tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post4363023865397584003..comments2023-10-25T06:36:25.124-07:00Comments on Mortgage Fraud: Easter (March 20, 2008)Whistleblowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13144659621472624683noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-89883006236175580782008-04-12T10:42:00.000-07:002008-04-12T10:42:00.000-07:00References In Text Title 62 of the Revised Statute...References In Text <BR/><BR/>Title 62 of the Revised Statutes, referred to in text, was in the original "this Title" meaning title LXII of the Revised Statutes, consisting of R.S. Secs. 5133 to 5244, which are classified to sections 21, 22 to 24a, 25a, 26, 27, 29, 35 to 37, 39, 43, 52, 53, 55 to 57, 59 to 62, 66, 71, 72 to 76, 81, 83 to 86, 90, 91, 93, 93a, 94, 141 to 144, 161, 164, 181, 182, 192 to 194, 196, 215c, 481 to 485, 501, 541, 548, and 582 of this title.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-91714121855128621512008-04-12T10:38:00.000-07:002008-04-12T10:38:00.000-07:00Notarial Dissent: You said that "Revised Statute ...Notarial Dissent: You said that "Revised Statute 62" doesn't exist. This link gives reference to it, so it must exist: <BR/><BR/>http://vlex.com/vid/19226022mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-48080992355603802082008-04-11T14:23:00.000-07:002008-04-11T14:23:00.000-07:00So in other words, you discovered Title 12 and hav...So in other words, you discovered Title 12 and haven’t a clue as to what it is all about. There is no such statute within Title 12 that says that. Either point out the complete and correct citation or give it up.<BR/><BR/>A bank may not stand as surety for another, but that is not the same as extending credit to an individual based on business criteria, and banks do in fact, and always have extended credit based on the assets of the bank.notorial dissenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15919415990961384168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-89508978610959223482008-04-11T11:33:00.000-07:002008-04-11T11:33:00.000-07:00"The Federal Reserve Act has legislated an avoidan..."The Federal Reserve Act has legislated an avoidance of the bank lending it's equity as prohibited by Revised Statute 62 through the monetization of another's credit."<BR/><BR/>The shareholders equity can't be<BR/>loaned & accounting that is audited based upon any regulatory notice, can't show this as happening: <BR/><BR/>http://vlex.com/vid/19225459mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-46068569185116065422008-04-10T15:16:00.000-07:002008-04-10T15:16:00.000-07:00Moogs, Congratulations, you have discovered Title ...Moogs, <BR/><BR/>Congratulations, you have discovered Title 12, now, is there some particular part that tickles your fancy?notorial dissenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15919415990961384168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-51846712333723220242008-04-10T11:20:00.000-07:002008-04-10T11:20:00.000-07:00Try this link, or try typing it in: http://vlex.c...Try this link, or try typing it in: <BR/><BR/>http://vlex.com/vid/19226022mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-25448522255747412792008-04-08T21:28:00.000-07:002008-04-08T21:28:00.000-07:00Only in your fevered imagination, non existent lin...Only in your fevered imagination, non existent link, very much like your non-existent theories.notorial dissenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15919415990961384168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-28467875008909191102008-04-08T11:54:00.000-07:002008-04-08T11:54:00.000-07:00The revised banking statute does exist:http://vlex...The revised banking statute does exist:<BR/><BR/>http://vlex.com/vid/192260mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-26180500413868179682008-04-07T17:22:00.000-07:002008-04-07T17:22:00.000-07:00Moogie’s off the deep endNot one FDIC certificate ...<B>Moogie’s off the deep end</B><BR/><I>Not one FDIC certificate of any alleged victim wsa entered into evidence and no testimony was obtained."</I><BR/> <BR/>Nor need there have been, since it was the act of mailing the documents, not who they affected that engendered the violation of the law. Affecting a financial institution is an aggravating factor not a primary or jurisdictional factor.<BR/><BR/>Your second “second problem” makes no sense, that is to say, even less sense than the rest of your nonsense so far.<BR/><BR/><B>sinking fast</B><BR/><I>"The Federal Reserve Act has legislated an avoidance of the bank lending it's equity as prohibited by Revised Statute 62 through the monetization of another's credit.</I><BR/><BR/>Which resembles not in any part anything I have said, and is mostly gibberish. The Federal Reserve Act established the Federal Reserve system, and did nothing else. The rest of the statement bears no relationship to reality, as there is no such statute, and at best you are badly mangling an altogether unrelated statement having nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Since the trial had nothing whatsoever to do with banking or banking practice, the rest is equally unrelated nonsense.<BR/><BR/><B>without a clue</B><BR/><I>Another problem of the Dorean trial: "in simple terms the alleged lenders are allowed to come to the courts without clean hands."</I><BR/><BR/>And which trial would this be Moogems, since the lenders were not involved in this trial to begin with????<BR/><BR/><B>and gone down for the last time</B><BR/><I>Lastly, "Neither the judge nor the jury resided within the territories of the UNITED STATES as required by law."</I><BR/><BR/>Even for you this is fatuous nonsense.notorial dissenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15919415990961384168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-10377393630614457982008-04-07T16:45:00.000-07:002008-04-07T16:45:00.000-07:00Another problem of the Dorean trial: "in simple ...Another problem of the Dorean trial: "in simple terms the alleged lenders are allowed to come to the courts without clean hands."<BR/><BR/>See Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814<BR/><BR/>Lastly, "Neither the judge nor the jury resided within the territories of the UNITED STATES as required by law."<BR/><BR/>See 28 U.S.C. S1865(b)(1)mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-10297866029018076172008-04-07T16:42:00.000-07:002008-04-07T16:42:00.000-07:00In the Dorean criminal trial, "The jury was preclu...In the Dorean criminal trial, "The jury was precluded from an investigation of the facts and the defense was precluded from their right to rebut the presumptions"<BR/>See: Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932)<BR/><BR/>Second problem in the dorean criminal trial:<BR/><BR/>"The presumption that a loan transaction occurred because those who benefit from the fraud have a special relationship with Congress and should be trusted is not sound law, jurisprudence, or a reasonable presumption. It affords no opportunity for the presentation of facts or due process."<BR/>See: U.S. v. Manufacturers' Ass'n of Reloc. Bldg. Ind. 462 F.2d 50 <BR/>(1972)<BR/><BR/>Thirdly unlike Notarial Dissent affirms, "The Federal Reserve Act has legislated an avoidance of the bank lending it's equity as prohibited by Revised Statute 62 through the monetization of another's credit. This is the fictional universe of Judge Alsup and his banker buddies does not fall within the reasonable customs of trade when it gives the party who provides the service the rights of the party who provides the product."mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-62905241017890592302008-04-07T16:32:00.000-07:002008-04-07T16:32:00.000-07:00ND said: "Just keep making noise Moogs, you and K...ND said: "Just keep making noise Moogs, you and Kurt are the only ones who believe this nonsense,"<BR/>_________________________________<BR/><BR/>See: U.S. v. Holloway 259 F. 3rd 1200 [3] (9th Cir 2001) <BR/><BR/>"It is the financial institution's covering contract with the FDIC that gives the federal government standing as a party or what is known as jurisdiction if their idea of the statute is considered accurate. Not one FDIC certificate of any alleged victim wsa entered into evidence and no testimony was obtained."mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-86816630543817684512008-04-07T13:16:00.000-07:002008-04-07T13:16:00.000-07:00Moogey, no matter how you try and twist or turn it...Moogey, no matter how you try and twist or turn it, the mail fraud statute is sufficient, and broad enough to cover any type of fraud that uses the mails in perpetration of the fraud, notwithstanding your obvious linguistic shortcomings and deficiencies. All your dancing and trying to ignore what it says isn’t going to change that fact. Using the mails for any part of a fraud or fraud attempt, and you have committed mail fraud, for which you can be tried and convicted of such, just as the Dorean dimbos were. All it requires is the use of the “mails”.<BR/><BR/><B>Moogey has a dumb question he’s tried before, and is still trying get up to mean down</B><BR/><I>Are you inferring that only bank notes are the only specific item that can be deposited at a bank for credit? If not, than you missed my point.</I><BR/><BR/>Not at all what I said and you know it. A bank note is <B>by law</B> currency/money, a promissory note is a financial instrument, and IS NOT currency/money and cannot be treated or considered in the same fashion, and is covered under the UCC and various state statutes, two very different items both by custom and law, and treated and handled entirely differently. You can deposit your garter belt at the bank, but that doesn’t make it anything other than a garter belt, Moogs.<BR/><BR/><B>Moogey strikes again</B><BR/><I>Here's an interesting case where I see a few parallels of the Dorean Case & this one: </I><BR/><BR/>Yep, Moogs, a lot of similarities. In US V. Cooper as with the Dorean dimbos, Cooper lost at trial, and he lost on appeal, hands down, looks like a repeat pattern here as well.<BR/><BR/>Actually, there was another similarity, Cooper tried to take a nonsense position on several things and bluff his way through the courts, it didn't work either.<BR/><BR/>The only amusing thing that I did find was that a sitting Federal judge would be thick enough to even contemplate the existence of a bank that is not FDIC insured in the first place, since it is a legal requirement, and you cannot get a Federal Charter without subscribing to FDIC, as it is a mandate requirement. It is simply physically/legally impossible for a bank to exist without it, the law gives no alternatives. It should have been taken as a legal presumption that it existed, unless proven otherwise, which it never could be. Nice try anyway Moogs. Not the most boring couple of minutes I’ve ever spent, but certainly some of the poorest writing I’ve seen recently in a legal decision.notorial dissenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15919415990961384168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-26076693312121967972008-04-07T10:30:00.000-07:002008-04-07T10:30:00.000-07:00Here's an interesting case where I see a few paral...Here's an interesting case where I see a few parallels of the Dorean Case & this one: <BR/><BR/>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/<BR/>cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=10th&navby=case&no=034019<BR/><BR/>In a two-count indictment, a federal grand jury charged Todd Harold Cooper with bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113 and using a firearm while committing a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). <BR/>After a trial, a jury found him guilty on both counts. Mr. Cooper appeals from the judgment of the district court on grounds of INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, FLAWED JURY INSTRUCTIONS, improper denial of his request for access to a law library, and an ILLEGAL SENTENCE. We affirm.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-40966476366610622392008-04-07T10:12:00.000-07:002008-04-07T10:12:00.000-07:00ND said: " A promissory note is nothing more than...ND said: " A promissory note is nothing more than a promise to pay, a Federal Reserve Note is a BANK NOTE, which is an entirely different item,"<BR/>_______________________________<BR/><BR/>Are you inferring that only bank notes are the only specific item that can be deposited at a bank for credit? If not, than you missed my point.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-88330711147522786662008-04-07T10:09:00.000-07:002008-04-07T10:09:00.000-07:00Nemo: Let's take out the important specific part ...Nemo: Let's take out the important specific part of the mail fraud statutue that refers to the subject matter & see if the mail fraud statute make any sense: <BR/><BR/>"Whoever, having devised or intending to devise ANY SCHEME or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do...[using the mail]"<BR/><BR/>As you can see, it sounds like an incomplete sentence that makes no sense whatsoever. <BR/><BR/>So Nemo, you're wrong, it can't include all type of of GENERAL FRAUD as you say, so the statutue's intent must have only included a specific type of fraud. <BR/><BR/>Congress knew exactly what their intent was when they passed this, but you are perverting the meaning to include things not intended, however, you are in good company because so did the Judge & prosecution. <BR/><BR/>Course you do the same thing with scripture as you do with law. You wrest the meaning to your own destruction by your ignorance in contradition of what was really intended.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-23016893272558758182008-04-05T21:44:00.000-07:002008-04-05T21:44:00.000-07:00Moogies mouth runneth over againFor the umpteenth ...<B>Moogies mouth runneth over again</B><BR/><I>For the umpteenth time, the federal statutue doesn't cover any type of mail fraud, but only covers mail fraud where financial institutions are involved as a victim.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, based on what, the divine revelations of St Kurt? I would suggest you read the statute again, but since you obviously never read it to begin with it would be pointless.<BR/><BR/>There is ABSOLUTELY nothing in the statute that restricts it to financial institutions. In fact it is quite general in that it applies to ANY mail fraud.<BR/><BR/>The rest of your rant is pointless and baseless since it is based on your tortured reading of the statute, as opposed to what the actual statute says.<BR/><BR/>No, Moogie, the trial was about mail fraud who main victims were financial institutions, and thus the aggravated circumstances.<BR/><BR/><B>Moogie’s mouth moves again</B><BR/><I>"Fact is, not one FDIC certificate or any alleged victim was entered into evidence and no testimony obtained." </I><BR/><BR/>Moogs, you don’t even know what an FDIC certificate is, much less what one is used for.<BR/> <BR/>Just keep making noise Moogs, you and Kurt are the only ones who believe this nonsense, and when the appeals court declines to hear the appeal you can complain about that too.notorial dissenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15919415990961384168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-9642147988185814182008-04-05T11:42:00.000-07:002008-04-05T11:42:00.000-07:00Nemo: Also explain to me what property rights or ...Nemo: Also explain to me what property rights or client rights the dorean clients had (since they were presumed to be the victims) that were violated by mailing the dorean presentments to the banks & how the dorean group activities violated any contractual rights between the clients & the dorean group by any of the mailings that were considered to be mail fraud.<BR/><BR/> Then explain to me why the Federal Government had the right to interfere with the contractual rights of the parties. <BR/><BR/>Then explain to me why no mailing correspondence between client & the dorean group, and no monies sent from the clients to the dorean group was considered as mail fraud or presented as evidence in the federal court.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-26058476898393765102008-04-05T11:41:00.000-07:002008-04-05T11:41:00.000-07:00Pity Moogs can't read any better than he does.Ther...Pity Moogs can't read any better than he does.<BR/><BR/>There is nothing in the mail fraud statute that "requires" the fraud to be against a financial institution, only that it is aggravated if it does.<BR/><BR/>"18 USC 1341--makes it illegal to cause anything to be sent through the U.S. mails in furtherance of a scheme to defraud. For the purposes of this statute, items sent via commercial carriers such as FedEx, United Parcel Service (UPS), DHL, and others also implicate the Mail Fraud statute.<BR/>"<BR/><BR/>The crime Moogems was in using the mails to file fraudulent documents.notorial dissenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15919415990961384168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-47915261588172109792008-04-05T11:27:00.000-07:002008-04-05T11:27:00.000-07:00Nemo: If you think the mail fraud statute is talk...Nemo: If you think the mail fraud statute is talking about ALL FRAUD OF ANY KIND, then explain this precedence to me in terms of what you believe to be true: <BR/><BR/>"If the court lacks jurisdiction over party (non financial institution) than it lacks ALL JURISDICTION to adjudicate party's rights, whether or not SUBJECT MATTER is properly before it."<BR/>US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 939 F. 2d 1341mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-63790252053380118202008-04-05T11:25:00.000-07:002008-04-05T11:25:00.000-07:00Nemo, the statute was intended to protect the prop...Nemo, the statute was intended to protect the property rights of financial institutions: <BR/><BR/>"furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article,"<BR/><BR/>It was originally intended to be a statute about a specific type of fraud, not all general fraud. The State "statute of frauds" covers the other frauds you are talking about. <BR/><BR/>You are not reading the whole statute in it's proper context.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-43916868223421007002008-04-05T11:16:00.000-07:002008-04-05T11:16:00.000-07:00Notarial Dissent says: "I do think the statute co...Notarial Dissent says: "I do think the statute covers ANY kind of mail fraud, since that is after all what the statute is about,"<BR/>______________________________<BR/><BR/>For the umpteenth time, the federal statutue doesn't cover any type of mail fraud, but only covers mail fraud where financial institutions are involved as a victim.<BR/><BR/>"If the court lacks jurisdiction over party (non financial institution) than it lacks ALL JURISDICTION to adjudicate party's rights, whether or not subject matter is properly before it."<BR/>US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 939 F. 2d 1341<BR/><BR/>"The fraud if real within the Dorean process would not fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government if the financial institutions were absent." <BR/><BR/>They were absent. No proof of bank fraud on the court record & no financial institution has been entered into evidence. <BR/><BR/>People like Nemo say, "the jury has spoken" or in other words, "checkmate" it's over, but here's what the law really says:<BR/><BR/>"jurisdiction can not be inferred to the jury & it cannot be conferred by the jury." Not only that the game isn't over, only the venue has changed, and an appeal will be heard. <BR/><BR/>If you don't have the right to judge due to jurisdictional issues & if your judgment isn't based upon the facts presented or even on the evidence presented, the jury's decision is moot, void & of no real veracity or force.<BR/><BR/>Notarial Dissent says "the financial institutions weren't needed, the trial was all about mail fraud." <BR/><BR/>"The government made it very clear upon the record that the financial institutions WERE THE OBJECT OF PROTECTION. It was part of their closing arguments, so when Notarial Dissent says the trial wasn't about the financial institutions, but ONLY ABOUT MAIL FRAUD, he shows his ignorance of what really transpired in the trial and the important ingredients or elements that needed to exist to give the court jurisdiction. <BR/><BR/>Notarial Dissent says the bank fraud charges were dropped only because there was more time to sentence on the other charges, but each mail & bank fraud charge carried 30 years possible, so his explanation or excuse wasn't even well thought out. <BR/><BR/>The truth is bank fraud charges were dropped because the prosecution never intended to prove these allegations & knew that they couldn't, & as things turned out, they didn't & provided no evidence as such on the court record, but dropped all bank fraud charges. This is an abuse of process when financial institutions are a key ingredient to include if the defendants are guilty. "If the bank fraud don't fit, you must acquit." <BR/><BR/> ND also said the bank fraud charges proven were irrelevant and not needed to put the defendants away. He also booasted before the fact that the Dorean Group would be sentenced to 300+ years, another lie or false prophecy. <BR/><BR/>Kurt continues: "The government contends we intended to defraud mortgage lenders which were offered to the grand jury as financial institutions in the trial."<BR/><BR/> MORTGAGE LENDERS AREN'T FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. <BR/><BR/> "MORTGAGE LENDERS or obligations of contracts that are within the State jurisdiction DO NOT CONFER JURISDICTION to the federal government. It is the financial institutions covering contract with the FDIC that gives the federal government standing as a party or what is known as jurisdiction." <BR/><BR/>"Fact is, not one FDIC certificate or any alleged victim was entered into evidence and no testimony obtained." See US. v. Holloway 259 F. 3rd 1200 (3) (9th Cir. 2001). <BR/><BR/>Speaking of mail fraud: "The clients of Dorean as individuals do not confer jurisdiction by any relationship to the federal government. They would be protected by their particular state statutues of frauds."<BR/><BR/>"North Carolina issued a civil injunction based upon this jurisdiction. This case held that<BR/>THE CLIENTS WERE THE OBJECT OF THEIR PROTECTION, NOT THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS."<BR/><BR/>"The Jury instructions were far & away an abuse of the judges discretion in that they were replete with his own personal bias and economic ignorance. They did not instruct according to the statututes charged, mischaracterized like the 'lenders' being financial institutions as defined in Title 18 S 20 being necessary for jurisdiction and conviction (footnote 10), and silent on the issue of money which was essential to the accurate deciphering of the factual dispute between the parties."<BR/>10 Neder v. U.S. 527 US 1, 144 L Ed 2 35 (12 a-12c). 119 S. Ct. 1829(1999).mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-27564141782041190632008-04-04T20:14:00.000-07:002008-04-04T20:14:00.000-07:00and Moogey is offThe lesson to be learned here is ...<B>and Moogey is off</B><BR/><I>The lesson to be learned here is that many big financial institutions don't have enough liquidity or cash on hand right now. </I><BR/><BR/>No, Moogems, that is a fact of life. If a financial institution has that much liquidity or cash on hand, then they aren’t doing business and will soon be out of business. That is part of the reason it is referred to as the INVESTMENT industry. There is a big difference between being liquid and having cash on hand, and being solvent.<BR/><BR/><B>and still farther off </B><BR/><I>You say "so what". So what to what amounts in this Bear Stearns scenario to a government bailout which in effect affects everyone's standard of living down the road?</I><BR/><BR/>Since I said nothing of the kind your remark is as usual pointless.<BR/><BR/>I’m sorry, what big picture would that be, the one where one business badly manages itself to the point that it becomes vulnerable either actually, or perceivably to a business rival and gets swallowed? Or the imagined one where there is this great conspiracy to deprive Moogey of something?<BR/><BR/><B>and Moogey has finally learned to count, sort of...</B><BR/><I></I><BR/>1) Moogs, I don’t need as you put it “real testimony” that the presentment was a scam, since I know, and everyone else with two functioning brain cells knows, that the nonsense in it was just that. There was not ONE legal or viable thing in it. I have spent too many years working with financial and real estate law to not know crap when I smell it.<BR/><BR/>2) Mail fraud constitutes using the mails to commit, or attempt to commit fraud, and the filing of the fraudulent documents, as so ruled by both the Federal Civil courts, and by an ever increasing number of state courts were all that was necessary to commit the offense. It doesn’t matter if they were ever received, or acted upon, or if they ever in fact harmed anyone, it was the act of mailing them that was the crime.<BR/><BR/>3) You can’t read is what this statement proves. The clients were victims of the initial phase of the fraud, i.e. getting them to give funds to the dim duo, they were not necessarily co-conspirators but certainly participants in the fraud attempted against the lenders, title companies, and any other entities they came in contact with.<BR/><BR/>4) See 2 above<BR/><BR/>5) the Dorean documents were assumed, actually adjudged, fraudulent since they purported to be signed by an authorized party, when in fact and law they weren’t, really ought to learn the difference between fraudulent and forged though Moogs, makes you look like less of an ass.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>and Moogie prattled on</B><BR/><I>The mail fraud federal statute wasn't intended to protect the public from all types of fraud that exists for the simple reason the State statututes give a means for restitution & protection to the public......The federal mail fraud statute is a specific type of fraud that the statute was written about or towards....You seem to think that any type of mail fraud falls under the federal statute's court jurisdiction.</I><BR/><BR/>Congratulations Moog, you almost got something right, and then dropped it at the last moment-the statute is aimed at a particular type of fraud. And almost right again there Moogs, and then you didn’t actually read the statute as it is very specific about what it covers. And you are almost right again, I do think the statute covers ANY kind of mail fraud, since that is after all what the statute is about, and guess what Moogs, so do the courts, and the Federal Prosecutors. You use the mail to commit fraud, any kind of fraud and you are guilty of MAIL FRAUD, and all they have to do is prove you used the wires or mails to do it, and 30 years a pop.<BR/><BR/>Neo, Moogie keeps trying to sell his distorted version of reality to the universe, but no one seems to be buying into it, except possibly some of the even more reality challenged than he.<BR/><BR/>The only problem with Moogey trying to join the boys, is that he failed at this just like he has at everything else. He can’t seem to make up his mind if he was a broker or not, and isn’t honest enough to either admit or deny that he was, probably because he can’t keep track of all the lies he has told and who he told them to over the last three years. I suspect he was a wannabe, and couldn’t find anyone dumber than he was to sell the snake oil to, probably explains why he is so bitter about his good old buddy Flea, who apparently did find enough of the gullible and desperate to ruin his life over.notorial dissenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15919415990961384168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-12265002174530522692008-04-04T15:50:00.000-07:002008-04-04T15:50:00.000-07:00Moogie,What version of the mail fraud statute are ...Moogie,<BR/><BR/>What version of the mail fraud statute are you smoking?<BR/><BR/>"Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do...[using the mail]"<BR/><BR/>Repeating the same erroneous statements over and over again will not make you any less wrong than when you first started blathering.<BR/><BR/>Do the right thing - demand to join your boys in the slammer.neodemeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01936217281148295367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-75269856981565971412008-04-04T13:54:00.000-07:002008-04-04T13:54:00.000-07:00Notarial Dissent: Your statements seem to be unf...Notarial Dissent: Your statements seem to be unfair to me when you infer such things as:<BR/><BR/>(1) the Dorean presentment was a scam without even having any real testimony, evidence or injured parties<BR/><BR/>(2) What the Dorean Group did was mail fraud even if there are no victims<BR/><BR/>(3) You can be a victim & a co-conspirator of bank or mail fraud at the same time<BR/><BR/>(4) Mail fraud can exist even without any invasion of personal property rights<BR/><BR/>(5) The Dorean documents were assumed to be forgeries in Federal Court without any evidence or testimony on the issue, or any law to back it up.<BR/><BR/>The mail fraud federal statute wasn't intended to protect the public from all types of fraud that exists for the simple reason the State statututes give a means for restitution & protection to the public. The federal mail fraud statute is a specific type of fraud that the statute was written about or towards. You seem to think that any type of mail fraud falls under the federal statute's court jurisdiction.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.com