By the time this post the jury will be in deliberation. We have completed the trial we did not prepare for because of what we wanted to do. Though God surprised us, He also equipped us to put on a good trial. Make no mistake about the environment we were in. Judge Alsup was a commercial lawyer with a top San Francisco firm that had mostly bank clients. He has a good friend named Barry Hovis who was the bank lawyer for World Savings in the Frances Kenny case. Mr. Hovis said the internet was true and that we were scam artists. Judge Alsup took his cue and slammed Thomas Speilbauer. I was there for that hearing on December 2, 2004. It was at that time I knew that my enemy had appeared and that we were going to have to slay the giant to prevail in the marketplace. With God all things are possible. We never had a chance at a fair trial and Judge Alsup was the mechanic to guarantee that. From that moment on the government was free to do a cut and paste investigation because they already had a federal judge blessing their conclusions. What he didn't plan on were two men of faith trust in God to defeat the best under impossible odds. Even under these circumstances I think we have a small chance of winning this trial. It was nothing about our process or if the banks actually lent money. The judge legislated from the bench that the banks are lenders because they say they are. He is not stupid, he is the best judge money can buy. What I need to explain to you now even at the risk of a hung jury and a retrial is that there is a very specific reason why I prefer a guilty verdict. The trial is a fiction, a drama, only designed through rhetoric to form an opinion. Opinions mean nothing until they are confirmed with truth. Most people will leave the courtroom and do their own research and modify their opinion of the real facts that were never presented to them. As a Christian man, one is trained to pierce through all the rhetoric of this world and to form an opinion of real truth.
The one real truth I tired to teach my clients and visitors here on the Blog is what I know with an absolute certainty that there is no law in this country. Law is an agreement between the parties based on knowledgeable informed consent. it can only be formed to protect equity, or property rights. Property is something that Americans don't have. They have the serf privilege of a lease hold but never ownership. Secondly in a debt based economy there can be no equity on the negative side of the ledger. What we call money is debt, or a promise to pay. A promise is not the property to fulfill the promise. Therefore this court and all courts are relegated to mere debt collection forums for the lender of credit. They are commercial paper or commercial judgment mills that take the promised labor of their victims and hypothecate it through implied penumbra contracts. When I asked the Jury to enter a guilty verdict for us at the beginning of this trial, it was so I could get to the offer of commerce and hold my contract rights to my possession and not have them traded, sold, or bargained. That would be the end of the banking business. In this way I don't prove how banking is done in a rhetorical court that already knows and has decreed no one else to know, but rather I prove by the court that all my banking understanding is the truth. I don't know if I'll get that opportunity because the trial went really well. I will ask the Jury one last time to enter a guilty verdict but after explaining to them why, I'm not certain they will. Now my enemies know what I am thinking and they all must think I'm crazy but it is their lazy lemming minds that are the problem not mine. They have to continue to believe that the wizard is real because of all the wonders they see. I know how the wizard bedazzles the fools and cannot live in fiction. Talking tea cups (lawyers) and the mad hatter (Alsup) are only relevant in wonderland, but I'm not Alice.
I so wish the clients would not have been such suckers and studied until the fire rose in their bellies to defend their property. Instead they let the government that created the damages point the finger at the only friend they truly have in the banking arena. I'm not afraid of Alsup cheating or going pirate at that moment of commerce because I truly believe I was called for this moment in history and was specifically trained by the Lord to deal with the wickedness before me. Judge Alsup must know what I'm up to because he worked very hard not to allow me control of the contracting process. Once the verdict of guilty comes from a Jury though, he must go to that place he has tried to avoid and he cannot force me now to enter an offer of guilty as an agreement but must make the offer based upon his agents the Jury. If I make the offer of guilty, all he has to do is accept and I am toast. If he makes the offer of guilty, all I have to do is refuse and he is toast. The plea deals we accepted allowed us by writing to accept guilty and to make the offer to him without the liability and that is why they were all refused. In a world of law a contract is binding, but in commerce more than the expressed terms are considered. It is time for the people to learn that the bloated government they fear is not worthy of such fear. They are only deceptive thieves more than cold blooded killer thugs. It would only take a small percentage of people treating them like a debt collector until they began revealing that is all they power they have. The first quarter of this next year the bankers are going to rake in one of the largest transfers of wealth from the people to their greedy little pockets and I'm convinced in the spirit that God had an alternate plan designed long ago waiting for some men of faith to show up.
Phooey on you spiritual retards on this Blog who couldn't faith out of a Sunday service. All of you would have lawyered up and thrown up the vain hope prayer while not listening to God's guidance. That is the difference between the few here who even through the loss call on the Lord to prefect them and the circumstances for His glory and not their benefit, and between the rest of you reprobate self-righteous losers who think God is judging me with His wrath while He is looking down upon you with His grace. By your own confessions you expose the filth of your souls just like judge Alsup. He exposes his wickedness by the very acts he employs. If he was the unbiased judge at law he wants others to believe him to be, he would not be involved in this case because of the conflicts and his personal bias. The very fact he is involved to make sure his crimes are covered is evidence of his soul's standing. We gave him offers of Christ and righteousness and they were all refused. I did not make that offer to protect me from his trap but to protect him from his own trap. Wicked men always fall prey to their own devices as a matter of course in their existence. I can tell that by the amount of faith I had to exercise how high Alsup has worked himself into in the courses of the devil. His roots are deep and his eyes are lost to darkness. Not even the brightness of the Lord's countenance could be seen from the place he dwells. You think I should fear such a fool? You don't know the Lord if you think these men are powerful. God uses men like Scott and I and like you if you'll faith to clean up this world from these villains. Now there is nothing left but to see the work of the Lord and to learn of His brilliance. The plan was not to bring me before the giant of the Northern District to lose, but to prevail because he was the giant of evil and God had enough. Things are going to change. Someone has to die (figuratively) like when the three were thrown into the fiery furnace. They were tossed in but those who did the tossing got destroyed not the three. They got to dance with the Lord in their peril. Soon even the king had to recognize that their God was the real God. That is the end all of all the trials we face. At the end everyone must confess in honest that our God is the real God. It is what made Dorean different than a mortgage elimination company. Dorean was a prop in the eternal battle between God and His enemies about His standing and glory. I will not use my life and the comforts of this world to deny Him a chance to show off His greatness. In all, Lord be gloried and make my life a boast of You.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
167 comments:
"I will not use my life and the comforts of this world to deny Him a chance to show off His greatness."
```````````````````````````````
As if you could...
And the winds of Kurt will blow ever on, consisting of hot air, noxious fumes, and useless efluvia.
Ever a waste.
A foul smell blighting all whose path it crosses and a great noise signifying nothing.
"Judge Alsup was a commercial lawyer with a top San Francisco firm that had mostly bank clients. He has a good friend named Barry Hovis who was the bank lawyer for World Savings in the Frances Kenny case."
In other words, one corrupt bastard.
quoting Kurt nonsense
We have completed the trial we did not prepare for because of what we wanted to do.
Right, you just stood there and repeatedly hit the prosecution's fist with your face. You thought you could BS your way out of it, and then reality intruded, and oops, flat on you face.
Though God surprised us, He also equipped us to put on a good trial.
You were the only one surprised then. And God had nothing to do with it, your own vanity and ego lead you to where you are, but then again, it is never your fault is it Kurt?
Judge Alsup took his cue and slammed Thomas Speilbauer.
Spielbauer got slammed for being an idiot, twice over, once for presenting a case he knew would get him sanctioned, and two for taking you two idiots on as clients. He violated his ethical responsibilities and his legal ones and got just what he deserved. And no, you just ran into someone who wasn’t baffled by your BS, which was your undoing.
From that moment on the government was free to do a cut and paste investigation because they already had a federal judge blessing their conclusions
Again, more BS, the judiciary has no involvement, and rightly so, in criminal investigation. The fact that you left enough incriminating evidence scattered all over the country and told everyone what you were doing on your websites just made it all the easier for them to get you.
Even under these circumstances I think we have a small chance of winning this trial.
Again, your ego betrayed you, your actions and your mouth convicted you, not the prosecution.
The judge legislated from the bench that the banks are lenders because they say they are.
Right, you mean he repeated what the laws and facts actually were, and you illusions all fell apart.
The trial is a fiction, a drama, only designed through rhetoric to form an opinion.
Sure Kurt, and that fiction is going to put you and your buddy away for a very very long time.
The one real truth I tired to teach my clients and visitors here on the Blog is what I know with an absolute certainty that there is no law in this country.
Yep, and that law that doesn’t exist, caught you, tried and convicted you, and will send you away for a very long time. Amazing what these fictions can do.
My what a great lot of nonsense, all of which has long since been disproven.
You were brought before a duly and legally constituted court and jury, tried and convicted, on the charges presented, and there was nothing commercial about it, criminal charges and a criminal trial.
Blah blah blah blah Kurt, it was gibberish when the first idiot uttered it, and it doesn’t change for coming out of your mouth at this late date. You got caught committing criminal fraud.
I so wish the clients would not have been such suckers and studied until the fire rose in their bellies to defend their property.
And they too could you at your new Federal rest home for the useless and boring.
...I truly believe I was called for this moment in history and was specifically trained by the Lord to deal with the wickedness before me.
Much easier and more soothing to an over blown ego than accepting the fact that you got caught, once again, committing fraud and that once again you failed and failed big this time. And again with the it was someone else’s responsibility, never Kurt’s, and as far as the wickedness, it was all yours baby, all yours all along.
Once the verdict of guilty comes from a Jury though, he must go to that place he has tried to avoid and he cannot force me now to enter an offer of guilty as an agreement but must make the offer based upon his agents the Jury.
Total gibberish, total and utter gibberish.
The plea deals we accepted allowed us by writing to accept guilty and to make the offer to him without the liability and that is why they were all refused.
Another lie, you never accepted a plea deal, you tried to concoct one, but that is as far as it ever got, just another in a long list of lies it would seem.
Wicked men always fall prey to their own devices as a matter of course in their existence.
Certainly true in your case.
And yet more hubris and blasphemy, but no surprise there either. Just very very sad.
"It is time for the people to learn that the bloated government they fear is not worthy of such fear."
-----------------------------------
Hey Irwin Schiff, did you hear that?
the government that put you away for the rest of your life after you proved the truth in court, is not to be feared, because when you prove the truth in court, the govt follows all the rules and the govt will finally do what is right and obey justice and you're good to go.
Oh, wait a minute, thats not what really happened is it.
wake up, if that was true, the ppl wouldn't be opressed in the first place.
Research of the truth is scarce here per the posters neodemon..notary dilusion....Kurt will show you boys...and you will be silenced...then you will find something else to ridicule..its your nature you cant help it... you were born that way...once a scoffer always a scoffer..
you live your lives in ignorance...
Neodemon...Notary dillusion...
you have no clue as to what Kurt will do...
..scoffing and ridiculing others that dont join your beliefs..is all you can do..youve posted nothin here that has been worth an ounce of dirt...
You fail to educate yourselves in matters you continue to ignore...your little brains are just small enough to get you by and to use ridicule for your amusement....you lack courage, intergrity, honesty
and strength...Kurt will prevail...Kurt will be free...
justice would be served for you to forever lose your tongues and off with your hands...
....you both deserve to be lynched....
Notarial Dissent asked: "it is never your fault is it Kurt?"
Actually it's not! The verdict of guilty is just an example of the ABSENCE OF JUSTICE AND THE ABSENCE OF GOD in the Federal Court. Just look at & CONSIDER the Judge's instructions to the Jury to really know.
_________________________________
The university professor challenged his students with this question: "Did God create everything that exists?"
A student bravely replied "Yes, he did!"
"God created everything?" the professor persisted.
"Yes, sir," the student replied.
The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are, then God is evil."
The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question, professor?"
"Of course," replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
The professor replied, "Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?"
The students snickered at the young man's question.
The young man replied, "In fact, sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the ABSENCE OF HEAT. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."
The student continued. "Professor, does darkness exist?"
The professor responded, "Of course it does."
The student replied, "Once again you are wrong, sir. Darkness does not exist either.
Darkness is in reality the ABSENCE OF LIGHT. Light we can study, but not darkness.
In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color.
"You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it.
"How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."
The professor was silent, as was the entire class.
Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"
Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the ABSENCE OF GOD. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God.
"God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat
or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor was silent. He had been defeated by the young student's logic.
The young man's name ---
Albert Einstein.
Strat’s mouth ran and nothing of consequence came forth.
Let’s see, uncle Irwin is in Federal Prison for what will most likely be the rest of his life, for repeated losses at tax evasion and fraud. He curiously couldn’t convince a jury of his innocence, in fact he probably did more to convince them of his guilt than the govt did. Yep, I’d say he proved the truth alright, that he was committing tax fraud and evasion anyway.
Realistic Integrety rambled on adding nothing of value.
Kurt will prevail...Kurt will be free...
And there will likely be pork in the treetops first.
Kurt certainly was going to show the world an honest and honorable method of eliminating a mortgage, and then he was going to show us how he was going to bring the mortgage and banking industry to their knees, and he certainly showed us how he was going to avoid going to trial, and then he showed us how he was going to beat the charges, and now he is going to show us how he is going to go to jail for the rest of his useless life. Well, one out of five isn’t too bad I guess.
Poor Moogey, can’t get over the fact that the judge’s instructions were based on law and fact and not wishful delusion. Or that the jury didn’t buy any of Kurt’s nonsense. Poor Moogey, his little world of cards and nonsense all falling apart.
notorial dissent,
it is good to see someone even as ignorant as yourself being forced to ponder on some of the ideas posted here.
that alone shows that some good comes from from every post here and that there is hope for you after all
you on your way to waking up
Facing forclosure?
Get help?
http://www.crown.org/
I doubt you will find anything about mortgage "elimiantion" at Crown Ministries, other than wise budgeting and good stewardship of God's resources.
strat making even less sense than usual notorial dissent,
it is good to see someone even as ignorant as yourself being forced to ponder on some of the ideas posted here.
I’d normally ask what you had been smoking, but since your observational ability is nonexistent it really is irrelevant. Laugh at most certainly, ponder, only in the sense of wondering how someone can be so mind numbingly stupid. To date I haven’t seen anything even remotely new opr original here, unless you count the level of hypocrisy and blasphemy that one turgid idiot can generate and the number of the writhing witless willing to lap it up.
On this site:
www.answers.com/topic/agency-law
it specifically shows that the
Dorean Process was not fraud because the law recognizes the authority of "agency by estoppel", however, Judge Alsup in his instructions to the jury LIED & said that such authority CAN ONLY BE EXPRESSLY GRANTED & THAT POWER OF ATTORNEY CAN NOT BE DERIVED IN ANY OTHER WAY & IN ESSENCE HE DECEIVED THE JURY IN HIS BAD INSTRUCTIONS AS TO HOW THE LAW SHOULD BE INTERPRETED.
Apparent or ostensible authority:
"If the Principal's words or conduct would lead a reasonable person in the Third Party’s position to believe that the Agent was authorized to act, say by appointing the Agent to a position which carries with it agency-like powers, those who know of the appointment are entitled to assume that there is apparent authority to do the things ordinarily entrusted to one occupying such a position. If a Principal creates the impression that an Agent is authorized but there is no actual authority, Third Parties ARE PROTECTED so long as they have acted reasonably. This is sometimes termed "Agency by Estoppel" or the "Doctrine of Holding Out", where the Principal will be estopped from denying the grant of authority if Third Parties have changed their positions to their detriment in reliance on the representations made.
Authority by virtue of a position held:
For example, partners have apparent authority to bind the other partners in the firm, their liability being joint and several (see below), and in a corporation, all executives and senior employees with decision-making authority by virtue of their declared position have apparent authority to bind the corporation.
Even IF THE AGENT DOES ACT WITHOUT AUTHORITY, the Principal may RATIFY THE TRANSACTION and accept liability on the transactions as negotiated. This may be express OR IMPLIED from the Principal's behavior, e.g. if the Agent has purported to act in a number of situations and the Principal has knowingly acquiesced, the failure to notify all concerned of the Agent's lack of authority is an implied ratification to those transactions and an implied grant of authority for future transactions of a similar nature.
Liability of agent to third party
If the Agent has actual or apparent authority, the Agent will not have liability on any transactions agreed within the scope of that authority SO LONG AS THE PRINCIPAL WAS DISCLOSED,, i.e. the fact of the agency was revealed and the identity of the Principal revealed. But where the agency is undisclosed or partially disclosed, both the Agent and the Principal are bound."
________________________________
IF BOTH THE AGENT AND THE PRINCIPAL ARE BOUND, WHY DID WE HAVE A CRIMINAL TRIAL?
THE DOREAN PROCESS IS STILL A SETTLED MATTER, REGARDLESS OF THE FANTASY GUILTY VERDICTS AGAINST KURT & SCOTT. THE COURT RECORD AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS RECORD DOES NOT GO AWAY SIMPLY BECAUSE JUDGE ALSUP PURPOSELY ERRED IN HIS INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. IF YOU HAVE TO CHEAT & LIE TO WIN, THAN IT DOESN'T COUNT.
When the lender accepted the subrogation bond, did not return it, they accepted payment for any alleged debt. IF THE DEBT IS PAID, OR IF THE DEBT DOESN'T EXIST, IT NEEDS TO BE RELEASED AS OF RECORD. When the lender didn't validate the debt, their silence was ratification of the trustees right & implied power of attorney to discharge the clients mortgage & file this DISCHARGE in the County records. The power of attorney relationship WAS SPELLED OUT COMPLETELY TO THE LENDER.
So Notarial Dissent, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Agency by estoppel was never even considered by the Jury.
Here's another fact according to this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Agent_(law)
Some have suggested that the Dorean trustees COULD NOT legally represent both the interest of their clients & the interest of the lenders concurrently. Course this just isn't true.
As long as you disclose, you are able to act in a dual agency role. Look at the dual agency of real estate agents representing both the interests of the buyer & seller concurrently; they do it all the time & are legally safe as long as they disclose their dual agency.
"Agents CAN REPRESENT the interests OF MORE THAN ONE Principal, conflicting or POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING, only on the basis of full and timely disclosure or where the different agencies are based on a limited form of authority to prevent a situation where the Agent's loyalty to the any one of the multiple Principals is compromised."
This Dorean thing is a loooooooong way from being over DUDE'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This Dorean thing is a loooooooong way from being over DUDE'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mogel007 said...
So Notarial Dissent, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
That's not new news to me Mogel. I don't even respond to the idiot.
Where Moogey proves once again he can neither read nor comprehend
If the Principal's words or conduct...
If a Principal creates the impression that an Agent is authorized ...the Principal may RATIFY THE TRANSACTION....
If the Agent has actual or apparent authority....
What Moogey very conveniently forgets are those inconvenient IFS in the above and similar statements. None of the lenders in any way shape or form said or acted or implied that the dim duo and any authority or ability to act for them.
Again Moogey, note the fact that it takes an open overt positive action by the PRINCIPAL to give any validity to another’s actions.
That action DOES NOT come into play by an unsigned document purporting to grant authority where none ever existed.
That action requires an open, positive, and public action and there was none.
Further, when the false actions were discovered, they were not ratified, they were denied and legal action was taken against them, that is not ratification.
Actual or apparent authority requires something from the Principal, actually and intentionally signed by them, not some document granting powers absent a string of convoluted acts. This does not exist in agency law.
Nice try, but so very very wrong, yet again.
The judge’s instructions were dead on as to the settled law of the matter.
There has to be a REAL principal and agent relationship, and there was none, and thus no liability.
Moogey blather
THE DOREAN PROCESS IS STILL A SETTLED MATTER
True enough, it has been adjudged civilly and criminally fraud and a crock, absent a reversal by a superior court, that judgement is final and will stand. You are right about the court record, it will stand, and it stands as an indictment and conviction of the process and it’s creators. It is settled and final, it is criminal and a crock.
Nice try Moogs, but legally and factually, the lenders accepted nothing and were obligated to accept nothing from Kurt or anyone else. The only thing they would have been obligated to accept would have been a cash payoff of the mortgage. There was no tender of payment, as tender must be unconditional and negotiable, and real would help too. The “bond” was legally and actually a crock and did not and could not constitute tender. Neither negotiable nor unconditional. Again Moogs, what part of open overt positive action do you not understand?
Moogey in gloat mode So Notarial Dissent, you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Agency by estoppel was never even considered by the Jury.
For the very simple reason that it never existed. There was no positive action ever taken by any of the lenders to even remotely indicate that the dim duo had any legal standing on their behalf. For estopel to have come in to play, the lenders would have had to ratify the actions of the dim duo, and none of them did, they denounced them as the fraud they were, and took immediate legal action upon discovering them.
Further, any competent individual reviewing the so called authority the duo were basing their authority on would have first laughed at it, second called the lender to verify, and third called the police to have them arrested. They avoided that by never presenting their authorization for review, thus avoiding the inevitable trip to the constabulary.
Just because you say you have power of attorney doesn’t mean you do, and it isn’t valid without the supporting documents, which they didn’t have.
At least I seem to have passed reading comprehension, something you still obviously haven’t.
Yes Moogey, and wiki is such a great and undisputable source for legal information. And so very wrong. While it is true that real estate agents can in theory represent both parties in a transaction, they are still bound by very specific and stringent laws, and the level restriction on their involvement is very stringent. The spoiler here is that both parties must have given informed consent, and there must be signed and attested documents from both principals for this to be effective, which again is totally absent in this matter. The operative phrase here being signed and attested documents, not just wishful thinking.
quoting rearend This Dorean thing is a loooooooong way from being over DUDE'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The only thing that is a long way from over is the whimpering in their separate cells of the dim duo duds.
Notarial Dissent said: "If the Principal's words or conduct...
That's still a far cry from what Judge Alsup instructed the Jury. He did not bring up any of those "ifs". Negligence by the Judge in the VERY LEAST.
Course you were impressed by the simplied version of THE JUDGES instructions. They were too simple in fact.
The INSTRUCTIONS were SIMPLY MISLEADING. :O)
Notarial Dissent said: "Again Moogey, note the fact that it takes an open overt positive action by the PRINCIPAL to give any validity to another’s actions."
How about using the subrogation bond as an asset on the lenders books? Is that overt enough for you? It would be interesting to see what an audit could find.
Notarial Dissent said: "There was no tender of payment, as tender must be unconditional and negotiable,"
________________________________
Since all lenders & the Court System assume and conclude that lenders lend out their own funds for a loan, THERE REALLY ISN'T ANY CONDITIONS TO THE TENDER OF PAYMENT THE DOREAN GROUP GAVE TO THE LENDERS. So there was nothing stopping the lenders from cashing any of the dorean subrogation bonds or using them as they saw fit, WHETHER THEY WANTED TO HYPOTHECATE THEM, SELL THEM, OR WHATEVER. Signing the already prepared affidavit in the Dorean Presentment which affirms this is how lending works, is not really a condition. Hasn't the court precedences said time in & time out, this is how lending really works in the real world? It is something that is adjudicated to be law, is it not, the way the lending business is presupposed and transacted & even how you say lending works?
In light of that, it's kind of strange no lender ever bothered to sign and return that prepared affidavit for the lender to sign though. All it stated is what lenders make us all believe & no lender seems to want to verbally deny those things, so it shouldn't be any big deal in signing the document that was prepared.
Doesn't it stand to reason if there were no legitimate loan, than no payoff is necessary? If there was a legitimate loan by the lender, than payoff is necessary. I don't see signing a simple affidavit as a condition when there doesn't seem to be any disagreement.
When you receive a settlement from an injury or claim , the insurance company often makes you sign an affidavit, which sets for the conditions of payment. Is the insurance companies act, a condition of their tender of payment? Does that very act of requiring a signature on an agreement, nullify the insurance companies tender of payment & suddenly make it legally illigitimate? Of course it doesn't.
As far as the negotiability of the bonds, it was never proven that they weren't negotiable. Rumor had it according to Bill Julian, that some of the bonds ended up in Europe. If so, that would prove their negotiability.
No, the lenders didn't immediately do anything towards the presentment. They simply ignored them. That's not how to resolve any problems. Silence is equated with fraud according to court precedences.
And indictments were 2 years later, after the court shut down the dorean business. The lenders for the most part were silent & ignored the problem & the dispute put in front of them. Not only is that bad business, but it shows they have something to hide.
Moogey’s mouth runneth over That's still a far cry from what Judge Alsup instructed the Jury. He did not bring up any of those "ifs".
Nice try Moogs, but the “Ifs” in question only apply to an actual agent principal relationship, not the imaginary and concocted one the boys pretended to. It would also have required some kind of actual relationship between the two which again there wasn’t, so no reason to go beyond what the actual law was. Conversely dim and dimmer never attempted to present anything that would have proved the contrary since they knew it would only evidence their attempt at fraud. The judge’s instructions covered what was presented and the law that pertained to it, not the what ifs you want to come up with.
Moogey makes another silly statement How about using the subrogation bond as an asset on the lenders books? I
You’re really desperate and grasping at straws now. First off, the “bond” is of, and had, no value. It was and is a piece of worthless paper. So there would have been no reason to treat it as anything other than the birdcage liner it was. There is no evidence of any of the lenders doing anything more than either trashing it or forwarding it to the FBI per the Comptroller’s instructions, and secondly since there is no way to cash the bond it would have been pointless to even attempt doing anything with it. Schwing and another miss, Moogs.
Moogies tries again, pitifully THERE REALLY ISN'T ANY CONDITIONS TO THE TENDER OF PAYMENT THE DOREAN GROUP GAVE TO THE LENDERS.
Oh, so the conditions of the presentment were invalid then? Since the presentment plainly said that they had to jump through all those hoops for it to be valid, so which is it??
Signing the already prepared affidavit in the Dorean Presentment which affirms this is how lending works, is not really a condition.
So this wasn’t a condition then, strange that’s what you just got through contradicting yourself about. It either is, or it isn’t, which is it now Moogey? If they have to sign the affidavit, then it is conditional and not absolute, and is there fore not negotiable. It is also not legal tender, so there is no requirement that it be accepted, even assuming it were an actual bond, which it wasn’t.
In light of that, it's kind of strange no lender ever bothered to sign and return that prepared affidavit
Why, they were under no obligation to do so, and since the “bond” was bogus, even less reason to.
I don't see signing a simple affidavit as a condition when there doesn't seem to be any disagreement.
You don’t see a lot of things, but that is hardly my problem. You are both reality and morality challenged, again, not my concern.
As far as the negotiability of the bonds, it was never proven that they weren't negotiable.
Nonsense, they were ruled as bogus in the civil suit. And, as they do not meet any of the legal requirements for any thing but a fraudulent item, there is no likelihood of them being legal or negotiable. Negotiability requires a sum certain, and uncondtionality, both of which are missing here, not to mention, no registration, no means of encashment, and nothing backing them.
Rumor had it according to Bill Julian, that some of the bonds ended up in Europe. If so, that would prove their negotiability.
Right, a really reliable source to begin with, which proves nothing. Since the document in question was nothing more than another cobbled together word processing piece of gibberish by Kurt, it wouldn’t take much imagination to see that there were probably any number of them lying around where anyone could get at them, up to and including Bill Julian that well known paragon of virtue and honesty. Kurt was too cheap to even spring for decent certificate paper, which is one of the reasons they look so cheap and tawdry. That somebody was trying to commit further fraud by selling them to the unaware in Europe is hardly surprising, and proves nothing.
They simply ignored them.
Something we do agree on. They had no legal obligation to do anything but ignore them, except to turn them over to the FBI and state insurance fraud units, which many of them did and thus came the ultimate demise of dim and dimmer.
The lenders for the most part were silent & ignored the problem & the dispute put in front of them.
And just which dispute would that be Moogs, certainly nothing valid that Dorean presented. The documents were nonsense, based upon a nonsense premise of no legal validity or standing. It there had been an actual, real, legal dispute, there are legal steps to take, up to and including going to court, yet none of these were taken, so there really is no point here.
The Einstein story never happened.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/
einstein.asp
And you are wrong about agency.
Agency law states that the principal has to benefit from the agent's actions. Otherwise, there is no agency or authorization.
http://www.oz.uc.edu/~stedmabn
/Chapter16.pdf.
States the agency exists for the benefit of the principal and the agent must endeavor to use his/her best efforts to advance and support the principals best interest.
Notarial Dissent said: "the lenders accepted nothing and were OBLIGATED to accept nothing from Kurt or anyone else."
____________________________
Tell me, what are you smoking? You want me to believe that if a bank wire was sent to my lender from someone else, for payment on my account, that they would say: "I'm sorry, the money didn't come from the actual borrower, & as a lender, I'm OBLIGATED not to accept payment from someone else. :o)
That's almost as good as this statement: "they denounced them as the fraud they were, and took IMMEDIATE LEGAL ACTION upon discovering them."
Who took IMMEDIATE LEGAL ACTION? IMMEDIATE legal action being the key word. :o) You must live in a time warp in a parallel universe were time is measured differently.
Notarial Dissent said: "That somebody was trying to commit further fraud by selling them to the unaware in Europe is hardly surprising, and proves nothing."
______________________________
If it can be sold or purchased for value, doesn't that mean the instrument has negotiability ? Value is in the eye of the beholder. We weren't discussing value; just negotiability. We'll never come to a meeting of the minds as to what constitutes value because you have discounted the value of the process from the very beginning.
Tell me have you ever even seen and completely read the complete presentment sent to the lender ? I doubt that you have.
Pauligirl said: "Agency law states that the principal has to benefit from the agent's actions."
______________________________
And righting a wrong BY THE LENDER & decreasing the POTENTIAL liability of the lender by changing an error or minimizing the fraud of the lender BY FIXING LEGAL TITLE, IS NOT A BENEFIT TO THE LENDER?
How about "goodwill"? Or doing the right thing? Aren't these always benefits too?
When corporations give away products all the time on television, is this a benefit to the corporations as far as goodwill and advertising?
You need to look a little deeper than you usually think. The world isn't as simple as you make it.
Notarial Dissent said: "Kurt was too cheap to even spring for decent certificate paper, which is one of the reasons they look so cheap and tawdry.
________________________________
Is this another legal standard you are referring to?
So are you saying if a little more money was spent, this would have made the difference in credibility? I think not, just another criticism that is pointless by you.
Notarial Dissent said: "As far as the negotiability of the bonds, it was never proven that they weren't negotiable.
Nonsense, they were ruled as bogus in the civil suit."
______________________________
No, that would have been what was charged in the State of Utah's case THAT WAS DROPPED or dismissed, however, you want to look at it.
No, the Civil case just unfairly labeled the process "a scam". That doesn't define the negotiability or the validity of the subrogation bond.
Judge Alsup's ruling had no backing or law to his conclusions, or anything to the real world of lending & banking. It was nothing more than a ruling based upon nothing of substance. Judge Alsup had an axe to grind from the very beginning. I'm not impressed with his rulings that can still be overturned.
Notarial Dissent said: "If they have to sign the affidavit, then it is conditional"
_____________________________
You're missing the point. Lenders and even you imply this is how lending works that the source of the loaned monies come from the lenders assets or the lenders resources & not from the value of the borrowers promissory note.
It's not a new condition in the sense that it is something that is already believed by the lender and confirmed by the courts decisions, unless you are admitting that the lenders routinely commit fraud knowingly & deceitfully all the time.
Signing an affidavit where there is no contradiction or disagreement otherwise, is just a meeting of the minds which is not a new condition, for this condition is already implied by the lenders representations and advertising.
How are you making a meeting of the minds, or what was represented by the lender, a new condition OR a NEW CONTINGENCY? If you verbally agree to something or agree to do something , & then you are asked to sign OR AFFIRM THIS IN A WRITTEN agreement, is this a new condition OR SOMETHING TO JUMP THROUGH A NEW HOOP?
No, this is just honest and good business by cementing verbal representations in a written affidavit. You're just cementing what is already believed and agreed to & what you have been led to believe, so the substance and the agreement are the same.
Why do you make a big deal out of nothing? If lending works just as you say, why didn't all the lenders sign the prepared affidavit unless they are hiding something? Doing that alone would have allowed the lender to cash the subrogation bond. All the presentment demanded was honesty and full disclosure or the affidavit signed.
The dorean trustees got nothing back from the lenders, just their distain & silence. You would think that after spending all of that postage, and time to send out the long presentment, that the courteous thing for the lender to do would be to acknowledge the paperwork & spend as much time answering all of the questions and concerns. No, they left it to the courts to silence the presentment.
The lenders didn't want anything to do with answering the presentment honestly, because it can't be answered without lying or cheating.
Notarial Dissent:
Let's say you agree to do A,B,C, & D for me. I say that's fine with me and I'll pay you exactly what you want, just sign an agreement indicating exactly what you just said you would do for me.
Are you going to come back & say, no, I'm not going to sign anything to that effect according to my verbal assurances because it constitutes something we didn't agree to & it's a condition or something that needs to be negotiated?
I suppose you probably would say that, and I'd run from you, and get someone else who was honest, to do the work for me and it wouldn't be you, because you couldn't put your John Hancock, where your mouth is, and your word wouldn't be your bond, because you would think it was some sort of hardship or extra unreasonable condition or some difficult hoop to jump through.
Notarial Dissent said: "It would also have required some kind of actual relationship between the two which again there wasn’t, so no reason to go beyond what the actual law was. Conversely dim and dimmer never attempted to present anything that would have proved the contrary since they knew it would only evidence their attempt at fraud."
_____________________________
Wrong again! I can see you've never seen all the documents of the presentment to make such an ignorant assessment as that.
As trustees for the borrowers assets, and power of attorney agreements signed to attest this authority, the dorean group, were given express consent to address the lenders on the concerns that were addressed.
I suppose you would also say if I hired an attorney, that my attorney wouldn't have any relationship with my lender either if there was some sort of legal problem concern either that affected lender and borrower?
Notarial Dissent said: "It is also not legal tender, so there is no requirement that it be accepted, even assuming it were an actual bond, which it wasn’t."
_____________________________
Federal Reserve Notes aren't legal tender, according to the constitution, BUT THERE IS A legal REQUIREMENT TO ACCEPT THEM.
Course how would you know an actual bond, from a fictitious bond?
Oh that's right. You're like the expert witness in court for the plaintiff; you determined that from only reading an internet site.
You're like all the other retards that think that if a corporation or business is registered at one address, that this must be their only physical address for business. Since the trust company, FMT of Switzerland was registered at a flower shop, they certainly couldn't be a legitimate financial or trust institution. Likewise all corporations that are registered in the Bahamas at PO Boxes addresses, can't be bonified legitimate corporations either possessing real or large assets either. :o) All retards understand this principle & logic. :o)
Whether Einstein gave the argument against the college professor who was an atheist, who was trying to disprove the existence of God is irrelevant to me, since I was only trying to make a point. It doesn't matter who really was the character being the real story.
The point is Einstein was still a spiritual man who believed in a divine creator of a higher intelligence than man & Einstein was definitely not an atheist & always acknowledged a greater intelligence than he himself possessed:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/
einprayr.htm
Pauligirl: It amazes me how you can speak out of both sides of your mouth when you think it is convenient for your point of view.
Wasn't it you that listed all of the foreclosures of the Dorean clients on Nemo's websites? Did you list any Dorean victories due to their recordations or show where lenders were actually harmed by the Dorean process? I don't believe you ever listed anything to that effect. After all, all bank fraud charges were in fact dropped and never proven or shown in court.
You said: "the agent must endeavor to use his/her best efforts to advance and support the principals best interest."
This statement was given to imply that the actions of the dorean trustees of reconveying title to the properties back to the borrower was somehow NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE LENDERS.
So did any of the reconveyances BY Dorean, stop any of the lenders from NOT FORECLOSING WHEN MONTHLY PAYMENTS WEREN'T TIMELY MADE, SINCE YOU ARE INFERRING THAT THE Dorean RECORDATIONS SOMEHOW TOOK AWAY FROM THE LENDERS EQUITABLE INTEREST & CAUSED THEM HARM & THAT THIS PAPERWORK BY DOREAN WAS NOT IN THE LENDERS BEST INTERESTS?
According to you & all your friends, the dorean process had no sparkle of success whatsoever, and was a waste of time in defending the clients interests, so what does your latest comment have to do with the price of tea in China & HOW DOES IT APPLY HERE? I'm just not getting or understanding your latest point & your need to quote this part of agency law in regards to the dorean process?
You want me to believe that if a bank wire was sent to my lender from someone else, for payment on my account, that they would say: "I'm sorry, the money didn't come from the actual borrower, & as a lender, I'm OBLIGATED not to accept payment from someone else.)
I personally don’t care what you do or don’t believe. The fact of the matter is that the lender is not obligated to accept anything from anyone but the borrower unless there is prior agreement. Even then they are not obligated to accept anything but what they choose to as tender.
Who took IMMEDIATE LEGAL ACTION?
The lenders, they had the releases voided, and in most cases instigated foreclosure proceedings, and apparently filed complaints with the appropriate law authorities. I would certainly call that taking legal action. The key word here being upon discovering what had happened.
If it can be sold or purchased for value, doesn't that mean the instrument has negotiability ?
No, it just means there was someone stupid enough, or so naive that they didn’t know what they were buying.
We'll never come to a meeting of the minds as to what constitutes value because you have discounted the value of the process from the very beginning.
You’re right about that, since you either do not, or refuse to recognize fraud when it slaps you in the face.
Tell me have you ever even seen and completely read the complete presentment sent to the lender ?
Yes, I have, in all it’s boring detail, and a bigger piece of nonsense, pseudo-legalistic gibberish and out and out , I have seldom seen this side of some of the paytriot pseudo-legalese that Kurt stole some of his ideas from.
And righting a wrong BY THE LENDER & decreasing the POTENTIAL liability of the lender by changing an error or minimizing the fraud of the lender BY FIXING LEGAL TITLE, IS NOT A BENEFIT TO THE LENDER?
Moogey, no matter how you dress it up, fraud is still fraud. If there were legal problems, that is what lawyers are for. That is not something that comes within an agent’s purvue. The rest of this is just self serving nonsense on your part.
Is this another legal standard you are referring to?
No, just an observation on my part. They were the tacky and tawdry work product of two very tacky and tawdry men. Had they actually spent some money on decent paper stock and a decent certificate, it would have at least give it the appearance of validity, as it was it just looked like what it was. Birdcage liner.
No, the Civil case just unfairly labeled the process "a scam". That doesn't define the negotiability or the validity of the subrogation bond.
Moogs, the whole thing was ruled a scam in the Federal courts, the process, the “bond”, the whole thing. Bogus, junk, nonsense, nothing. If it is a scam, it is not negotiable, not anything. The civil case sunk it, and in the criminal case evidence was entered showing that the so called backer of the bond was a fraud and didn’t exist except on paper, and that the “bond” itself was a fraud as well. This was entered, and not refuted, so it too stands as a legal fact. Whether or not you think it was “unfairly labeled the process a scam” is of so little concern to the rest of the universe. The state insurance case was dropped, again not dismissed, because there were superior Federal fraud charges being filed that would amount to more jail time. Whether or not you like the judge’s rulings, they have the backing and effect of law, and barring them being reversed on appeal they will stand as law and fact in the case. I’m sure the judge is overwrought that you are not impressed, probably almost as much as I am. If the rulings and instructions were not based on valid law then they will be easily overturned upon appeal, but I wouldn’t be holding my breath if I were you, since we both know better.
Lenders and even you imply this is how lending works that the source of the loaned monies come from the lenders assets or the lenders resources & not from the value of the borrowers promissory note.
I “implied” nothing, I said it as a flat out statement of fact. I also said there was no obligation or reason for them to bother with the affidavit or any of the other nonsense. There is no legal or business requirement for it. You can twist words all you want, but it still amounts to nothing. The loan agreement is valid and complete as it stands, and is what it is. If there is a controversy then the courts are the forum of resolution. There was no reason to bother with the affidavit, and since there was no means of cashing the “bond” there was no incentive to even look into it.
The dorean trustees got nothing back from the lenders, just their distain & silence.
The “trustees‘ got back exactly what they had coming. Poor babies, wasted all that money on postage and bogus documents, and all they got back for it was a justly deserved prison sentence. Sometimes there is symmetry in life. By your “logic” Moogs, I should have to answer a bunch of questions sent me by someone I don’t know about things that are none of their business, and I should have to do this because they have gone to the expense and inconvenience of sending me this stuff? Even by your thin excuse for reality this is ridiculous. I would do just what the banks did and toss it in the trash can.
Let's say you agree to do A,B,C, & D for me.
This implies a business relationship, something that was lacking between Dorean and the lenders, so the rest of your poorly crafted analogy is pointless.
As trustees for the borrowers assets, and power of attorney agreements signed to attest this authority, the dorean group, were given express consent to address the lenders on the concerns that were addressed.
I never said they didn’t have a relationship with the borrowers, whether a valid one or not depends on the legality of the trusts established. That aside, it did not create any kind of relationship with the lender. As agents for the borrowers, they could have asked questions concerning the mortgages, and possibly even undertaken legal action on behalf of the borrower if there was some legal controversy. What they could not legally do is make demands on the lender and then generate pseudo legal documents and commit fraud. They were not at any time agents of the lender and could not act on their behalf. The only relationship your attorney could have with your lender is as your legal representative and counsel.
Federal Reserve Notes aren't legal tender, according to the constitution, BUT THERE IS A legal REQUIREMENT TO ACCEPT THEM.
And where do you get this bit of legal wisdom? Even for you this is a remarkably stupid statement. TITLE 31 SUBTITLE IV CHAPTER 51 SUBCHAPTER I § 5103 says otherwise.
Course how would you know an actual bond, from a fictitious bond?
Let’s put it this way Moogs, I been working in the field longer than you’ve been out of diapers.
I would and do know what to look for, I know how to check them for validity, and I know where to look to validate them. I know a piece of garbage when I smell it, and since I did in fact read both sides of the silly thing I am familiar with it. It does not meet the legal requirements for either an insurance contract, indemnity, or surety bond, and about the best that can be said of it is that it closely resembles a poorly drafted IOU since Kurt is the only binding party, and we already know he hasn’t got a pot or anything else, so it isn’t even of any value as an IOU.
You're like all the other retards that think that if a corporation or business is registered at one address, that this must be their only physical address for business.
Nonsense, however, it does add to the air of respectability though when the registered address of a company is not a flower shop, and the company itself wasn’t a former dormant woman’s clothing manufactury. Even if a drop box is used as a registered agent address, real companies have physical business address, if only for legal reason. Curiously, FMT is missing all those.
As far as your comment about corporations registered in the Bahamas at PO Boxes generally are fraudulent. I certainly wouldn’t do business with a bank or trust company so registered.
Did you list any Dorean victories due to their recordations or show where lenders were actually harmed by the Dorean process?
I’m sorry, did I miss something here? That would be what victories? From all reports, there were only a few Dorean clients who got far enough to really commit fraud, but none of the ones who had paper filed actually got away with it for the simple reason that none of them did get away with it. Nice try Moogs.
So did any of the reconveyances BY Dorean, stop any of the lenders from NOT FORECLOSING
No, but they actually triggered many of them. The fact that they were fraudulent to begin with only added to the legal violations.
Poor Moogey, can’t keep his lies and rationalizations straight any longer now that his card castle of delusion is slowly imploding.
Pauligirl said....."The Einstein story never happened."
___________________________________
No Duuuh! Everybody who's been around for a few years should know that...The story still makes a good point.
See, thats the problem with some of you people...you're so worried about discrediting something you miss the GREATER message.
Notarial Dissent said: "Who took IMMEDIATE LEGAL ACTION?
The lenders, they had the releases voided, and in most cases instigated foreclosure proceedings,"
________________________________
In ALMOST ALL cases, the LENDERS ignored the releases. And in most all cases did not instigate foreclosure, as long as payments were being made ontime.
You're obviously getting bad information from somewhere.
Notarial Dissent said: "If there were legal problems, that is what lawyers are for."
_______________________________
Yea, that was tried by hiring Spielbauer, and the only result from that was financial sanctions and threats to the lawyer's job since the lawyer at least tried to expose the truth even though many disliked the way he went about doing it.
Notarial Dissent continues: "I also said there was no obligation or reason for them to bother with the affidavit or any of the other nonsense. There is no legal or business requirement for it."
Yes, & it's this type of prevalent attitude of stubborness and evasiveness to protect all of the lenders lies & behaviour, that made the presentment necessary and a challenge in good faith to try and get full disclosure & not a fraudulent activity. It's this type of attitude & mental games that you play that only shows the good faith of the Dorean Group & the need for them to challenge the establishment in the way they did. I always thought there were laws that protected "whistleblowers" anyway from the kind of BS that was inflicted upon Kurt & Scott. You would think that being a "whistleblower" in & of itself would be enough justification to not even be thinking of someone as guilty of conspiracy or fraud. Apparently the Jury didn't see the Dorean Group in that light at all, more evidence of their ignorance.
Kind of strange that the Court thinks it's paramount to protect the chair person foreman of the Jury from public scrutiny by taking his name off the court records. Is he now going to be treated like a witness in the FBI protection program too? Does such an action suggest that his verdict should never be questioned or challenged personally? He's no longer a name, but an impersonal number. :o(
"Let’s put it this way Moogs, I been working in the field longer than you’ve been out of diapers."
_____________________________
Oh really? How old does that make you then?
Notarial Dissent said speaking of the subrogation bond: "the best that can be said of it is that it closely resembles a poorly drafted IOU since Kurt is the only binding party,
________________________________
Does the lender sign any of the documents that is put in front of the borrower to sign?
Must mean by your same logic than, that the lender is not a binding party to the transaction either, thus making it a voidable transaction, not legal & pages only suited for bird liner too.
The mortgage agreement must also be a poorly drafted IOU too then.
Thank-you for being so consistent.
Notarial Dissent: It's amazing how you do not understand the doctrine of subrogation at all. The lenders ARE OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT PAYMENT FROM SOMEONE ELSE.
Subrogation: "the substitution of another person in the place of the creditor to whose rights he [the other person] succeeds in relation to the debt; one's payment or assumption of an obligation for which another is primarily liable." Mc"Clintock, Equity 123 (2d ed. 1948).
This doctrine IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON CONTRACT, nor upon privity BETWEEN THE PARTIES; it is the creature of equity, and is founded upon principles of natural justice...Subrogation has been generally classified as being either legal or conventional. Legal subrogation arises by OPERATION OF LAW where one having a liability, or right, or a FIDUCIARY RELATION IN THE PREMISES (Kurt Johnson & Scott Heineman by contract between them & clients), PAYS A DEBT DUE BY ANOTHER under such circumstances that he is in equity ENTITLED to the security or obligation held by the creditor whom HE HAS PAID.
In other words, the lenders wishes who pays the debt are irrelevant here, and the lender doesn't need to sign off on any agreement to allow someone else paying the debt or assuming the previous obligation.
This is a "creature of equity", something YOU ARE NOT.
I’m sorry, did I miss something here?
________________________________
I was talking about Pauligirl's apparent hypocrisy not your own. Your hypocrisy doesn't need to be pointed out, it smells everywhere and is MUCH more obvious.
notorial dissent you are getting slammed here. Go find another board to troll.
notorial dissent you are getting slammed here. Go find another board to troll.
notorial dissent you are getting slammed here. Go find another board to troll.
hands on his end said...
notorial dissent you are getting slammed here. Go find another board to troll.
ND is not getting slammed ......
BUT............
Your hero.................
IS IN THE SLAMMER
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Sorry notorial dissent but tcob also agree's your gettin slammed; So it may be best to quit trolling here; and leave.
Thanks tcob for the support.
Sorry notorial dissent but tcob also agree's your gettin slammed; So it may be best to quit trolling here; and leave.
Thanks tcob for the support.
Good Lord, all you Dorean apologists and True Believers. Wake up and smell the coffee!!
Instead of trying to read the law for yourself, even on simplifications like Wiki, why don't you watch a little People's Court or Judge Judy,for crying out loud. At least then you won't have to struggle to comprehend the rules. Both the TV judges at least explain these principles (like basic contracts and agency) in words of few syllables so even you idiots might understand the concepts. The basic source material is clearly over your heads. Way Over!!!
Byron, you need to get a real job. You clearly have way too much time on your hands.
The music's over, people.... turn out the lights.
Hey moogie, that dead horse you are beating is stinkin' up the place.
Get off it already.
Take a vacation.
Find a nice girl and settle down.
Relish your freedom, who knows what tomorrow may bring.
And above all, know that Jesus loves you.
Take some time to learn what that really means.
I hope everyone had a joyous Thanksgiving.
Nemo are you living off the money that you forclosed on? WHY DID YOU FILE "BANKRUPTCY"????????????
That's just plan wrong "BRUCE".
That's just plan wrong "BRUCE".
That's just plan wrong "BRUCE".
“Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:” (Hebrews 12:28)
I think Bruce is the Devil.
Bruce why did you file BANKRUPTCY?????????????????????
Bruce why did you file Bankruptcy????????????????????
Bruce why did you file Bankruptcy????????????????????
Bruce why?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Bruce why?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Bruce why???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Check you mail tomorrow.
Something about SPECIAL DELIVERY!
Could someone please get NTE a laxative. Looks like he's even more bound up than usual.
Sorry jdjd I've had a few toddy's tonight.
mogel007 said...
Pauligirl: It amazes me how you can speak out of both sides of your mouth when you think it is convenient for your point of view.
How so? I made it very plain from the beginning that I thought the process was a fraud.
mogel007 said...
Wasn't it you that listed all of the foreclosures of the Dorean clients on Nemo's websites? Did you list any Dorean victories due to their recordations or show where lenders were actually harmed by the Dorean process? I don't believe you ever listed anything to that effect. After all, all bank fraud charges were in fact dropped and never proven or shown in court.
--------------------------------------------
Yes, I listed the foreclosures. Did I list any Dorean victories due to their recordations? No, because I didn't find any. The recordings were bogus and fraudulent. Did I show where lenders were harmed? No. I was showing where the homeowners were harmed by signing up for this asinine program. After all, the foreclosure lists were made before the bank fraud charges were dropped. Not that it matters. Do you have a Dorean "victory" you would like to share?
I'll grant you this, you really have a way of twisting things. Once again "the agent must endeavor to use his/her best efforts to advance and support the principals best interest." I never said anything about the reconveyance back to the borrower not being in the best interest of the lenders. It was all the crap that went before, the bogus releases and the fake bond, people being told that they now owned their property free and clear. That was not in anybody's interest except Kurt and Scott.
By the way, how much did you make off all of this?
Yes, Moogie, just how much did you make off the suckers you rounded up? Inquiring minds want to know, not to mention the prosecutorial ones.
Moogems won't be able to provide any "victories" for the simple reason there weren't any.
Pauligirl said: "It was all the crap that went before, the bogus releases and the fake bond, people being told that they now owned their property free and clear. That was not in anybody's interest except Kurt and Scott.
By the way, how much did you make off all of this?"
_______________________________
If the subrogation bond was a fake bond, the OCC (Office of Comptroller of Currency) would have gotten involved, which never happened. I still maintain that there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the bonds were bogus.
The properties were never free & clear because property taxes always take priority & are always a 1st lien position, something you already know. People we're always told it was a controversial process too and the banks behaviour could not be predicted, that's a far cry from "being free & clear" & unchallenged!!! Not only that, for most of the time, the clients were told to continue to make their monthly payments "under protest" even after the reconveyance. How could anyone of those people think their property was "free & clear" & the process was going to be unchallenged then?
How much did I make? Obviously not enough to be one of the 4 Brokers being indicted & convicted & BEING FORCED to pay back those monies. Course there's still the belief or belittling accusation, I didn't have ANY clients. I think Nemo is one of those with that perspective & several others. Course he's usually right, isn't he? Course Jesus loves him too, even if he doesn't understand that this case was only about "selective prosecution", a principle in the Yick Wo case that allowed him to prevail and have all charges dropped.
Couse isn't the recording of the releases what constituted the mail fraud that Kurt & Scott got convicted upon? How was that in their best interest at all then, now that their conviction is a reality? Wasn't all their bank accounts in the US confiscated too? No financial benefit there obviously. You've lost me on all of your points you brought up.
Notarial Dissent said: "Moogems won't be able to provide any "victories" for the simple reason there weren't any."
________________________________
Obviously you didn't read where some clients were able to sell their homes. Even Mathew Ernst, the FBI witness said that & even gave one example. Obviously you missed that, since your reading comprehension is so poor.
Vote for "Homeless Jose" for President :o)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMBpPc9qLhE
notorial dissent; Nemo/ Bruce said your Penis looks like a little light switch.
I feel sorry for you man that sucks; I bet you got laughed at in the boys locker room growing up.
Oh wait you have'nt grown up yet.
Neo / ND,
I think near the rear end is trying to bait us all into sending him pictures. I might oblige him except I don't have a wide-angle lens. HA!!!
Hey Scott I got won. If your man enough post your phone number. I'll send ya won.
Get it Scott; Won.
Get it Scott; Won.
Scott admitted on a site called quatloos that bankers are SLIM.
“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” (Colossians 3:16)
Nemo quotes: “Wherefore we receiving A KINGDOM which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:” (Hebrews 12:28)
___________________________________
Bruce, are you suggesting that you will be a King someday in the next life?
mogel007 said...
The properties were never free & clear because property taxes always take priority & are always a 1st lien position, something you already know. People we're always told it was a controversial process too and the banks behaviour could not be predicted, that's a far cry from "being free & clear" & unchallenged!!!
Funny...free and clear is how it was advertised. This is from CCR's original website.
We Have The Solution...
There is now a PROVEN legal and moral way of eliminating your mortgage while adding $50k* to your pocket. (*based on a $200,000 mortgage) .
We Have Over 600 "FREE & CLEAR" TITLES TO DATE.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050209172023/www.ccrsolution.com
/evidence-pak.html
This page also lists the much vaunted reconveyances. Both Gyman and McPhail were foreclosed and we know what happened to Lecompte. Johnson got two releases from Dorean, but it looks like he refinanced another piece of property to actually pay off the loans. After the refi there are real satisfactions from the lenders and the date and money amount is right to pay off both loans. Can I prove it? No, but it doesn't appear that the Dorean releases did him any good.
You are correct about Mathew Ernst. He did say that a property was sold in June of 2005. Unfortunately, he didn't give the state, so I have no way of searching. However, I would hesitate to call it a "victory" because I doubt seriously that the defrauded lender or title company just rolled on it. If you can get me a name and state, I'll look it up.
Properties are sold everyday. Big whoop. What's that got to do with a Dorean success?
"Not only that, for most of the time, the clients were told to continue to make their monthly payments "under protest" even after the reconveyance."
Golly, could that be because the folks they told could stop paying because they were free & clear were being foreclosed on? Is it safe to stop paying 'under protest' now, Byron? According to you, the process is legit, so why not? Is that what you are advising 'clients' to do?
Maybe Kurt should have cited Yick Wo and avoided a Yuck Foo.
Hey, when I get to the Kingdom, I'll send you a postcard saying 'Wish you were here'
Moogey very conveniently forgets If the subrogation bond was a fake bond, the OCC (Office of Comptroller of Currency) would have gotten involved,
As you very conveniently forget, there were warnings issued about the mortgage scam, and the banks were advised to forward the documents to the FBI, and guess what happened from there???
<><> The properties were never free & clear because property taxes always take priority & are always a 1st lien position
Nice attempt to twist a statement, but still no cookie.
<><> People we're always told it was a controversial process too and the banks behaviour could not be predicted
BS Moogs, they were told it was a guaranteed legal, moral, and ethical way to get out of a mortgage.
<><> How could anyone of those people think their property was "free & clear" & the process was going to be unchallenged then?
Because that is exactly what your heros told them and promised. Or is your mind like your morality fading away as well.
<><> How much did I make? Obviously not enough to be one of the 4 Brokers being indicted & convicted & BEING FORCED to pay back those monies.
Not an answer Moogs, either you were a broker or you weren’t, which is it?? Either you scammed people or you didn’t, which is it? Nice try, doesn’t alter the fact that you haven’t answered the question.
Just keep making it up Moogs, and reality will keep knocking ‘em down.
notorial dissent, Bruce and Scott; I heard all 3 of you sit down to piss.
“Give thanks unto the LORD, call upon his name, make known his deeds among the people.” (1 Chronicles 16:8)
Neo by your actions I can't tell if you believe in God or not.
Notarial Dissent said: "BS Moogs, they were told it was a guaranteed legal, moral, and ethical way to get out of a mortgage."
__________________________________
I was referring to what Kurt & Scott ALWAYS & CONSISTENTLY said, not some of the Brokers that were trying to make a sell. You must also remember, that websites of the Brokers were even changed by orders of the Dorean Group when things or wording wasn't approved totally by the Dorean Group. All Brokers knew it wasn't going to be a cake walk from the very beginning.
I'm not going to argue semantics with you. A discharge of mortgage or filing of that document was guaranteed as part of the process, whether that would be challenged or not by the lender is another separate issue. In almost all cases, the process or legitimacy of the paperwork was challenged by the lender or title company at some point in time in some way or another.
Can you say, "Guilty," boys and girls?
I knew you could!
And the jury could say it too!
Wiggle, squiggle, and deny, all that it is left is the big fat lie.
Prevaricate, obfuscate, and exacerbate.
Mooges makes a funny In almost all cases, the process or legitimacy of the paperwork was challenged by the lender or title company at some point in time in some way or another.
Challenged and lost in all cases, Moogs, hardly a guaranteed, sure fire program as it was touted to be. But then again, that is what happens when you build something on a lie and then lie about it to build it up.
If we ignore horse's rear end, do you suppose he will get bored and go away? I can't imagine him having the attention span to hang around if he's not getting a response.
Scott your just pissed because you have a Tiny Penis.Scott quit trolling here and go back to work ripping people off.
Scott from Vineland said...
If we ignore horse's rear end, do you suppose he will get bored and go away? I can't imagine him having the attention span to hang around if he's not getting a response.
*****************************
Warning:
Do not feed the Trolls.
I'm curious Bruce Scott and notorial dickhead; why do ya'll even give a Fuck anymore they lost so why don't ya'll just fuckin leave.
Do you like rubbing it in or do you just like giveing people Shit. Just curious.
I'm curious Bruce Scott and notorial dickhead; why do ya'll even give a Fuck anymore they lost so why don't ya'll just fuckin leave.
Do you like rubbing it in or do you just like giveing people Shit. Just curious.
WHO SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS?
JOHN 14:26
"BUT THE COMFORTER, WHICH IS THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHOM THE FATHER WILL SEND IN MY NAME, HE SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, AND BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR REMEMBRANCE, WHATSOEVER I HAVE SAID TO YOU."
Want to know something?
Can remember something from your distant past?
WHO SHALL TEACH YOU "ALL THINGS?"
Who you gonna call?
(See above)
If you have this, you can rightly say that you are a "know-it-all", because it will "teach you all things."
Not just "some things."
And in time, all your memories will be come back too.
NOT too bad, eh?
Why do Christians look to other things for knowledge; people, pastors, priests, popes, rabbis, etc. when it CLEARLY states WHO will teach you ALL THINGS.
The above is just from the Standard Operating Procedure. ;-)
Son of a prophet? Is that you?
"I am with you ALWAYS...."
Nice to see you sharing the Word again. Sure beats that other nonsense you've been babbling lately. (Or am I confusing you with some other SOP?)
Want to know about:
algebra?
geometry?
physics?
chemistry?
nuclear fission?
mortgages?
the DG?
WHO WILL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS?
ALL TOGETHER NOW....
THE ---- ------
WHY DO YOU GO TO SCHOOL LEARN ABOUT THESE THINGS?
IS GOD A LIAR?
HE SAID THAT HE WILL TEACH YOU "ALL THINGS".
WHAT?
YOU DONT BELEIVE HIM?
YOU HAVE CHOSEN/FOOLED TO BELIEVE THE PTB INSTEAD WHOVE TOLD YOU THAT YOU NEED A DEGREE (B.S.)FROM CONTROLLED EDUCATION IN A CLASSROOM TO LEARN THOSE SUBJECTS.
PITY FOR YOU.....
THIS IS ELEMENTARY, WATSON...
IF YOU DONT EVEN KNOW THIS, THEN WHAT PRAY TELL ARE YOU GOING TO DO WHEN YOU SHORTLY SEE THE 2 WITNESSES???
Scott from Vineland said...
Nice to see you sharing the Word again. Sure beats that other nonsense you've been babbling lately. (Or am I confusing you with some other SOP?)
YES. WHETHER PRO OR ANTI DG, THE TIME FOR NONSENSE IS UP. GET WITH IT!
START ACTING CIVIL WITH EACH OTHER BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.
THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES TO BE DISCOVERED AT THIS TIME THAN GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THIS DG ISSUE.
LET IT GO....FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.
GODS PLAN IS IN EFFECT. LET IT BE.....
gone-but-not-forgotten said...
WHETHER PRO OR ANTI DG, THE TIME FOR NONSENSE IS UP. GET WITH IT!
START ACTING CIVIL WITH EACH OTHER BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.
That would be nice... I'm willing to give it a shot.
lEGAL Standing to foreclose DOESN'T EXIST:
http://webofdebt.wordpress.com/2007/11/20/up-to-65-trillion-in-mortgage-backed-securities-debt-may-be-in-jeopardy-subprime-borrowers-may-have-an-escape-hatch-no-paperwork-providing-standing-to-sue/
Here's the full link again:
http://webofdebt.wordpress.
com/2007/11/20/up-to-65-
trillion-in-mortgage-backed-securities-debt-may-be-in-
jeopardy-subprime-borrowers
-may-have-an-escape-hatch-
no-paperwork-providing-
standing-to-sue/
OMG! an actual breathing honest judge?! 1 of a kind
roy bean will chime in with some lemming nonsense soon over it, clock's ticking
Not likely.
The figures are most probably badly exaggerated, but it is in truth a major mess waiting to happen.
The foreclosures in OH were stopped for the very simple reason that the foreclosing party didn’t have their paperwork in order. They may very well have lost it, or never had it in the first place. They may well be so messed up that they will never know.
Unfortunately for Moogey and his ilk, there isn’t any particular malevolence or plotting going on here, just plain old every day sloppiness and greed. When who ever came up with this bright idea started it they didn’t put enough controls in, and as inevitably happens when too many hands get into a thing paperwork got lost, misplaced, misfiled, destroyed, who knows. The point being that at least in some of these cases, they don’t have the original documents, they don’t even have copies of the copies, and more importantly, they don’t have the chain of title to the documents, in other words, they got nada.
Now before Moogey and company start salivating, this is a considerable difference between what the vapor money crowd were trying to pull and what happens in real life when valuable commercial documents go missing. It is one thing to lose a note and have to buy an indemnity for it, and losing an entire mortgage package. That’s called losing your assets, you have no proof of property, no proof of ownership, because you have nothing to show holder’s in due course, you have nothing.
It’s called you can’t prove ownership, and without proof of ownership, no legal action can issue because there is no standing to sue.
The figures in the various articles are probably quite overblown, but there will be a great number of people who will eventually find that they no long have a mortgage agent to be paying for the simple fact that they have been lost in a shuffle somewhere, there will be foreclosures that never happen simply because there can be found no legal owner of the paper, or that the party that thinks they own the paper cannot prove ownership. This is not a magic panacea and there will probably be a great number of people who never know or care, they will refinance and wipe out the obligation and it will be a moot point. The small few who are in it for the long haul may eventually have some problems when it comes time to pay off their loans and they may not.
One thing is certain, mortgage backed securities are going to take a serious hit in the months to come, and there may well be a good deal of money lost here. One certainty will be a flurry of Federal and/or state legislation regulating the field.
Other things aside, I wouldn’t quit making my mortgages payments just yet.
Wow! I have been gone for a while and it appears I haven't missed a thing.
How to find out who is claiming ownership of your mortgage:
http://www.foreclosure
forum.com/articles/
0304MERS.html
Nemo: You didn't answer my question, if you receive A KINGDOM, DOES THAT MAKE YOU A KING?
The scriptures didn't say, "The Kingdom", it said, "a kingdom".
Can you have a kingdom, without being a king?
Byron,
I offered you a venue to discuss your beliefs.
The answer you seek is contained in the passage:
“Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:” (Hebrews 12:28)
Don't read more into it than is there.
For those interested in prophecy, or Kurt's words, here's one in reference to Judge Alsup:
"His failure to repent will bring the full vengeance of the Lord upon him for all the crimes he has practiced. He will not see his 65th year on the federal bench and his retirement will be early and in shame. Even after all these years, his fall being so great and his shame being so thorough will cause his wife to divorce him. Enemies long since thought vanquished will reappear strengthened by the Lord to plaque him in his torment."
Prophecy concerning Judge Joseph C. Spero:
"He will lose his offce to DEMENTIA".
Prophecy conerning Magistrate Wayne Brazil:
"One of his friends will be a betrayer who will steal all of his economic security."
Prophecy conerning Matthew Ernst:
"As your career appeared to be going fast, it will reverse just as fast."
Prophecy concerning James Keller:
"The government will fire you and there will be no one to hire you."
Prophecy conerning Mary Dimke:
"Every promotion you think you deserve will pass you by."
Prophecy conerning Spero Stamos:
"Your children will hear from God and convict you with their testimony."
Concerning the Case:
"The case will BE DISMISSED with an emphatic get rid of these guys as fast as possible. These dictates will come from those far more powerful than Judge alsup."
Byron,
I offered you a venue to discuss your beliefs.
YEA, AN ANTI-MORMON SITE. HOW GOOD AND CONSIDERATE OF YOU.
The answer you seek is contained in the passage:
“Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:” (Hebrews 12:28)
Don't read more into it than is there.
__________________
YEA & DON'T TAKE AWAY IMPORTANT TRUTHS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE SCRIPTURES, UNLESS YOU WANT THE PLAQUE OR CURSE TALKED ABOUT IN THE BIBLE: Deuteronomy
4: 2 "Ye SHALL NOT ADD UNTO THE WORD WHICH i COMMAND YOU, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, THAT YOU MAY KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD, YOUR GOD WHICH i COMMAND YOU.
Revelations 22: 19
"And if any man shall TAKE AWAY from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and OUT OF THE HOLY CITY, and from the things which are written in this book."
Revelations 21: 7 "He that overcometh shall INHERIT ALL THINGS, and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."
What do sons of God become Nemo?The answer is no mystery. The answer doesn't even violate logic.
Can't wait to receive your postcard Nemo. Wonder what zipcode it will be coming from? :o)
John 3: 1-3
"Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we shall be called the sons of God, therefore the world knoweth us not, becasuse it knew him not,
Beloved now, are we the sons of
"God, and IT DOTH NOT YET APPEAR WHAT WE SHALL BE; but we know that when he shall appear, WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM; for we shall wee him as he is.
And every man that HATH THIS HOPE in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
____________________________
What hope? The hope to be just like God, of course. It doesn't get any plainer, unless you don't possess the Holy Ghost.
Nemo said: "Don't read more into it than is there."
"WE RECEIVING A KINGDOM." Are you blind too, along with being deaf & dumb to boot too?
Kurt,
My name is Ian Daly. I am a reporter for Details magazine. I attended part of your trial in San Francisco and would like to talk to you, if possible. Please contact me at
ian_daly@condenast.com
And, if you don't mind, I would also invite anyone who's worked with or has had an experience with the Dorean Group to please contact me at the above address as well.
Regards,
Ian
O No shit is gettin ready to hit the fan.
Jesus is referred to as "Lord of lords, King of kings," and I might add, God of gods.
If you are given a kingdom, aren't you a King?
Didn't Pilate ask Jesus if he was a King? What was his answer?
"The kingdom of God is WITHIN YOU" IS IT NOT?
Doesn't this potential always exist because we are the offspring of God, his sons and daughters in the spirit and created in his image & likeness? Doesn't this potential of greatness, far beyond your comprehension exist, simply because it's in our DNA?
Math 5: 48: "Be ye THEREFORE PERFECT, EVEN AS YOUR FATHER IN HEAVEN IS PERFECT".
Can the quest, be any more plainer?
Course Nemo, you are a "saved christian", "saved by grace", you don't have to worry about "purifing yourself" or "becoming perfect" or repenting, exerting any faith whatsoever, receiving the Holy Ghost, enduring to the end, doing good works, showing your light to the world, by your shining example, or any of that heresy. All that's for the misled & misguided that will end up in hell. Course that's just too, isn't it?
Byron,
I'll be happy to respond to you at Conversation With a Mormon if you wish to post your tirade there.
Neither ad hominem attacks nor Nemo references will be posted.
Have a blessed day.
The Department of Justice have determined that the use of these gold and silver NORFED 'Liberty Dollar' medallions as circulating money is a federal crime."
Imagine that?
Read entire article: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/
local/6420ap_id_liberty_dollar_raids.html
Entire link again:
http://seattlepi.nwsource
.com/local/6420ap_id_liberty_dollar_raids
.html
Maybe I'll get the full link right this time:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/
local/6420ap_id_liberty_
dollar_raids.html
They had already been proven legal, from the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing agents own words. THEN, they screwed it up.
The problem came when they changed their marketing online and called it "real money", and they also admitted doing that.
So it still is not illegal, just has to be done in the right way.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon201.htm
Forecast for 2008:
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/
Business/2007/11/19/forecast_us_dollar_could
_plunge_90_pct/4876
Better link:
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/
Business/2007/11/19/forecast_us_
dollar_could_plunge_90_pct/4876
Calling silver coins "real money"
is justification for the FBI
to confiscate assets? LOL
you got it, dont mess with the system and everything is fine, the govt doesn't like competition
thats funny that disney dollars also say can be spent as 'real money'.
but mickey pays all that tax $ so you know he good to go
Moogey’s mouth runneth over, yet again For those interested in prophecy, or Kurt's words, here's one in reference to Judge Alsup:
That what Moogs, 0 for 10, or is it 20 so far? I think you had best look up the bit about false prophets and what happens to them and their followers!!!!!!!!
The Department of Justice have determined that the use of these gold and silver NORFED 'Liberty Dollar' medallions as circulating money is a federal crime."
Imagine that?
Yeah, imagine that, aside from violating any number of Federal laws.
Strat blather They had already been proven legal, from the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing agents own words. THEN, they screwed it up.
The problem came when they changed their marketing online and called it "real money", and they also admitted doing that.
So it still is not illegal, just has to be done in the right way.
They had never been proven legal, and or had any such statement been sought for the reason that they knew they were too close to legal coinage to be noticed. They never marketed them any other way and that was what they were pushing them as from the start. They are no more legal now than when they started.
Calling silver coins "real money" is justification for the FBI to confiscate assets? LOL
No, numbnutz, making things that look like coins is justification for the FBI and Treasury to step in. To someone not familiar with our currency, those look like they could be legal US coinage, and that is called utterance, and is illegal, and a big jail time felony. They quite frankly look and feel like real US coins.
Strat once again evidences his great mental prowess you got it, dont mess with the system and everything is fine, the govt doesn't like competition
No, you don’t commit blatant illegalities and then thumb your nose at the authorities and expect to not get noticed.
Strat’s mouth loose again, brain unengaged thats funny that disney dollars also say can be spent as 'real money'.
Yes, at Disneyland/World, outside of the park they are just pretty pieces of paper. They are coupons or credit vouchers depending on how you want to look at it, and perfectly legal.
One way or another, the coins look like real coins, and that is a big no no, that is what started the snowball rolling. The main charges have to do with money laundering, which may or may not be provable depending on the records kept.
The main factor in all this that seems to get swept under the rug is that while von Nuthouse was busy claiming to be trying to do something for the dim and downtrodden, he was busily stealing from them. His so called inflation proof currency was a fraud, first it came with a built in 30-50% inflation, and that coupled with the real inflation rate meant that his customers/suckers were giving him $10 for $5 worth of silver, a simplification but accurate. As the price of silver rose, he simply doubled the face value for the same 1 oz of silver guaranteeing him a large profit and his suckers a never ending loss. The early warehouse receipts were denominated in such a fashion that the suckers never got more than 80¢ on the dollar at best. I haven’t seen the current ones, but von Nutbert isn’t a philanthropist so you can bet they were adjusted accordingly.
Then there is the claim of $20 million in “currency” outstanding, backed by stored silver and or gold. Do you have any conception of how much metal that is? And do you seriously think someone is going to keep $10-20 million in precious metals lying around? Get real!!!
You guys all need to Pray that no Demacrat gets into office. Especially a clinton Lord help us all if that happens.
Notarial Dissent said: "To someone not familiar with our currency, those look like they could be legal US coinage, and that is called utterance, and is illegal, and a big jail time felony."
____________________________
Thanks for the tip! I sure won't be using any of those Chucky Cheese tokens now then to redeem them for any game playing with my pizza. I don't want to be accused of being an accessory to a very serious crime.
They sure look like quarters to me, so I can imagine what a foreigner might think.
Notarial Dissent said: "They are no more legal now than when they started."
_______________________________
Isn't that a hoot. Wasn't this company that makes these coins and currency issuing them way back when I was still in diapers? Wonder why the FBI/US Treasury waited so long to do something about it?
Notarial Dissent said: "One way or another, the coins look like real coins, and that is a big no no, that is what started the snowball rolling."
________________________________
Can you elucidate & tell us exactly what REAL COINS look like, so we can know the distinct difference? Is there some sort of legal definition that exists here?
Notarial Dissent said: "To someone not familiar with our currency, those look like they could be legal US coinage, and that is called UTTERANCE, and is illegal,
__________________________________
My first reaction to that, would be to say that is just UTTERLY ridiculous, but I wasn't really quite sure what to UTTER, so I avoided saying that until now. That's all the UTTERANCE I have at this point to UTTER. I HOPE MY UTTERANCE DOESN'T MAKE ME SOME SORT OF CONSPIRATOR HERE against the great UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Maybe this great country will confiscate the coins of anyone that purchased these near like real coins next? Who knows for sure, I heard the government once confiscated all of the gold at one time & made that a crime too. Course that's when I was in diapers, so I don't remember much of that; I have to go by what my parents told me about that & how that UTTERLY played out.
And to think I once thought that UTTERANCE meant only "milking the cow".
As the price of silver rose, he simply doubled the face value for the same 1 oz of silver guaranteeing him a large profit and his suckers a never ending loss.
SO I TAKE IT YOU'RE A PROPONENT OF "PRICE FIXING" THEN? Wasn't that tried during the Nixon Administration, & it failed miserably? Are you an anti-capitalist too? Your criticism don't sound very American to me.
Notarial Dissent said: "And do you seriously think someone is going to keep $10-20 million in precious metals lying around? Get real!!!"
YEA, YOU'RE PROBABLY RIGHT. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY GOLD IN FT. KNOX EITHER.
E-gold, the largest ecurrency probably didn't keep that much gold lying around either even though they represented it was officially backed. Probably they were lying too.
Who can you really trust anymore? You?
Here's the quote of the day:
"I believe Notarial Dissent is a government plant because he is so incredibly retarded."
Anyone that guesses correctly who said that, gets a "cookie".
Notarial Dissents aaid: " As the price of silver rose, he simply doubled the face value for the same 1 oz of silver guaranteeing him a large profit and his suckers a never ending loss. The early warehouse receipts were denominated in such a fashion that the suckers never got more than 80¢ on the dollar at best."
________________________________
You're right the Federal Reserve Practices are MUCH MORE HONEST, with their interest rate changes, their fractional reserve banking practices, and the practices of flooding as much currency in the market as they see fit, or creating as much debt as they see fit to heap upon on the American people with no backing to it. Such practices of course haven't contributed to inflation either or stealing of the wealth of the American people because if they had, YOU WOULD BE SPEAKING AGAINST THAT TOO. These practices are surely guiltless too & of no moral consequence.
I just love people that defend a system & they think their s*it don't stink at all. What's the dollar worth now in purchasing power compared to when the Federal Reserve started in 1913? Maybe 3 cents on the dollar or less?
80 cents on the dollar sounds pretty good, don't you think in comparison?
Notarial Dissent said: "Nutbert isn’t a philanthropist"
___________________________
Of course he is!! He's giving his hard earned gains to the FBI. If that isn't philantrophy, what is?
You're not saying he advertised that he was a philantropist too, are you?
No, he was much worse than a philantropist, he is a capitalist, someone interested in a profit.
Course we have you to determine for any business what a reasonable profit should be.
Nemo said: "Hey, when I get to the Kingdom, I'll send you a postcard saying 'Wish you were here'
_________________________________
Personally I think you are reading things into reality that JUST AREN'T THERE, but I figured if you could say that, I could also.
One of us must be dillusional, but only reality knows for sure.
JD said: "why don't you watch a little People's Court or Judge Judy,for crying out loud. At least then you won't have to struggle to comprehend the rules."
_________________________________
Yep, that's the answer to bring us out of ignorance. More television & especially more REALITY TV. I couldn't have said it better myself. LOL
The Clinton Bitch is in trouble. We are now winning in Iraq and it's all over the news.
Thank God there's no way she can win now.
Moogs, I know you have a penchant (some might say a compulsion) for deliberate misunderstanding, but this one is over the top. If you can actually read, or have someone read it to you, the point of my post is pretty clear.
At least TV reduces all of these concepts, which are difficult for those of limited intelligence to comprehend, to the lowest common denominator so that even idiots like you and your fellow Dorean apologists might, if they tried really, really hard, understand them.
Sorry if you didn't get it, but I'm not sure I could make it any clearer. Perhaps you should be watching Sesame Street instead of playing on your computer with the adults.
jdjd; Do you even have an IQ?
Moogey, oblivious to all reality spake Thanks for the tip! I sure won't be using any of those Chucky Cheese tokens now then to redeem them for any game playing with my pizza. I don't want to be accused of being an accessory to a very serious crime.
Even for you that is a stupid statement. In no wise do “Chucky Cheese tokens” look or pretend to be anything but what they are. The only thing you are likely to be accused of after that statement is being an accomplis to gross stupidity, and an accessory to trying to find an excuse where one doesn’t exist.
Isn't that a hoot. Wasn't this company that makes these coins and currency issuing them way back when I was still in diapers?
I wouldn’t know, Moogs, how long have you been out of diapers. From the way you act at times it can’t have been long. On the reality side, however, Sunshine Minting was formed in 2006, so maybe it has been around as long as you’ve been out of diapers. Who knew? As to why action was taken when it was, could have had something to do with von Nuthouse going out of his way to make his presence known, and a couple of his clients getting busted for passing counterfeit coins. Could be maybe!!!!!
Can you elucidate & tell us exactly what REAL COINS look like, so we can know the distinct difference?
Real coins have a head and obverse, and when you put something like the statue of Liberty’s head along with a date and what looks like the usual coin motto on one side, and the words Liberty Dollar, a date, and the words Twenty Dollars or $20 on the back, then it looks like a real US coin and comes under the utterance statute.
My first reaction to that, would be to say that is just UTTERLY ridiculous, but I wasn't really quite sure what to UTTER, so I avoided saying that until now.
And, about what I expected of your vaunted research skills. The next time you buy a dictionary, you might want to avoid the remaindered bin, they’re there for a reason. Since expecting you to have a real dictionary in your possession, I will resort to the lowest common denominator to which you will be able to aspire, freedictionary.com under utter: 3. Law To put (counterfeit money, for example) into circulation. So I guess one could say your response, was as usual, utterly pointless and utterly useless.
Unless you were actually creating them, or attempting to use them I doubt you would come under the statute. I don’t think possessing a counterfeit coin is a crime, and so I seriously doubt the ones already in possession are in any danger, unless someone is stupid enough to try and spend one. I would suspect, that as collectibles/curiosities they would be safe. I am curious about this sudden diaper fetish of yours though, is this something new?? Could point to some serious deep seated problems you should have looked at, or on the other hand, just your natural personality coming out. Either way, icky icky icky eoooouw.
I heard the government once confiscated all of the gold at one time & made that a crime too.
Yes, you’ve heard a lot of things, and as usual, all wrong. The gov’t did not confiscate the outstanding gold, they ordered it turned in, for which you got, guess what, legal US currnecy, or a premium certificate for merchandise, so no one lost anything, the law made it illegal to use or require gold in commerce, and restricted the ownership of gold to small quantities, but it was never “take”. Sorry, another sorry myth, BUSTED.
SO I TAKE IT YOU'RE A PROPONENT OF "PRICE FIXING" THEN?
No, I’m just not a proponent of outright theft and deception, which is what I would call claiming something was worth $10 when it is only backed by $5 worth of silver. Particularly when I could buy similar items for the value of the silver and a small markup, up to an including US silver eagles which I generally paid about a 10% markup on. I’m a proponent of honesty and not cheating your customer. So where does that leave you Moogs, oh wait, I forgot, you were a Dorean broker, so we already know the answer there.
YEA, YOU'RE PROBABLY RIGHT. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY GOLD IN FT. KNOX EITHER.
Well, at least the don’t think part is accurate. They are incidentally supposed to be inventorying Ft Knox next, so then we’ll know. My point was that it would be unusual for a private facility to have that much precious metal lying around as backing for paper. Plus, they have always claimed that it was backed by metal stored at Sunshine, so pardon my skepticism. In the first place, the insurance on it would be crippling, and I just can’t see von Nuthouse actually spending that kind of money, and in the second place, it just plain doesn’t make sense. Will be interesting to see what is declared in the inventory when it is returned to the court, real interesting.
E-gold, the largest ecurrency probably didn't keep that much gold lying around either even though they represented it was officially backed.
As far as I remember, e-gold never made the claim they actually had it on hand, except for small amounts, my understanding was that they were buying and selling paper gold on the markets, no one actually hauls metal around to trade if they don’t have to, too much loss on carriage, as far as I could tell they were doing it all as bookkeeping entries, vapor gold maybe?????????, and they weren’t charged with embezzlement, they were charged with money laundering, a whole level of nasty prison time bigger, and means they will lose everything to ill gotten gains confiscation.
Moogie ranting about three things he knows less than nothing about, economics, banking, and the Federal Reserve Moogie rant snipped for boredoms sake.....80 cents on the dollar sounds pretty good, don't you think in comparison?
Moogs, I’m not going to attempt to educate you on the workings of the economy, banking in general, or the Federal Reserve, you haven’t learned by now, and I have neither the time nor the patience to teach a pig to sing. I much prefer bacon.
As to your final remark, it doesn’t sound good at all, not when I can buy the same ounce of silver for cost plus maybe 10% from the mint or wherever, and then later turn around and sell it for the value of the silver plus whatever value it has accrued since purchase, no I don’t think it is a good deal, sucker bet yes. But then your view of economics was just what von Nuthouse was playing on. The mathematically and reality challenged, and you keep proving him and PT right at every turn.
You're not saying he advertised that he was a philantropist too,... He's giving his hard earned gains to the FBI.....he is a capitalist, someone interested in a profit
In some puff piece he gave years ago he let himself be called a philanthropist, and well as an economist, neither of which he has real claim to. He did in fact give it to the gov’t, by breaking the laws he broke, and violating the money laundering acts, so I suppose in a sense he did give it to them, since the end result is confiscation of ill gotten gains. I have no problem with someone making an honest profit, but not by deceit, and almost everything von Nutburt did was at some level deceitful. If he had stuck to making commeratives and selling them as such he wouldn’t be in the mess he is now. But we’ve had this discussion before haven’t we, about greed and ego!!!!
"I believe Notarial Dissent is a government plant because he is so incredibly retarded."
---------------------------
He must be, no lemming could truly be that ignorant created by nature could it? must be self induced
I could be wrong though
notorial dissent said...
... Sunshine Minting was formed in 2006, so maybe it has been around as long as you’ve been out of diapers. Who knew?
********************************
Aw, go easy on the lad, ND.
It seems he needs to be somewhat Pampered.
:)
JD said: "Perhaps you should be watching Sesame Street instead of playing on your computer with the adults."
________________________________
Perhaps you should realize that this Sesame Street show HAS BEEN CANCELLED, and your advice is no longer relevant due to being outdated too.
How funny, I should get with the times, but you aren't even with it as far as knowing what is even on the television still, even though the television is your way to present truth. LOL
Notarial Dissent said: "Real coins have a head and obverse, and when you put something like the statue of Liberty’s head along with a date and what looks like the usual coin motto on one side, and the words Liberty Dollar, a date, and the words Twenty Dollars or $20 on the back, then it looks like a real US coin and comes under the utterance statute.
____________________________
Oh, so if you put on the head of the coin, a likeness of Ron Paul, it wouldn't qualify than, as a "real US coin"? How about if the coin, said, "In Ron Paul we trust"? Or does it have to say, "In God we trust" to be a counterfeit?
Are you saying that the US has some sort of patent rights on the Statute of Liberty face?
So let me get this straight. The government/FBI/regulatory agencies & Federal Reserve where aware of what a Liberty Dollar looked like since about 1990 because you just described "the Liberty Dollar" & finally came to the realization that something should be done about it now & ALLOWED these Liberty Dollars to be passed around for almost 2 decades now?
Notarial Dissent said: "you got, guess what, legal US currnecy, or a premium certificate for merchandise, so no one lost anything,"
______________________________
From an estate value point of view, if those certificates were kept from 1935 until today & not spent, and if the gold wasn't confiscated, what would be worth more today, the gold or the US currency? No one or no estate lost? Are you serious or are you just being retarded as usual?
Notarial Dissent: Did BT Barnum have any signing pigs in his circus? Since I'm not as old as you, and haven't been around the block like you, I thought I would ask since if anyone would know, it would be you being the "ancient of days" that you are.
I meant "singing pigs".
I think I would pay to hear that.
Course if a pig could even sign his name too, I'D BE IMPRESSED TOO.
I guess the real question is, do you bring home the bacon?
Notarial Dissent said: Even for you that is a stupid statement. In no wise do “Chucky Cheese tokens” look or pretend to be anything but what they are.
______________________________
I sold the Chucky Cheese token for 25 cents to a stranger & he used one of those Chucky cheese tokens to make a phone call from a phone booth at the airport. I wonder how many federal crimes that makes?
Moogies strains to come up with a logical argument, and fails. Oh, so if you put on the head of the coin, a likeness of Ron Paul, it wouldn't qualify than, as a "real US coin"?
Did I anywhere say any such thing. The key is appearance, and if you put someone’s head, even an idiot like Ron Paul on one side and $20 or Twenty Dollars, or some such on the back it qualifies as an utterance, it has the appearance of a real coin. And no I am not saying the US has a patent, actually it would be copywrite, on the or an Liberty Head, but it is a form used in valid US coins, repeatedly since the founding of the republic. I have no idea when the “Libby” came officially to the attention of the Feds, probably didn’t help that one of Ed Brown’s mental defectives was trying to pass them and got busted, but, again as I said earlier, the main focus was towards money laundering, the counterfeiting was just an additional charge.
Moogey tries again for something resembling an argument and loses From an estate value point of view, if those certificates were kept from 1935 until today & not spent, and if the gold wasn't confiscated, what would be worth more today, the gold or the US currency? No one or no estate lost? Are you serious or are you just being retarded as usual?
The assumption that someone would have kept a coin during that period when money was that short is not worth much. They may have been kept as a souvenir or keepsake, but that is about all. Assuming that it was an average coin of average age and use, the value today would be about the price of gold with a small overage. A good quality gold or silver certificate from the period could well be many times the value of the coin. Properly invested the $20 would be worth considerably more. The gold wasn’t confiscated, it was exchanged dollar for dollar. Pointless exercise.
Barnum did have the Fiji mermaid, which was at least as concocted as the Dorean nonsense. I suspect he would have thought a singing pig would have been good theater, why are you thinking of auditioning.
The Chucky Cheese tokens very plainly say token on them, and make no pretense at being a legal tender coin. You can do whatever you want to with them. The idiot who used one to try and make a phone call committed a crime of fraud.
I have no idea when the “Libby” came officially to the attention of the Feds,
________________________________
"America's inflation-proof currency since 1998."
US Treasury legal staff says: "Legitimate"
Federal Reseerve reaction: "So be it."
Notarial Dissent: Dealers who buy the Liberty Dollar in bulk get a 20% discount.
Apparently you don't understand the difference between wholesale & retail sales & the need for both in selling a product.
Notarial Dissent said: "The key is appearance, and if you put someone’s head, even an idiot like Ron Paul on one side and $20 or Twenty Dollars, or some such on the back it qualifies as an utterance,"
________________________________
Are American Express travelers checks with a Statute of Liberty head on them remotely considered an act of "utterance" then?
Moogey tries again US Treasury legal staff says: "Legitimate"
Sure they did Moogs, I’ve got a copy of the letter from the Treasury saying just the opposite.
Apparently you don't understand the difference between wholesale & retail sales & the need for both in selling a product.
I don’t have any problem with it, in fact I quite undersatand it, have done it and made moeny at it. You apparently have a problem with accepting falsely labeling things, and calling it honest. When you mark a coin/medallion as being worth $20 and it is only worth $15 that is debasement and fraud, and when you try and convince someone else that it is worth $20 and they don’t know any better that is fraud and theft by fraud, oh wait, you were a Dorean broker, so you understand that too don't you? So explain to me oh mercantile wizard how von Nutbert's practice is any different than someone selling you a 20 oz bottle of shampoo for $20 dollars, for which you can barter for whatever you want, and when you get it you find that the 20 oz bottle only contains 15 oz. Any sane, normal person would say they had been cheated, so what is your answer then oh great financial wizard?
More Moogie silliness Are American Express travelers checks with a Statute of Liberty head on them remotely considered an act of "utterance" then?
Let’s see, do they not say Travelor’s Check all over them? Well gee, yes, I guess they do, so then they aren’t pretending to be currency or coin are they, they are saying that they are what they are, Travelor’s Checks. The same way a cashier’s check says cashier’s check on it and a money order says money order on it, not a hard concept to follow Moogs, except apparently for you, but then when you are grasping at straws for a losing proposition, you’ll grasp at anything won’t you? Doesn’t even rate a nice try...
When you mark a coin/medallion as being worth $20 and it is only worth $15 that is debasement and fraud,
_________________________________
Kind of like putting one dollar on a federal reserve note saying it's worth a dollar ( puchasing power,) when it only buys about 3 cents or less today in purchasing power as opposed to 1918.
Notarial Dissent continues: "Let’s see, do they not say Travelor’s Check all over them? Well gee, yes, I guess they do, so then they aren’t pretending to be currency or coin"
________________________________
So if I pass money & they don't say "currency or coin" on them, it's OK. Even you can explain things better than that.
Nice to know that. So if it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, it could still be a chicken?
Notarial Dissent said: "Sure they did Moogs, I’ve got a copy of the letter from the Treasury saying just the opposite."
______________________________
That's what it says on the Liberty Dollar's pamphlet: "legitimate", and that's also the representation they made in a meeting I attended once.
If that is in fact NOT the representation that was given once by the Treasury's legal staff, and that the Treasurer legal staff DID NOT conveniently just "changed their mind on their viewpoint", then, the Treasury has their evidence already for misreprentation. If you have alleged misrepresentation by a company, than conspiracy charges should be a shoe in for them to prove, especially with a corrupt Judge or corrupt legal system to justify their theft of the company's assets.
Course that still doesn't explain why they waited almost 10 years to do something about the company passing alleged fraudulent currency without any problems for the company like the first recent seizure of assets.
You're the type that says the government immediately upon finding out a fraud, does something reasonable fast to stop the bad behaviour, not to affirm the fraud through silence & apathy. Or is this just further evidence that our government at work today is just taking bolder steps to screw with company's they don't like?
Notarial Dissent said: "The gold wasn’t confiscated, it was exchanged dollar for dollar. Pointless exercise."
__________________________________
Oh so people had a choice? So it was voluntary than, with no threat of prosecution for keeping & using gold back then, is what you are insinuating? If force is involved that was carried out, or could be carried out, than this is "confiscation" pure & simple by definition, since choice is no longer in the equation.
Give it up Moogs, it is a dead issue. Most people at the time would not have had more than one or two coins at most, not when $20 might have been a week’s to a month’s wages depending on your employment. By 1932 gold was not a medium of exchange and most transactions were carried out in currency, gold was used as backing not exchange then for the same reason as today, paper bills are easier to carry and keep safe. Since there was a premium for redeeming the gold coins it was in everyone’s interests to do so. The gold coins were taken out of circulation the same way silver was in the ‘60's it was simply withdrawn and denominated currency ceased being redeemable, it still retained the same value it had previously. Confiscation, by definition Moogs, means to take away without compensation, since this didn’t happen your premise is, like all your others, a crock. No one was harmed by the action, and a lot of people did not turn in their coins, or there wouldn’t be so many available for collectors today. If you can show a case were someone was actually prosecuted, then please do, otherwise get over it.
Post a Comment