We have recently filed a claim in the bankruptcy case for New Century Mortgage in Washington DC, case no. 07-10419-KJC. This went out in the mail about the 23rd of May. For the clients that have used our service with a mortgage from New Century we need you to come forward so we can assist you in furtherance of the claim. I have sent a copy to a couple of commentators here so you will know this true, and so there can be some comment on the substance. We are not going to back down from the economic retards ever! If you knew enough about the game called law, trial and the evidence in our case none of you would have a concern. Keller and Dimke do not have the brilliance to take the square peg of Judge Alsup’s presumption and force it through the round hole of reality.
Your assistance in mailing to us the loan information will get you into the claim. We have found about 14 clients in the discovery at the moment but we suspect there are more. We are using discovery, announcement here, and a notice of related case into our criminal trial to alert all the relevant parties. We are making much progress procedurally and keeping those interested apprised of our moves. The trial we are headed for is one that will have all the joy taken out of it shortly. We are still praising the Lord for all the guidance we have received in this trial. Don’t be surprised that God would use two (maybe three) insignificants to do the job that the corporate and licensed professional are too conflicted to perform. How would you deal with the aggressive fraud of the mortgage industry. Would you hire a giant law firm to suck you dry of all your resources while they party with the bankers and laugh? Based on all the lawyers we worked with they have a procedural defect in their intellect that creates a blind spot in their commonsense or the primary substantive elements and purpose of the law. They have been educated away from the origin of law to the function of injustice. Intentional or not they don’t have the morality or integrity to see true justice. If you only knew how much smarter and honest you clients are naturally. Read the cases that are cited and you will see that the prosecution desires to have a trial of crying clients, document custodians, rookie FBI agent, none of which are possessed with the facts relevant to the procedures of Dorean. Only retards or lawyers would allow this to happen and we are neither. Help us help you. This will be fun because this case is large and all the large financial institutions are creditors. Hopefully we’ll get somebody of significance to realize how stupid and dangerous the government’s case is. We have been unsuccessful in dinning any sense into the judge or prosecution. Perhaps God is making them obtuse for our benefit. As long as we are willing to pay the price of time and tolerate their damages they are benefiting us.
***We want you to put “New Century” on the outside of the envelope when you mail us the information. We will return this to you with a copy of the claim when finished.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
"Killer and Dim do not have..."
Who is Killer and Dim????????????
Keller & Dimke are the US prosecuting Attorney's in the CA fraud case charging the Defendants & the Dorean Group with the unsupported fraud charges of record.
Keller, Dimke, & Alsup, A/K/A the "Three Stooges" or "Dumb", "Dumber", & "Dumbest".
Problem is, "The Three Stooges" as you call them, currently have the keys to the cell doors. And they also have unlimited resources to help them keep the keys.
Unlimited resources would include the truth too, would it not? Besides, do you not believe the conclusion : "And the truth shall set you free." Obviously you don't.
Previous to that statement it reads & this is purely from memory since I didn't look it up to verify exactly the wording, which may be a little different, but the meaning is still there. The good book says: "And if you continue in my word, ye shall be my disciples indeed, and YOU SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH, and the truth shall set you free."
Obviously the truth is more freeing than you give it credit. No pun intended.
Besides on a similiar note, if the bankruptcy court dealing with the New Century bankruptcy, accepts the defaults and the paper trail & the testimony in effect or Kurt's filing, to say that the Dorean clients are actually creditors of New Century & need to be included in New Century's bankruptcy hearing and dispositions of their assets etc., and if the bankruptcy court Judge considers that evidence as factual & doesn't throw it out, aren't they in essence VALIDATING THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENTS THAT DOREAN OBTAINED FOR CLIENTS? If they will be validated in the bankruptcy court, and clients accepted as creditors in the bankruptcy court, a Federal Court, & able to make a legitimate filing or claim there, what is Judge Alsup's problem of failing to see that fact that clients can/are creditors, and acknowledging this fact also?
This filing in the bankruptcy court in behalf of several clients should prove to be very interesting. Maybe it can be called "the second shot" thown at the glass house.
An insider in the know that believes that the Dorean Group will soon be released from their 2 year kidnap:
http://pennibancpost.blogs.com/
pennibancpostblogscom/2007/06/
the_dorean_grou.html
July 16, 2007 seems to be an important date coming up.
Also their is evidence in this link to show that coming dorean settlements are believable if not imminent if the "powers that be" have attempted to settle before:
http://pennibancpost.blogs.com/
pennibancpostblogscom/files/
yolo_sheriff_offer_to_settle.
0001.pdf
SEC CLAIMS LOANS ARE "SECURITIES" AND SHUTS DOWN GLOBAL ENTERPRISES
"Personally I have a very hard time with these documents. First I have never been offered a security by Global. How SEC can claim a loan agreement is a security is beyond me. Second, the receiver talks about sub standard inferior merchandise. Excuse me; I was there. I spent several hours wandering through the huge warehouse at La Grande looking over pallets and pallets of stuff and tons of merchandise set out on shelves. There were hundreds of more pallets 4' x 4' x 4' stacked outside. I wish I could have had some of those new "substandard inferior" Sears 8" bench grinders, drill presses, metal cutting bandsaws, engine pullers, floor jacks, power tools and other stuff that I personally saw being boxed up for shipment. There were motorcycles, boats, 4 x 4's; almost everything imaginable there. Substandard my ass. I didn't see much of anything there that wasn't highly resalable. This is a snowjob by SEC to steal your money folks, plain and simple. I hope Buck hid the money well. These bureaucrats don't deserve anything except a swift kick in the ass for meddling where they aren't welcome and don't belong. I'm not saying Buck doesn't have some serious bookkeeping issues with what I see, but he certainly wasn't running a ponzi scheme as the monitor claims. Just another example of your protecting government at work. When the monitor is done with HIS take, for services rendered, rest assured there won't be much left for anyone else.
The monitor took his website off the net earlier today."
So, then if the SEC claims that loans are securities, then banks are selling "securities" without a license and also performing "conversion" by taking you P-Note security and converting it for their own assets.
Somethings got to give here.
Maybe K&S could get the SEC to testify that loans are securities???????????????????
Then the banks in deep s**t!
Client Alert
Kurt said: "Don’t be surprised that God would use two (MAYBE THREE) INSIGNIFICANTS to do the job that the corporate and licensed professional are too conflicted to perform."
Could this be Alvin J. Hansen,
maybe also known as "The Champ"?
___________________________________
DOJ ELECTION AND MORTGAGE CRIMES FOR DICTATOR GEORGE WHIMP BUSH
NEW ARREST WARRANTS ARE BEING OBTAINED ON COURT
SENTENCING TRIAL SET FOR JULY 16, 2007
ALL INDICTMENTS ARE COMMERCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND BANK CAUSED AND POLITICALLY MOTIVATED BY THE BUSH/ PAINE WEBBER CARTEL
THE WHITE HOUSE HAS BEEN DIRECTING FEDERAL PROSECUTORS RETALIATING AND MAKING MONEY ON IT FOR THE BUSH FAMILY FOR DECADES;
Bank of America Attorney Arne Wagner in the middle of our foreclosure of Delaware Settlement Contract Cusip No 9314600 Ca 94122638 we siezed his Piedmont home on June 22, 1994.
That same day he had a Bankamerica prosecutor in Portland Gary Sussman indict myself and brother for "Causing another person to transport my wife's Mazda Miata across a state line October 5, 1992.
Now that I have outlived their 27 year long attempt to murder me, they have destroyed the prosecution records.
LIKE THE DOREAN GROUP as they were trading on my forged embezzled trust they beat me and gave me DEISEL THERAPY for 33 months and are now so ashamed of this trial that ended in May 1997 IN NO CONVICTION THAT THEY DESTROYED THE RECORDS.
Meanwhile They were trading on my trust with another Alvin J Hansen's name on it and making trillions. (Discovered April 1, 2004.
Now that they are caught they are really mad and mentally Ill, Insane. sick.always sick. EVEN SINCE THEY MADE 4 MORE ATTEMPTS ON MY LIFE I can write like this because OF Gods grace and protection. They already killed me 26 times.
Is there any reason now to be a coward ? Join us in celebrating the Lords victory.
Trust in the Lord with all your heart and he himself will sustain you. never will he allow the righteous one to totter. Ps 55;22
Alvin
Nemo said: "DOREAN VICTIMS UNITE".
Well if that isn't false advertising!!!!!!! or an abuse of the intent of your blog :o) It's not about "victims", but it's about naysayers that want to run their mouth.
The only person that seemed to unite on your blog & claimed to be a "victim" is: "JC Praisin" & I'm not so sure she isn't a Dorean Broker charged running scared. Paranoia knows no reason.
The rest are all non-clients that aren't even calling themselves "Dorean Victims".
So what is your point Nemo? You've been pushing this stupid website of yours for years now & you got 1 victim!!! Big deal.
Besides myself, whom I've never claimed to be a victim, here are the list of the people that speak that are all naysayers that have been against the Dorean Process from Day 1, hardly classed as Victims:
(1) DB 2000
(2) jBOY 24
(3) jUDGE Roy Bean
(4) Pauligil
(5) Neodemesne
(6) Prof
(7) Notarial Dissent
Here's a suggestion for you, why don't you name it: "CRYBABIES TWIST THE TRUTH". It would represent the truth better.
Speaking of credibility, yours is lost when you use a website that really isn't about victims, the purpose you allege, but the substance shows to be a site about just "troublemakers" or "non victims", just by looking at the people that have frequently your site in the past.
Maybe that's when you speak, people just follow your suggestion of "Scroll on past".
Nemo: Let's look at this rationally. If you only have one alleged victim, that has posted on this site of yours, can it be considered "Victims" with an S? Can one victim, unite with others if there are no others? Riddle with that.
See how stupid your assumptions are, or maybe it's just plain false advertising intended on your part. Has to be one or the other, which is it?
Moogie thinks Praisin JC is a Dorean Broker?
Go ahead, mouth, answer her post at the forum with that charge. I dare you.
Her broker is on the run, leaving her high and dry with no house, typical of the Dorean procedure.
I love pulling your chain, you lost soul. I post two words and you respond with a book. A fiction, at that.
LOL
According to Al Hansen: " A Criminal Contempt obstruction of Justice audit and Bankruptcy trial has been scheduled for July 16, 2007 against State of california, Controller John Chiang, Bill Lockyer, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Garamendi, Jerry Brown, All Counties, Sheriffs, U.S. Marshall, Fired Kevin Ryan, the Warden, George Whimp Bush the United States, and Justice Department. State of California etal."
Will this event start things into motion to pave the way for the Dorean Group to be free?
Nemo said: "Moogie thinks Praisin JC is a Dorean Broker?"
________________
I NOW BELIEVE SHE is just a close friend of Sarah Magoon living in the same town in Montana; I'll give you that Nemo, I no longer believe she is a Dorean Broker. I have a right to change my opinion as I gather more information. That conclusion makes more sense to me now, although you know as well as I do, that some people use many different usernames for the same real person.
Why don't you Nemo, ask Praisen JC to post her relationship to a Dorean Broker & ask if they are still close friends & see what kind of response you get if any?
Maybe what I should have said was that I wouldn't be surprised if she ("Praisen JC") is none other than "Fruit". Not sure of that either & an opinion is not an accusation as you say. Very few people post their real names.
Unfortunately like many that complain, they wear out & don't seem to stay around, like "Praisin JC" and "Fruit", so it probably wouldn't do any good to ask questions & expect an answer.
You said: "Her broker is on the run, leaving her high and dry with no house, typical of the Dorean procedure."
"Praisen JC" was the one who stopped making monthly payments. It's her own problem she can't take responsibility for her own choices and it was her bank that took the house, not the Broker. Sarah Magoon also lost her house too if I'm not mistaken there too. You act is if the Broker foreclosed on Praisen JC's house & the Broker did the illegal eviction too. Your problem is your inability to place blame in the right place.
An opinion is not a willful "fiction" capable of being called a book, but the phrase Dorean "victims unite" truly is a willful fiction with intent to deceive. After all, I don't see any other alleged victims UNITING on your forum & you haven't shown otherwise, have you? Course the term uniting also insinuates that something is being done about it. Is your forum also presenting solutions and if so, what might they be?
I have to give it to you though, you are able to create a fiction with as little as two words. That's about as difficult as winning in chess in 2 moves, but I have to give it to you, you are able to accomplish that. You lie or deceive with as little as only two words. That's quite an accomplishment that must make you quite proud.
I think New Century is out of business.
Just for the sake of clarity, moogie, the phrase "Dorean Victims Unite" is used as an invitation or encouragement to do so, not as a declarative statement of something being done.
Its not very nice of you to put all the blame on PJC, and none on the dim duo. I believe she was among the earlier clients who were told to stop making payments, before the "administrative overpayment" CYA ploy was devised after it became obvious the Dorean paperwork was not even good for TP.
How is it that my opinions are lies and yours are just opinions? I would classify your opinions as speculations based on your limited knowledge of laws and theories you read on wing-nut websites and whether your motives are to deceive your readers or not is between you and God (who you really ought to get to know better w/o all the trappings of a false religion).
Just my opinion.
;-)
Nemo: "Dorean Victims Unite" is stated as a statement of Fact, unless you are just bad at using and understanding the English language. "We encourage Dorean Victims to Unite," would be a declarative statement or invitation to do so. Nice tap dance you do however. Keep tapping to your own drummer. You'll not get anyone to agree with you on this one.
I guess with only 1 victim coming forward, & one who is not uniting with anyone with no purpose, it still is a deceptive statement at best. How you don't see that your statements are deceptive if not fallacious & say that others are being deceptive or lying is beyond my fair comprehension to understand this double standard of yours.
I could use your same excuse & same logic by the clients stopping their mortgage payments, "it was an invitation or suggestion to the banks to honor the Dorean Presentment, and have the lenders stop pretending by their own estoppel to act is if they are the real creditor, not a "declarative statement" of fact that the clients SHOULD stop their payments, because the should part, assumes that the banks would be honorable even after getting their hands caught in the cookie jar after they were unable to prove they were the real creditor in the lending transaction.
The clients being told to stop their payments was an invitation and test to the lenders to see if they could be honorable & see if they would finally give up the game of pretence and assumption and stop continuing to expect monthly payments. Obviously we found out quickly how honorable the banks could be even after being proved they had no legal interest.
A person has a right to validate a debt. If a debt isn't validated, why would you have to pay on it & think there should be consequences in your discontinuance of paying? The "Fair Debt Collections Practices Act" tells me it wasn't unreasonable for a client to stop paying the unvalidated debt without any harm if there is equal protection under the law.
Nemo, your problem is that you aren't honoring the law either if you criticize the Dorean Group & their justification to stop payments by the clients.
There's nothing wrong with the dorean process, what is wrong is the lack of honor of the banks to play by the rules & their belief that they can do whatever they want without consequences.
Once the banks are shown there are consequences to their illegal actions, you'll see the error of your logic in blaming the dorean process or putting any blame whatsoever on dorean.
moogie, I don't know if you are naive, stupid or flat out deceptive, but to expect to be able to finance a house and then cry the banks misled you, therefore you get a free house, is, was and will forever be ludicrous.
But, continue to rave on. It is free entertainment.
neodemes said...
moogie, I don't know if you are naive, stupid or flat out deceptive, but to expect to be able to finance a house and then cry the banks misled you, therefore you get a free house, is, was and will forever be ludicrous.
But, continue to rave on. It is free entertainment.
The intent of the process was and is to get out into the open information about the current defective system and to change it. Not to get anything for free but to correct the current unjust process by which the FRB and it's children through deceptive practise and without risk obtain everything for free.
Maybe in the eyes of the unknowing public it is OK for the banks to operate in the manner inwhich they do but as for me and my house, we see things a little differently and will continue to fight the current injustice whether K and S and anyone else wins or loses, get out of jail, stay in jail, lives, dies or whatever.
It may be a battle to far gone to ever win but as I have quoted before, "the lost causes are the only causes worth fighting for."
Surely you must see the injustice of the system yet you continue to try to kill the messenger because of the method he used to get the information to you.
Now that is ludicrous
But if you must, continue on swallowing the camel and choking on the knat.
As you have said, that's just my opinion.
And as for you Mogel,
you stated:
"do you not believe the conclusion : "And the truth shall set you free." Obviously you don't."
What I believe is that you form you conclusions on a whim and you let your mouth overload your basis of information.
You are very good at forming opinions on tiny bits of information and lashing out at any one that makes a comment that does not meet the approval of the mighty Mogel.
You go right ahead and keep guessing what I really think or believe, but know this: With the little information you have about me, no matter which side of the arguement you think I stand, you will probably always be wrong.
I stand by my statement that:
Problem is, "The Three Stooges" as you call them, currently have the keys to the cell doors. And they also have unlimited resources to help them keep the keys.
sd
One more thing from me today,
Neo, no one ever answered my question from a few days ago,
How about you?
If the government had not stepped in on the banks behalf, would there be any DOREAN VICTIMS to Unite?
sd
LATEST FROM WORLD REPORTS.
JUNE 11, 2007
IS THE "BALL GAME" OVER?????????
GAME, SET, MATCH???????????????
FAT LADY STARTS TO SING?????????
TURN OFF THE LIGHTS, THE PARTYS OVER???????????????????????????
HASTA L'VISTA BABY???????????????
CHECKMATE???????????????????????
FORGET ABOUT IT????????????????
SEE YA'???????????????????????????
BYE, BYE BONZO??????????????????
NA, NA, NA, NA, HEY, HEY, HEY, GOOD BYE????????????????????????
ETC.
Nemo said: "moogie, I don't know if you are naive, stupid or flat out deceptive, but to expect to be able to finance a house and then cry the banks misled you, therefore you get a free house, is, was and will forever be ludicrous.
_______________________________
Here is what the courts have said on the subject & it's a far cry from "ludicrous":
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.
Another court case: "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.
Nibbi Brothers. Inc. v. Brannen Street Investors, 205 Cal. App. 3d 1415 (1988)
In other words, the lender is not able to retain the fruits of his deceit, & stay on title, hardly "ludicrous" according to what the courts have said.
Another court case: "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.
What part of "avoid contract" do you not understand that you consider to be ludicrous? What part of "recovering damages" do you not understand which you consider to be ludicrous also?
If you can't figure out my intentions, imagine how difficult it will be for the prosecution to conclusively prove the intent of the Dorean Group who is on trial.
The Dorean clients are never getting anything for free. They gave value, their promissory note, which was valuable to the bank, so there was a valuable exchange. Course you don't see that or accept that because you totally disregard all the proof to support that there was an exchange and not a real loan where the bank used their own assets. The bank depositing my promissory note in an account in my name but didn't give me a receipt for that. This creates a liability to the bank. THEY OWE ME. That still doesn't give them title to that asset or the legal authorization to do whatever they want with the promissory note. Why doesn't the bank return "my deposit" which was in the same amount as the alleged loan they advertised? The journal entries say the bank still owes me because they paid nothing for the promissory note. If the journal entries say there were in effect 2 loans, & I pay back my loan, why shouldn't the lender have to pay back their loan? Isn't that ludicrous to believe there is not equal protection or equal consideration under the law?
Why should the bank get something for nothing? At the stroke of a pen & computer entries, they multiply their assets without loaning anything of theirs? It takes 30 years of working for a house to have it free & clear that it takes the banks a very short time to create the money out of nothing. Isn't that ludicrous, yet most of us accept that the bank did us a favor and are a public service.
The Federal Reserve publications say that when a bank gives a loan, "their assets and liabilities BOTH INCREASE." If you can't explain that, or understand why that is, or what is happening, then, you will forever be under the false assumption that the borrower still owes the lender.
There's plenty of evidence to show this point of view:
· "A bank is not the holder in due course upon merely crediting the depositors account." Bankers Trust v. Nagler, 229 NYS 2d 142, 143.
· "A check is merely an order on a bank to pay money." Young v. Hembree, 73 P2d 393.
AN ORDER TO PAY MONEY IS HARDLY A LOAN, WOULDN'T YOU SAY? An "order" is not considered a delivery.
· · "Any conduct capable of being turned into a statement of fact is representation. There is no distinction between misrepresentations effected by words and misrepresentations effected by other acts." Leonard v. Springer 197 Ill 532.64 NE 301.
· "If any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several considerations for an unseverable promise, one of which is illegal, the promise, whether written or oral, is WHOLLY VOID, as it is impossible to say what part or which one of the considerations induced the promise." Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies L and C Co., 147 Wis 559.572; 132 NW 1122.
WHICH PART OF "WHOLLY VOID" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE TOTALLY LUDICROUS?
· "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.
·"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. Touche Ross Limited v. Filipek, 778 P.2d 721 (Haw. 1989)
Another case: "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."
First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly. "Regarding the power to delegate the control of our money supply to a private corporation can be found in 16 Am Jur 2d, Section 347, which states: "The rule has become fixed that the legislature may not delegate legislative functions to private persons or groups, or to private corporations or a group of private corporations."
"Banking Associations from the very nature of their business are prohibited from lending credit." (St. Louis Savings Bank vs. Parmalee 95 U. S. 557)
"Banking corporations cannot lend credit." (First National Bank of Amarillo vs. Slaton Independent School District, Tex Civ App 1933, 58 SW 2d 870)
"Nowhere is the express authority granted to the corporation to lend its credit." (Gardilner Trust vs. Augusta Trust, 134 Me 191; 291 US 245)
"A contract made by a corporation beyond the scope of corporate powers is unlawful and void." (McCormick vs. Market National Bank, 165 U.S. 538)
(Note: Black’s Law Dictionary: ultra vires - Latin for "beyond powers." It refers to conduct by a corporation or its officers that exceeds the powers granted by law.)
Despite the above court cases, Ralph Gelder, Superintendent, Department of Banks and Banking, State of Maine, said on Feb. 20, 1974, "A commercial bank is able to make a loan by simply creating a new demand deposit (so called checkbook money) through bookkeeping entry." This is in total contradiction to what the courts have said. Yet, that is exactly how the banks create the money to loan to its customers or to buy government bonds.
"Act is ultra vires when corporation is without authority to perform it under any circumstance or for any purpose. By doctrine of ultra vires a contract made by a corporation beyond the scope of its corporate powers is unlawful." (Community Fed S&L vs. Fields, 128 F 2nd 705)
"A holder who does not give value cannot qualify as a holder in due course." (Uniform Commercial Code 3-303.1)
A national bank cannot act as broker in lending its depositors' money to third persons. Byron v. First Nat. Bank of Roseburg, Or.1915, 146 P. 516, 75 Or. 296.
A national bank is not authorized to act as a broker in loaning the money of others. Grow v. Cockrill, Ark.1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63 Ark. 418. See, also, Keyser v. Hitz, Dist.Col.1883, 2 Mackey, 513.
Officers of national bank in handling its funds are acting in a fiduciary capacity, and cannot make loans and furnish money contrary to law or in such improvident manner as to imperil its funds. First Nat. Bank v. Humphreys, Okla.1917, 168 P. 410, 66 Okla. 186.
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.
It has been held that the right to discount and negotiate notes, etc., goes no further than to authorize the taking of them in return for a loan of money made on the strength of the promises contained in them, and does not contemplate a purchase in the market. Lazear v. National Union Bank, Md.1879, 52 Md. 78, 36 Am.Rep. 355. See, also, Rochester First Nat. Bank v. Pierson, 1877, 24 Minn. 140, 31 Am.Rep. 341.
National bank is not authorized under national banking laws to lend deposited money on depositor's behalf. Carr v. Weiser State Bank of Weiser, Idaho 1937, 66 P.2d 1116, 57 Idaho 599.
Under this section, a national bank had no authority to enter into a contract for loaning money of a depositor kept in a deposit account through its cashier authorized by the depositor to draw thereon to make loans. Holmes v. Uvalde Nat. Bank, Tex.Civ.App.1920, 222 S.W. 640, error refused.
A bank has no right to loan the money of other persons. Grow v. Cockrill, Ark.1897, 39 S.W. 60, 63 Ark. 418.
A "deposit for a specified purpose" is one in the making of which a trust fund is constituted with respect to which a special duty as to its application is assumed by the bank. Cooper v. National Bank of Savannah, Ga.App.1917, 94 S.E. 611, 21 Ga.App. 356, certiorari granted 38 S.Ct. 423, 246 U.S. 670, 62 L.Ed. 931, affirmed 40 S.Ct. 58, 251 U.S. 108, 64 L.Ed. 171.
Fund, deposited in bank for special purpose subject to depositor's check, remains property of depositor. U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation v. Atlantic Corporation, D.C.Mass.1925, 5 F.2d 529, error dismissed 16 F.2d 27.
'In the case of a special deposit, the bank assumes merely the charge or custody of property, without authority to use it, and the depositor is entitled to receive back the identical money or thing deposited. In such case, the right of property remains in the depositor, and if the deposit is of money, the bank may not mingle it with its own funds. The relation created is that of bailor and bailee, and not that of debtor and creditor.' 3 R.C.L. 522. Tuckerman v. Mearns, App.D.C.1919, 262 F. 607, 49 App.D.C. 153.
National banks are liable for the loss of property held by them merely for the accommodation of their customers, without any consideration for the keeping of it except the profit derived from the banking business of such customers. Security Nat. Bank v. Home Nat. Bank, Kan.1920, 187 P. 697, 106 Kan. 303.
In securities law, the most important requirement is full disclosure. Investors have to be given the full scoop. You cannot hold anything back. Everything-lawsuits, criminal records, market share, debt-has to be disclosed. This same type of disclosure is required in the Truth in Lending Act as well. With that said, why is it that no one has ever heard of this legal argument? Well, probably because they have not been told. But don’t you think that it is important and relevant to tell potential loan customers, as well as bank shareholders, that according to the US Code and numerous judicial decisions, it is questionable whether a national bank is actually authorized to lend credit, become a guarantor, or become surety? They should at least say something to their customers and shareholders along the lines of this:
"Disclaimer: We the bank, are lending credit, guaranteeing debts and becoming surety, through our lending business, for profit. The Comptroller of Currency approves. Congress has been silent in recent years. However, both federal and state courts in the past have repeatedly told us that the National Bank Act does not provide for this activity. Therefore, at any point in the future, the bank could be subject to either federal or state cease and desist orders. In that event the bank will require immediate and full payments and will cancel your credit or loan. Further, the bank may be exposed to civil lawsuits from all its former loan Clients and shareholders."
Here are other things to consider:
· If a party breaches its authority, by entering into an agreement that it knows it is not allowed by law to execute, is it moral to allow that party to enforce the agreement?
· Is it moral to force a person to pay on a loan, when that person did not know that the bank did not have the legal authority to issue credit or to become surety?
· Is it moral for a bank to place a negative mark on your credit report, when they did not have the authority to enter into the agreement in the first place, and that any deficit in payment has been insured by a third party insurance company and can be written off as a claim?
In addition to these three points, consider also that moral arguments (arguments based in equity), verses legal arguments (arguments based in law), are only upheld if the party seeking to enforce the agreement comes to the court with "clean hands." This concept is known as the clean hands doctrine. What this doctrine means is that if a bank desires to enforce an agreement based on equity (morality), then they must have acted equitable (moral). In the case of credit, if the banks know that the law prevents them from loaning credit (there is over a hundred years of case law on this point) and they do it anyway, then they simply do not have clean hands, and cannot argue their case in equity. Therefore they must argue in law. MEANWHILE, THE LAW PREVENTS THEM FROM LOANING CREDIT.
CONCLUSION: IT IS ONLY LUDICROUS TO THINK THAT THE NATIONAL BANKS DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW and that the borrower has no rights.
SD said: "If the government had not stepped in on the banks behalf, would there be any DOREAN VICTIMS to Unite?"
_________________________________
It's a moot point to ask Nemo that, since there are no dorean victims because all clients will get what they were promised, despite government intervention, and there are no victims to unite because according to Nemo's website, there is only one complaining victim that came forward, "Prasin JC", and she is unable to unite with any other victims on his website because no others came forward to complain on Nemo's site.
In other words, there won't be any comiserating there. It takes two or more of "like kind" to comiserate.
Sounds almost like Nemo offered a service of comiserating that he never made good upon, yet he is still advertising it. Since he has no solutions to their problems, that's all it amounts to, just PLAIN COMISERATION.
Nemo's kind of like a quack & unlicensed therapist that agrees to listen to your problems, but has no real solutions for you.
On the other hand, the Dorean Group are WORKING HARD on the solutions and are "about their business" in doing their trustees work to make all clients proud and happy and whole.
sd asks:
"If the government had not stepped in on the banks behalf, would there be any DOREAN VICTIMS to Unite?"
Yes. And plenty more than there are now, whatever the true number is. The Dorean paperstorm did nothing to protect the clients from foreclosures that resulted from defaulting on their loans.
Had the NC, Utah and then the Feds not stepped in and stopped the marketing madness, Dorean and their minions would have lured many more folks in with promises of a "proven process".
Thanks for asking. As usual, moogie had to stick his face into the question he earlier ignored, once it was addressed to me.
Take his blather for what it is worth, sd.
Nemo blathered: "The Dorean paperstorm did nothing to protect the clients from foreclosures that resulted from defaulting on their loans."
________________________________
Where did you get the idea that the Dorean Group were paid for the promise of selling credit life insurance policies to indemnify the clients from harm or loss of not being able to make their payments?
You seem to expect Dorean to make good on the mortgage payments until the lenders can be honest & admit in writing that no mortgage payments are really due. I don't recognize your expected representation or warranty anywhere from anyone associated with Dorean or in any agreement I signed. Is that something you heard promised too, or another marketing embellishment of yours or some unrealistic expectation?
The dorean process and paperwork validated that the lenders were not the creditor. Since that is true, the lender illegally foreclosed and there are consequences for them to pay.
Bullies don't play by the rules & don't have respect for rules anymore than you have respect for the Court cases I previously cited. It's not my blather or my opinions, but what the Courts have already decreed. Learn the difference.
As a client, we paid for advocates, and trustees, who have relentlessly worked on our behalf to defend our interests to the best of their ability & still continue to do so. The war is not over so why do you expect that all is lost for some clients? Must be a sign of your "lost soul" lack of God saving faith and grace in your life, is all I can come up with.
Or it could be just a character flaw that could be remedied by getting to know God personally without the false religious ideas & prejudices you have clung to.
After all, we both know I'm just interested in your soul not being lost anymore on this lending issue which is simple: "Thou shalt not steal."
Course I should have a spirtual concern for the salvation of your mind and spirit, even though you consider me some spiritual bastard, not worthy of even being called a "brother in Christ." LOL
moogie, are you saying that Dorean did not initially tell their clients to stop making payments??????????
Be careful how you answer.
Nemo asked: "moogie, are you saying that Dorean did not initially tell their clients to stop making payments??????????"
________________________________
No. Are you implying that making even one payment is an acceptance of a voidable & fraudulent & unconscienceable agreement from the very beginning?
Careful how you answer that.
Neo. Why did you cheat your mortgage company by fileing BANKRUPTCY?
Post a Comment