tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post645078704736265695..comments2023-10-25T06:36:25.124-07:00Comments on Mortgage Fraud: Actual Closing Statements (January 24, 2008)Whistleblowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13144659621472624683noreply@blogger.comBlogger178125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-14797945110773818392020-03-21T12:37:27.465-07:002020-03-21T12:37:27.465-07:00@Scott from Vineland
If "Voting" change...@Scott from Vineland<br /><br />If "Voting" changed anything it would be illegal. When You Vote in a corporate election you give your voice to a Corporate Officer who has no accountability to you because you never appoint them trustees with instructions or hold them to any personal liability. <br /><br /> "Voting" as a US CITIZEN or citizen of the United States, civilly Dead entities, waves all your rights. <br /><br />Be an Elector for the Lawful government of the People. Declate your Correct Political Status, Join your state Assembly and make a difference. <br /><br />Annie McShane <br />On Delaware <br />Delaware@theamericanstatesassembly.net Annie McShanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15479332572532357162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-43569997949897940442008-03-01T21:58:00.000-08:002008-03-01T21:58:00.000-08:00Moogey continues in delusionI believe the cases I ...<B>Moogey continues in delusion</B><BR/><I>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:<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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”notorial dissenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15919415990961384168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-81684617732836200732008-03-01T14:28:00.000-08:002008-03-01T14:28:00.000-08:00Notarial Dissent said: "they DO NOT SAY that they...Notarial Dissent said: "they DO NOT SAY that they cannot loan out the money on deposit with them."<BR/>_______________________________<BR/><BR/>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: <BR/><BR/><BR/>"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.<BR/><BR/>Also this case is very clear:<BR/><BR/>A bank HAS NO RIGHT to loan the money of OTHER PERSONS. Grow v. Cockrill, Ark.1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63 Ark. 418.<BR/><BR/>If those cases on lending aren't perfectly clear to you, than you won't understand what is being said specifically. <BR/><BR/>Also:<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-42478864924251136952008-02-29T21:47:00.000-08:002008-02-29T21:47:00.000-08:00ooh, Moogie’s nostrils are flaring and he’s repeat...<B>ooh, Moogie’s nostrils are flaring and he’s repeating himself</B><BR/><I>WHAT A VERY HUGE LIE!!!!!!!<BR/>You have misrepresented the law & how banks CAN operate IN YOUR PREVIOUS POSTS & EVEN IN THIS LATEST POST OF YOURS.</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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 <B>agents</B> for any of their depositors by making loans on the depositor’s behalf.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>Moogey pointed out</B><BR/><I>Notarial Dissent said: There is no controversy that a bank can “lend it’s credit to or for another”,</I><BR/><BR/>I was unclear when I wrote that the way I did, it should more clearly have been ,<BR/>“ There is no controversy that a bank can<B>NOT</B> “lend it’s credit to or for another”“.<BR/><BR/>With regard to the rest of your comments, please refer to the above.notorial dissenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15919415990961384168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-3114121075101479712008-02-29T12:17:00.000-08:002008-02-29T12:17:00.000-08:00Notarial Dissent said: There is no controversy th...Notarial Dissent said: There is no controversy that a bank can “lend it’s credit to or for another”,<BR/>________________________________<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>The fact is BANKS CANNOT LEND THEIR CREDIT. Extending credit is NOT extending money to someone. <BR/><BR/>I think you bloodied your own nose this time by avoiding the issues again & only resorted to name calling. <BR/><BR/>If your lending views are flawed, SO IS YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF ACCOUNTING as it relates to the subject.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-58858605688758285932008-02-29T12:00:00.000-08:002008-02-29T12:00:00.000-08:00Notarial Dissent said: "As long as the bank is ab...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." ________________________________<BR/>WHAT A VERY HUGE LIE!!!!!!!<BR/>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: <BR/><BR/>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: <BR/><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>A bank has no right to loan the money of other persons. Grow v. Cockrill, Ark.1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63 Ark. 418.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>'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.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-14182610991470941542008-02-28T22:03:00.000-08:002008-02-28T22:03:00.000-08:00Moogie tries to do incredulous and comes across as...<B>Moogie tries to do incredulous and comes across as dim</B><BR/><I>The deposits are the banks???? Is that disclosed when you open up a checking account that your funds may be used in loans?</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Moogey hallucinates</B><BR/><I>How does that comment of yours on how lending works jive with what the courts have said about the limitations on banks? </I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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. <BR/><BR/>“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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Since I have already bloodied your nose on this nonsense twice before I am not going to waste any more time on it.notorial dissenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15919415990961384168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-37250180381596068972008-02-28T15:47:00.000-08:002008-02-28T15:47:00.000-08:00The following case cites also support this Memoran...The following case cites also support this Memorandum on credit loans and void contracts:<BR/>· “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.<BR/>· “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.<BR/>· “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.<BR/>· “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. <BR/>· “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).<BR/>· “…checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the United States…” State v. Neilon, 73 Pac 324, 43 Ore 168. <BR/>· “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. <BR/> <BR/>· “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). <BR/>· “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. <BR/>· “…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.<BR/>· “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. <BR/>· “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.<BR/>· “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.<BR/>· “A bank is not the holder in due course upon merely crediting the depositors account.” Bankers Trust v. Nagler, 229 NYS 2d 142, 143.<BR/>· “A check is merely an order on a bank to pay money.” Young v. Hembree, 73 P2d 393.<BR/>· “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.<BR/>· “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.<BR/>· “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.<BR/>· “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.<BR/>· “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. <BR/><BR/>Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Turner, 869 F. 2d 270 (6th Cir. 1989)<BR/>“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.”<BR/> <BR/>Southern Mortgage Company v. O’Dom, 699 F. Supp. 1227 (S.D. Miss. 1988)<BR/>“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.”<BR/> <BR/>American National Bank & Trust Company v. Hanson Construction Co., Inc., 1991 WL 42668 (Ky. 1991)<BR/>“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.” <BR/> <BR/>Nibbi Brothers. Inc. v. Brannen Street Investors, 205 Cal. App. 3d 1415 (1988)<BR/>“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.”<BR/> <BR/>Bank of Sun Prairie v. Esser, 151 Wis.2d 11, 442 N.W.2d 540 (1989)<BR/>“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.”<BR/> <BR/>Touche Ross Limited v. Filipek, 778 P.2d 721 (Haw. 1989)<BR/>“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.”<BR/> <BR/>Blankenheim v. E.F. Hutton & Company, Inc., 217 Cal. App. 3d 1463 (1990)<BR/>“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.”<BR/> <BR/>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." <BR/> <BR/> <BR/>"Banking Associations from the very nature of their business are prohibited from lending credit." (St. Louis Savings Bank vs. Parmalee 95 U. S. 557)<BR/> <BR/> <BR/>"Banking corporations cannot lend credit." (First National Bank of Amarillo vs. Slaton Independent School District, Tex Civ App 1933, 58 SW 2d 870)<BR/> <BR/> <BR/>"Nowhere is the express authority granted to the corporation to lend its credit." (Gardilner Trust vs. Augusta Trust, 134 Me 191; 291 US 245)<BR/> <BR/>"A national bank has no authority to lend its credit." (Johnston vs. Charlottesville National Bank, C.C. Va. 1879, Fed Cas. 7425)<BR/> <BR/>"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)<BR/> <BR/>(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.)<BR/> <BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/> <BR/>"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) <BR/> <BR/>"A holder who does not give value cannot qualify as a holder in due course." (Uniform Commercial Code 3-303.1)<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/>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.<BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/>A bank has no right to loan the money of other persons. Grow v. Cockrill, Ark.1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63 Ark. 418.<BR/> <BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/>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.<BR/> <BR/>'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.<BR/> <BR/>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.<BR/><BR/> <BR/>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:<BR/>“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.”<BR/>Here are other things to consider:<BR/>· 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?<BR/>· 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?<BR/>· 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?<BR/> <BR/>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. . <BR/> <BR/> <BR/> ADDITIONAL BORROWERS RELIEF<BR/> <BR/>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.<BR/>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.<BR/>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).mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-86846659027309116442008-02-28T15:39:00.000-08:002008-02-28T15:39:00.000-08:00Notarial dissent said: "The liability is money th...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."<BR/><BR/>How does that comment of yours on how lending works jive with what the courts have said about the limitations on banks? <BR/><BR/><BR/> ULTRA VIRES <BR/> <BR/> 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. <BR/>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.” <BR/>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.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-1870049351042751392008-02-28T14:08:00.000-08:002008-02-28T14:08:00.000-08:00Notarial Dissent said: "For the purposes of busin...Notarial Dissent said: "For the purposes of business the deposits are the banks, that is the nature of the business."<BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>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". LOLmogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-4749627409818148252008-02-28T12:32:00.000-08:002008-02-28T12:32:00.000-08:00Mogel said...The difference between me & you, is t...Mogel said...<BR/>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.<BR/>___________________________________<BR/>Wow, I think that's the first kind thing you've ever said to me. I'm actually kind of touched. Thanks, Moogs.<BR/><BR/>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.Scott from Vinelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00137664783586963236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-86966452321438875852008-02-27T20:45:00.000-08:002008-02-27T20:45:00.000-08:00Moogey 6If a bank's assets increase by the amount ...<B>Moogey 6</B><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>And it took you how long to figure this out?<BR/><BR/><B>Moogey 7</B><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>Amazing!!!<BR/><BR/><B>Moogie 8</B><BR/><I>How does that statement jive with your other statement that promissory notes have no monetary value? Don't all assets have monetary value?</I><BR/><BR/>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.notorial dissenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15919415990961384168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-66107313876471952362008-02-27T20:10:00.000-08:002008-02-27T20:10:00.000-08:00Moogey 1I've never seen this done: Monies "paid ba...<B>Moogey 1</B><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/> <BR/>Congratulations Moogs, you caught me in a typo. I typed “to” instead of “by”. No, Moogs, I’m not. The correct statement is <B>“it is payed back <A>by</A> the borrower to extinguish the liability.”</B> 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!!!<BR/><BR/><B>Moogey 2</B><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/><B>Moogey 3</B><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>Moogey 4</B><BR/><I>How can a customer withdraw their funds from the bank if those funds were loaned out by the bank?</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Moogey 5</B><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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 dissenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15919415990961384168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-59004872420040747242008-02-27T17:54:00.000-08:002008-02-27T17:54:00.000-08:00Notarial Dissent said: "when a bank issues a loan...Notarial Dissent said: "when a bank issues a loan, it’s assets increase by the amount of the promissory note" <BR/>______________________________<BR/><BR/>How does that statement jive with your other statement that promissory notes have no monetary value? Don't all assets have monetary value?mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-33189024021377463932008-02-27T17:44:00.000-08:002008-02-27T17:44:00.000-08:00Notarial Dissent said: "I made no such change, wh...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.<BR/>_______________________________<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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?mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-15819124316394083232008-02-27T17:25:00.000-08:002008-02-27T17:25:00.000-08:00Notarial Dissent said: "A deposit ceases to be a ...Notarial Dissent said: "A deposit ceases to be a liability when the customer withdraws their funds from the bank."<BR/>_________________________________<BR/><BR/>How can a customer withdraw their funds from the bank if those funds were loaned out by the bank? LOL <BR/><BR/>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?mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-11419471274710001052008-02-27T17:19:00.000-08:002008-02-27T17:19:00.000-08:00Notarial Dissent said: "The liability is money th...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.<BR/>_____________________________<BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/> 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?mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-43343285245657405822008-02-27T17:09:00.000-08:002008-02-27T17:09:00.000-08:00Notarial Dissent said: "it is payed back to the b...Notarial Dissent said: "it is payed back to the borrower to extinguish the liability."<BR/>______________________________<BR/><BR/>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?mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-15379957687214746892008-02-26T17:06:00.000-08:002008-02-26T17:06:00.000-08:00and Moogie is off and running at the mouth againSo...<B>and Moogie is off and running at the mouth again</B><BR/><I>So lenders like World Savings DON'T COLLECT ON CONSUMER DEBT? A mortgage isn't considered consumer debt? </I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>Moogie still trying</B><BR/><I>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><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>Moogie still doesn’t have a clue</B><BR/><I>When a bank issues a loan, its liabilities and reserves increase by the amount of the loan. True or False.<BR/>______________________________<BR/><BR/>Notarial Dissent, are you saying that this statement above is true?</I><BR/><BR/>Still can’t read a plain English sentence can you? That is not what I said at all.<BR/><BR/><B>Moogie nattering at Scott</B><BR/><I>Scott from Vineland said: "The internet has ALWAYS BEEN the forum of choice for fringe elements, Moog."<BR/>__________________________________<BR/><BR/>So are you saying PRIOR TO THE INTERNET, that fringe elements DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE? </I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>Moogie again</B><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>Moogie making it up out of whole cloth</B><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>Moogie proving he still can’t read</B><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>more Moogie illiteracy</B><BR/><I>Will someone explain this statement: "The liability is money OWED TO THE BANK , not money the bank owes."<BR/><BR/>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><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>and still more Moogie illiteracy</B><BR/><I>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:<BR/>"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?????</I><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Moogie trying desperately for a grip, and missing</B><BR/><I>How does this sound if you change the word, "vapor money" with "property rights". This is what you get & the logic you hear:</I><BR/> <BR/>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.<BR/><BR/><B>Moogie being clever....</B><BR/><I>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?</I><BR/><BR/>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.notorial dissenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15919415990961384168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-77413868553041735792008-02-26T14:58:00.000-08:002008-02-26T14:58:00.000-08:00Scott from Vineland said: "I wouldn't expect you ...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.<BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-65260128068702810792008-02-26T14:49:00.000-08:002008-02-26T14:49:00.000-08:00Scott from Vineland said: "So they accept no one'...Scott from Vineland said: "So they accept no one's wisdom or authority but their own."<BR/>_________________________________<BR/><BR/>I BELIEVE you were talking about me HERE, but maybe the evidence if not the facts show that you were referring to yourself here?<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/> 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. <BR/><BR/>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???? <BR/><BR/>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.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-42528213686606148932008-02-26T14:35:00.000-08:002008-02-26T14:35:00.000-08:00Scott from Vineland said: "The point was, I can s...Scott from Vineland said: "The point was, I can say ANYTHING I want to in a affidavit but that does not make it TRUE.<BR/>______________________________<BR/><BR/>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.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-4421150100669019132008-02-26T14:30:00.000-08:002008-02-26T14:30:00.000-08:00Scott from Vineland said: "Could it be that you d...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?"<BR/>_______________________________<BR/><BR/>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 <BR/><BR/>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? <BR/><BR/>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.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-3568663091758649482008-02-26T14:16:00.000-08:002008-02-26T14:16:00.000-08:00Scott from Vineland said: "What do you consider a...Scott from Vineland said: "What do you consider a recognized canon?"<BR/>_________________________________<BR/><BR/>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.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14007337.post-83113263497454962332008-02-26T13:57:00.000-08:002008-02-26T13:57:00.000-08:00Notarial Dissent said: "The promissory note is gi...Notarial Dissent said: "The promissory note is given in exchange for the proceeds for the loan."<BR/>______________________________<BR/><BR/>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.mogel007https://www.blogger.com/profile/11589299168185830730noreply@blogger.com