclear when I wrote that the way I did, it should more clearly have been ,
“ There is no controversy that a bank canNOT “lend it’s credit to or for another”“.

With regard to the rest of your comments, please refer to the above.

mogel007 said...

Notarial Dissent said: "they DO NOT SAY that they cannot loan out the money on deposit with them."
_______________________________

I believe the cases I cited below says otherwise & says that the banks CANNOT LEND OUT THE MONEY FROM DEPOSITORS PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION, which is the fantasy land you live in:


"In the case of a special deposit, the bank assumes merely the charge or custody of property, WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO USE IT, and the depositor is entitled to receive back the IDENTICAL money or thing deposited. In such case, the RIGHT OF PROPERTY remains in the depositor, and if the deposit is of money, the bank MAY NOT MINGLE IT WITH ITS OWN FUNDS. The relation created is that of bailor and bailee, and not that of debtor and creditor.' 3 R.C.L. 522. Tuckerman v. Mearns, App.D.C.1919, 262 F. 607, 49 App.D.C. 153.

Also this case is very clear:

A bank HAS NO RIGHT to loan the money of OTHER PERSONS. Grow v. Cockrill, Ark.1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63 Ark. 418.

If those cases on lending aren't perfectly clear to you, than you won't understand what is being said specifically.

Also:

Indeed, lending CREDIT is the EXACT OPPOSITE of lending MONEY which is the real business of a bank, for while the latter creates a liability in favor of the bank, the former gives rise to a liability of the bank to another. I Morse. Banks and Banking 5th Ed. Sec. 65; Magee, Banks and Banking, 3rd Ed. Sec 248.” American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 429.

Those cases I just now, AREN'T TALKING ABOUT THE BANK BECOMING AN ENDORSER OR COSIGNER FOR SOME OTHER ENTITY or loaning out money for depositor's benefit.

notorial dissent said...

Moogey continues in delusion
I believe the cases I cited below says otherwise & says that the banks CANNOT LEND OUT THE MONEY FROM DEPOSITORS PERIOD, END OF DISCUSSION, which is the fantasy land you live in:


I realize that you believe that Moogs, but it doesn’t alter the fact that you are wrong!!! Banking has always been about the exchanging of one money for another, originally, and the loaning out of money deposited with them by their depositors, in exchange for interest paid on those funds. As I said originally, READ the actual case, not the summations you have been cribbing off the net. They are all about a bank standing surety for someone, i.e. lending “their” credit for the benefit of another. They have nothing to do with a bank granting credit to an individual in the form of a loan. Where else do you think they get the money they lend out?

The “Tuckerman v. Mearns” and like cases are referring to “special deposits” which equate to safekeeping deposits, as in a safe deposit box, and if you had bothered to actually read the case you would have come across this little gem, “merely assumes charge or custody of the special deposit without authority to use it.” which implies that there is otherwise the authority to use deposits. Banks have always acted as safekeepers, so this is not something unusual, they also charge a fee for this service as well, and it does not prove your point, but rather disproves it.

Read the cases Moogs, they don’t say what you want them to say. Extending credit in the form of a loan is not the same thing as “lending credit”