Monday, December 03, 2007
Nuts (November 21, 2007)
As I have come to the fuller understanding of the governments’ strategy to deal with us it’s become clear that they have devised a scheme to neuter us. They have had a trial completely absent the relevant facts, and in doing so had to constructively amend the indictment. This along with other errors during the trial gives us a clear path to acquittal at the appeals level but ultimately gives them an interesting victory. The appeals court will reverse on the technicality and create no law on the subject matter. There is no adjudication only procedure. In essence they get to exhaust us of time and resources without any liability to them or the law. I have to respect them for their knowledge of their weaponry. The evil it takes though to foster a plan like this upon the accused and even more so the defrauded borrowers is what make these men so cheap and unrespectable. I thank the Lord that His plan has a remedy for this plan. Some of you may think that I am nuts but are absent any proof. What I do have is nuts and castration is not a plan that I am willing to agree to. What is funny about the faith of Christ is that it is mostly courage and (nuts) to challenge the status quo of evil around you. It is the very nuts that they are attempting to remove that exposes their plans to castrate. If I had emasculated myself I would have never been able to pass through the gauntlet that revealed the neutering plan of my enemy. I would have assisted in their goal instead of resisted. I am hopeful that most of you will continue to pray as we arrive at the moment in history that will bring revelation. In a fictional drama that intentionally twists the facts into an inference not intended and deceptive, the truth is easily lost if not anchored to one outside the drama and that being Christ. Why am I ridiculed for my faith by even the good people of this Blog? Where have I erred in my faith that fault can be found? My exegesis of the scriptures is sound. My facts are not even deceptive. In the trial not one banker came forward to support their claim of a loss. In the end the prosecution had to come up with an alternate damage of "honest services" to even keep the trial on track. This of course happened with lots of help from the bench. Mr. Alsup is a better coach than he is a judge. Sentencing requires a different standard of proof for damages than a trial on a fraudulent scheme or device. The probation department, the prosecution and the judge' are all going to allege millions of loss but have no record or party to verify it. Funny how it still comes down to a verification of the debt. The simple question has now run through reams of laws to avoid the simple answer displayed in the books and records. How is it that you righteous here can use the double standard on your marks like myself in saying if I have nothing to hide why not answer the question, but with the alleged lenders you say they have no duty to speak? If they have nothing to hide why not show the books and records. Look everybody knows except for those paid not to that the bank creates the money of account out of the deposit of the promise to pay of the alleged borrower. Even if you think this wacky you can find it from the creation of Federal Reserve Notes to every loan transaction. Money of account (checkbook money) is what most of us use in this economy. I don't care if it is money in the legal sense or not. It functions like money when it is needed to and that is all that matters. There is no special monopolized license that gives one party unequal protection under the law. That is against public policy. If they deposit the promissory note I'm not going to say it is not money and has no value because to me it is just an evidence of an obligation to pay at a future date. These arguments are stupid because they dismiss the facts for the way I imagine things should be. A deposit if used to fund the liability instrument that funded the real estate transaction is a loan to the bank as a matter of fact if it is not the banker’s money. If it is the borrowers then the transaction completely changes its nature. Only in wonderland can a jabberwocky like this appear as a secured transaction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
119 comments:
Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job
Man who set up Operation Gladio tells Italy's largest newspaper attacks were run by CIA, Mossad
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio Francesco Cossiga has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy's most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.
Cossiga was elected President of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide 1985 election to become President of the country in 1985.
Cossiga gained respect from opposition parties as one of a rare breed - an honest politician - and led the country for seven years until April 1992.
Cossiga's tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio - a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 60's, 70's and 80's.
Gladio's specialty was to carry out what they coined "false flag operations," terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.
Cossiga's revelations contributed to an Italian parliamentary investigation of Gladio in 2000, during which evidence was unearthed that the attacks were being overseen by the U.S. Intelligence apparatus.
In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, "You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... The public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -------
Cossiga's new revelations appeared last week in Italy's oldest and most widely read newspaper, Corriere Della Sera. Below appears a rough translation.
"[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe ... Now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part ... In Iraq [and] Afghanistan. "
Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9/11 in 2001, and is quoted in Webster Tarpley's book as stating that "The mastermind of the attack must have been a "sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel."
Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga's assertion that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies is highly unlikely to be mentioned by any establishment media outlets, because like the hundreds of other sober ex-government, military, air force professionals, allied to hundreds more professors and intellectuals - he can't be sidelined as a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
Kurt says: "errors during the trial gives us a clear path to acquittal at the appeals level"
______________________________
Nemo: So if the guilty verdicts are reversed on appeal, why is it WRONG to say that the commercial paper (Dorean administrative judgments) are still valid and marketable?
If they are still marketable or valuable for whatever reasons, even though it may take longer to liquidate them than a governmental financial settlement for clients, doesn't the Dorean Group or affiliates/assignees of the Dorean Group, still hold the ultimate remedy or the trump card since "no single rogue or pirate can upset commercial commerce"?
If the ultimate remedy for clients lies OUTSIDE ANY COURT, and if Kurt is not a risktaker since he has the "best hand" as he always maintained, & God's will on his side, why should one believe that Kurt has failed & it's all over?
Emotionally speaking, maybe even you would agree that Kurt doesn't portray a beaten down man that has quit or feels he has been defeated, despite the end result of "guilty" by the Jury!!!
The criminal trial hoped to be about "personal vindication" for the Dorean Group, not really about God's ultimate plan of justice.
Many may even say that the criminal trial was only about "saving face" for the lending establishment.
One might even argue that if the guilty verdicts are REVERESED UPON APPEAL, than this may even be considered some sort of vindication for the Dorean Group. Might even show that the Judge/prosecution used tactics of lying, misreprentation of real facts & cheating, just to obtain a cheap win.
Is a financial settlement with
the Dorean Group clients so unreasonable considering today's marketplace & problems?
The government is getting involved right now in possible solutions in the "subprime
mortgage" crisis even as I speak:
http://news.yahoo.com
/s/ap/20071206/ap_on_bi_ge/
mortgage_crisis
Speaking of the government/lender relationship or the two entities struggling to stay on the same boat said below,
Heard this hilarious statement from television no less:
"Two crooks in the same room ARE FORCED to work things out, whereas too crooks in different rooms, might rat each other out." LOL
84% of subprime borrowers are paying on their mortgages presently. The governmental workout arrangement only gives relief to those subprime mortgages THAT ARE CURRENTLY PAYING. However, the "government is open to additional changes of relief" down the road.
The banks CAN'T AFFORD FOR THINGS TO GET WORSE & they will get worse. Their continued survival is at stake.
Nemo: So if the guilty verdicts are reversed on appeal, why is it WRONG to say that the commercial paper (Dorean administrative judgments) are still valid and marketable?
First of all, the guilty verdicts haven't been reversed on appeal, and given Kurt's track record on his predictions, I wouldn't count on it ever being reversed.
Second, if the convictions are reversed on the ground Kurt is claiming (that the indictment was amended-- which, incidentally, it wasn't), he will not go free- he will be re-tried without the amendment to the indictment.
And even if Kurt were ultimately acquitted (and I wouldn't hold my breath), the Dorean paper is still not marketable, because it was adjudged a fraud in the civil case, the judgment in the civil case wasn't appealed, and the time to appeal it has long since run.
"and the time to appeal it, has long since run."
________________________________
You are saying there are no legal exceptions? I doubt that, and I believe you even know better than that.
Gashler asked: "Is a financial settlement with
the Dorean Group clients so unreasonable considering today's marketplace & problems?"
Settlement of what cause of action?
Dr. Caligari: I think it's pointless for you to assume to know ALL of the grounds that Kurt is claiming as a basis for an appeal since it hasn't EVEN been filed yet.
Isn't it par for the course for people like you to bet on a conclusion when all the facts aren't in? I would argue that history or the complete record is still in the making or still in the process here.
The past is NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE PERFORMANCE. Any funds manager or gambler would tell you that.
Kurt has bet on TRUTH and reality and he feels that is the best bet to wager his freedom upon, not fantasyland, or the wiles of the Devil.
The indictment wasn't amended as you say? When you drop MATERIAL bank fraud charges, and even "contempt of court," THAT IS NOT AN AMENDMENT or huge change?
Are you assuming that the Civil case conclusions, that seems to be so important to you and your friends, were BASED UPON REAL FACTS? Well, don't hold your breath on that assumption either.
The Dorean Process was always marketed as an administrative process. The remedy for clients therefore lies outside the Courts jurisdiction or authority.
Settlement of what cause of action?
__________________________________
What damage, collusion, fraud, would you specifically like to address by the lender/government's participation in against public policy? You have misrepresentation of facts, abuse of judicial process, interference of contractual rights, and a host of other damages. I'm not sure where to start either.
9/11 an inside job?
Really?
Elementry Watson. I could of told you that on 9/10.
"And even if Kurt were ultimately acquitted (and I wouldn't hold my breath), the Dorean paper is still not marketable, because it was adjudged a fraud in the civil case, the judgment in the civil case wasn't appealed, and the time to appeal it has long since run."
This is a dubious statement at best. Whether an instrument is "marketable" depends on the potential market for it.
Has the BIS whom would remunerate these bonds concluded that they are non- negotiable instruments, as they would be the ultimate agent for them?
By the way, Watson, have you looked up at the night sky lately?
That comet apparently named aftery myself, has just recently been confirmed by Sources of Truth (non-NASA) AS being the beginning formation of a new solar system planet.
It will orbit between Mars and Jupiter and will be here for a while.
Think theres any relation to biblical prophecy here, Watson?
Could it be the long awaited Planet-X?
From here on out, until something actually transpires other than sentencing, we have nothing left but speculation.
Enjoy yourselves.
Neodemes out.
Hurry up Watson! Say what you will, but hurry up!
Our time here is running out. They have the marshalls from Quatloos out looking for us.
That stodgy old curmudgeon Judge Bean doesnt like traitors. Who wants to be part of Quatloos anyway? Theres no justice there and never has been.
They wouldnt know the truth if it bit them on the ass.
They dont like it when theyve been had. Too bad, right Watson?
Now Watson dont go limp on me now and run back to Quatloos and tell them that I'm here. No beacon of truth there for sure.
When you see BUSH and PAULSON on television together followed by 2 hours of Q & A lock your door and hide under the bed.
These scam artists were "selling" their sub-prime salvation package with a side helping of "ain't we great".
Listen up citizen: The "securitization documents" (MBS, CDO's, etc.) have "kick-back" clauses permitting investors to return the loan and the loss's to the originating banks which packaged them for Wall Street Investment Banks. If that happens the banks are immediately bankrupt. Under the guise of helping the consumer they are diverting the troubled loans to GSE's, FHA, etc. to avoid the kickbacks to Paulson/Bernake friends (banks) which already raped the deal and the consumer (fees). And the talking heads?? Stupid as stumps.
Watson, you old bloke, make sure that you cash your paycheck first thing in the morning tomorrow, on payday Friday, else you may not get another chance.
It would seem that the European banks who have dined on a steady diet of "certificate paper" have now gotten indigestion and are going to begin to return the food and let the American banks eat some paper themselves.
Apparently, if they do this and force feed the banks their own paper, many, many banks will get "terminal indigestion in the esophagus."
They will cease to function and are beyond resuscitation.
Oxygen and the Heimlich maneuver will not avail them.
In other words Watson, the banks will shut down.
Cash your paycheck quickly.
Whats that Watson? Something about what goes around comes around...
Watson, are you still here?
Watson, you havent gone back to that zoo called Quatloos have you?
Watson?
And now another Bilge Report cont’d
Kurt whining They have had a trial completely absent the relevant facts, and in doing so had to constructively amend the indictment.
Strange, the jury seemed to think there was a sufficiency of fact, more than enough to convict, and it only took them six hours to do so, so hardly absent.
more Kurt blather The appeals court will reverse on the technicality and create no law on the subject matter.
In yours and Moogies dreams, the appeals court will decline to even hear any of your prattlings.
furhter Kurt blather Some of you may think that I am nuts but are absent any proof.
Far from it, you have presented ample proof all along, it is no mystery to anyone but Moogey who’ll believe any silly story someone feeds him.
still more Kurt blather Sentencing requires a different standard of proof for damages than a trial on a fraudulent scheme or device. The probation department, the prosecution and the judge' are all going to allege millions of loss but have no record or party to verify it. Funny how it still comes down to a verification of the debt.
Sentencing is a matter of legislative requirement so again you are wrong, and as to the loss and damage, there is more than ample proof of your actions and the dollar cost involved. Funny, how it always comes back down to more of your unrelieved BS.
yet more Kurt whining These arguments are stupid because they dismiss the facts for the way I imagine things should be.
And here we have the whole enchilada, the world according to Kurt, reality not included.
Your vapor money nonsense was a crock when you started, and it is still a crock. It has gotten you nowhere but on the road to your permanent home in a federal jail cell.
from Moogie’s mouth Kurt says: "errors during the trial gives us a clear path to acquittal at the appeals level"
The problem is that gross stupidity on the part of the defendants is not appealable.
more Moogie mouth So if the guilty verdicts are reversed on appeal, why is it WRONG to say that the commercial paper (Dorean administrative judgments) are still valid and marketable?
The likelihood of the guilty verdicts being reversed is about on par with Kurt winning a humanitarian award, i.e. NONE. Even were they to be reversed, they would simply be remanded for trial with the same verdict at a later date. The “administrative judgements” were garbage to being with and haven’t changed any for aging, were worthless to begin with, still worthless as we speak. They weren’t worth anything to begin with and still aren’t worth anything, and never will be worth anything. There is NO remedy outside of a court, and since Kurt doesn’t and never did have a remedy it is all pointless. The only hand Kurt has is the one going into the handcuffs as he goes off to prison.
Dream on Moogs, ain’t gonna be no reversal, ain’t gonna be no vindication, ain’t gonna be nothin but the whinan an wailin of the dim duo in their new home.
There is no reason for any kind of settlement with the Dorean Group dipshit, it was adjudged a criminal enterprise, it is dead, it is gone, it is nothing but bad memories and pain left in it’s wake.
Moogie nonsense 1 You are saying there are no legal exceptions? I doubt that, and I believe you even know better than that.
Wrong again Moogs, once the hour has tolled, the item is dead. There were no grounds for appeal at the time, and it is long past it’s sell by date and would be dismissed out of hand. You remember, stare decis, don’t you? You tried often enough to pretend you knew what it meant.
Kurt can appeal for any reason he likes, up to and including the color of toilet paper in his cell, but it will all have the same result, he will still be in jail.
Moogie nonsense 2 The Dorean Process was always marketed as an administrative process. The remedy for clients therefore lies outside the Courts jurisdiction or authority.
Which is of course BS since there is no such thing to begin with and in any event a court ruling does, and did take precedence.
Moogie nonsense 3 What damage, collusion, fraud, would you specifically like to address by the lender/government's participation in against public policy? You have misrepresentation of facts, abuse of judicial process, interference of contractual rights, and a host of other damages. I'm not sure where to start either.
Since that has nothing to do with either case it is irrelevant. Both cases involved fraud perpetrated by the defendants, now convicted, one civil, and the other criminal. The above never entered into it and would not be admissible.
Watson, if you go back to Quatloss, I'm firing you!
And they wont take you back either, as they dont like infil-traitors there.
Gashler, you didn't understand the question, I guess. Sorry.
I was referring specifically to what cause of action a Dorean scam client could bring to answer your own question about a potential financial settlement.
There can't be a "financial settlement" for any Dorean scam client unless they bring an action in civil court. Only if and when such a case is filed can there be a settlement of any kind.
They are free to sue lenders for collusion and fraud - in fact, there are and have been a lot of those kinds of suits against lenders and servicers. Included in some of them are alleged acts of misrepresentation of facts. Interference with contractual rights is so unspecific that it fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Abuse of judicial process? What Dorean scam client has been abused and by what judicial process? Most have not been in court. Some number of them have filed the appropriate documents to extricate the trust from their live and recover their interest in (not a free-and-clear title to) their property. This process also revalidates the lender's interests as well so in those cases, it's back to where things began. Yes, a lender might consider suing to recover legal expenses, but I haven't seen one of those as yet.
So again, what settlement could a Dorean scam client seek and from whom?
stare decisis: To stand by that which was decided; rule by which common law courts "are slow to interfere with principles announced in the former decisions and OFTEN UPHOLD THEM, even though they would decide OTHERWISE were the question a NEW ONE.
Although STARE DECISIS IS NOT INVIOLABLE, OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM DEMANDS THAT IT BE overturned only on a showing of GOOD CAUSE. Where such a good cause is not shown, it will not be repudiated."
_______________________________
A GOOD CAUSE could be a number of things: (1) mistakes, (2) extreme prejudices, (3) violations of civil rights, (4) misrepresentation of facts, (5) unfair play, (6) lack of jurisdiction, (7) abuse of legal process, etc.
I wouldn't even know where to start to make up a list for "good causes" to repudiate a ruling.
Notarial Dissent said: "Since that has nothing to do with either case it is irrelevant. Both cases involved fraud perpetrated by the defendants, now convicted, one civil, and the other criminal. The above never entered into it and would not be admissible."
________________________________
Ever heard of discovery of "NEW EVIDENCE"? You're saying that NEW EVIDENCE is not admissible too?
Gashler said: "I wouldn't even know where to start to make up a list for "good causes" to repudiate a ruling.
At least you got that part right.
I'd suggest you study the rules of Federal criminal procedure. The grounds for appeal are well established. And the courts' failure to give a rats ass about Kurt's commerce/bonding fantasies aren't among them.
*sigh*
Ah. A new development.
Lay it on us, moogie...
WHAT new evidence?
Moggey tries again A GOOD CAUSE could be a number of things: (1) mistakes, (2) extreme prejudices, (3) violations of civil rights, (4) misrepresentation of facts, (5) unfair play, (6) lack of jurisdiction, (7) abuse of legal process, etc.
1. the boys made them, not the court, 2. prejudiced against crooks and mediocre conmen possibly, but hardly appealable, 3. and those would be what, the right to commit wholesale fraud and theft, 4. the facts stood pretty well on their own so they didn’t need misrepresenting, the problem was the boys couldn’t warp them enough to cover up what they had done, 5. oh you mean go by the real laws instead of the made up ones, and use real facts instead of the ones Kurt made up????, 6. as I seem to recall, it was dim and dimmer who started the whole thing by going into Federal court to commit their civil fraud, and it was taken to a Federal criminal court to finish it when they crossed state lines and violated Federal law, so jurisdiction won’t fly either, 7. abuse of legal process, as in taking them to trial, no don’t think that will fly either, maybe they can appeal based on the color of the toilet paper in their cells. Make up is a good choice of words Moogs, since there aren’t any valid ones for appeal.
Moogey grasping at imaginary straws Ever heard of discovery of "NEW EVIDENCE"?
Rock band from the 70's, never could make it, to middle of the road. And this would be what, that lizard people had been impersonating them doing all the illegal things they did, so they really aren’t guilty at all. Sure Moogs, the best that could come out of that would be a NEW trial, with the inevitable same verdict, and maybe some additional charges thrown in for good measure. New trial means start over from scratch, and they can introduce antyhing else they want to, might not be a real bright strategy, oh wait, we’re talking about the premier legal mind of the age aren’t we, so he could just dig his pit that much deeper.
Actually, with regard to the court’s “giv(ing) a rats ass about Kurt's commerce/bonding fantasies” was kind of a gift, on at least a couple of them there were further charges the court could have added on their own motion if they had felt so inclined, fraudulent drafts in general, and fraudulent drafts against the treasury carry a hefty sentence as well, so that was kind of a freeby for dim and dimmer, they might not get so lucky the next time.
The only new evidence Moogey has is the stuff he dug out of his ears last night, and if he'd wash them at least once a month he wouldn't have that problem.
(7) abuse of legal process, etc.
Like when Kurt forged an order of the judge?
St. Kurt The Oblivious prophesies again . . . or is this just another "good short story" about WhistleblowerMan and his shortsighted sidekick, Scott the Pot . . .
"'Twas brillig and the slithy toves (Scott & Kurt, obviously) did gyre and gimbel in the wabe. All mumsy were the borogroves, and the mome raths outgrabe."
Now if that's not a pretty near perfect description of the saga of our superhero friends, then I don't know what is. It makes about as much sense as everything else written by St. Kurt.
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!
Oh, and don't forget your vorpal sword...you'll need that.
Oooh, I forgot all about the forged court papers, that could be good for some more serious time in the slammer, ought to be worth two if not three separate charges to go with the current collection, like they need anything more considering we're at 400 years and counting now. Still a clever legal ploy there Moogs.
"The Defense moves this court for a judgment of acquittal of the entire indictment BASED UPON RULE 29."
The whole court proceeding that obtained the guilty verdicts is OUT OF ORDER for it's presumptions, it's lack of jurisdiction, and the Judge legislating from the bench, and giving wrongful Jury instructions based upon fantasy & prejudice and self interest. Purported acts of the Defendants were OUTSIDE the scope of charged conduct. No validation or proof of lenders loss was proved by the prosecution or entered into the court record & no evidence was presented sufficient for a conviction by the Jury, thus nullifying their decision. Mail fraud and wire fraud is all based upon the assumption that the dorean process was a scam. Whether Dorean was a scam is based upon presumptions that were NEVER PROVEN BY EVIDENCE OR FACTS based upon reality.
Whether an appeal is granted or not, to nullify the guilty verdicts, it's IMMATERIAL, although it's expected that the government's response will verify the advantage of the Defendants.
The eventual victory is sealed in favor of the Defendants in the end. If the guilty verdicts are overturned, there are huge financial damages inherent right there.
Kurt & Scott are holding out for the GREATER VICTORY. Defendants are winning while almost everyone believes they are losing.
Traps have been laid, and the game have all fallen into the traps. Leopards don't change their spots as the saying goes. "Wicked men can be counted on being wicked".
Evil wants to keep the status quo of "stare decisis" where an appeal is not granted, so future events should prove to be very interesting.
This about sums everything up:
"The trial was a MERE SLANDER DRAMA ORECHESTRATED OUTSIDE ANY LAWFUL BASIS OF CONDUCT with the sole intention of preventing a whistle-blowing company the freedom to expose the political misconduct of the government with the banking cartel concealing the monetization of a borrower's credit and returning it to him without consideration as a loan through the fractional reserve debt based economy created by the federal reserve act."
"Mortgage lenders or obligations of contracts that are within the state jurisdiction DO NOT CONFER JURISDICTION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT."
Ooooooooops!!!!!!!!!! We just passed through an irrelevant and malicious trial.
How do you spell DAMAGES?????
SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!
SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!
SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!
SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!
LOL
"Not one FDIC certificate of any alleged victim was entered into evidence and no testimony was obtained. The client's of Dorean as individuals DO NOT CONFER JURISDICTION by any relationship to the federal government. They would be protected by their particular state statutes of fraud."
"The jury instructions were far and away an abuse of the judges discretion in that they were replete with his own personal bias and economic IGNORANCE.
In instruction 18, he states that the "banks are allowed to receive deposits from customers and then to use those deposits to make loans to borrowers; banks are also allowed to borrow money from the Federal Reserve Bank and then to use those funds to make loans to borrowers; and banks are free to use their own equity to make loans to borrowers."
This is factually INCORRECT and is a misstatement of the law. The testimony of Walker Todd the Federal Reserve Expert witness in support of the Fed publications in evidence made it very clear that the bank does not loan out other depositor funds but creates the money on the spot in a lending transaction. The assets and liabilities of the bank INCREASE DURING THE TRANSACTION. The banks are not free to go to the Fed which was made equally clear in that they have to bring assets to the Fed to borrow."
"The Supreme Court in McNally v. U.S. made it clear that the statute (statute 1341) was for the purposes of protecting property rights. No property right has been clearly delineated by any of the evidence presented, specifically to a "financial institution" because no evidence of a financial institution was ever presented to the petite jury."
Ooooooops, the prosecution screwed up again!!!!!!!!
"The statute (1341) is clearly not a statute to regulate OTHER FRAUDS but in scope to regulate a narrow type of fraud. The indictment did not plead these acts nor did the trial reveal any evidence of spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article of any party much less a financial institution. The property right and the damaged party have not been presented to the defendants, the jury, the grand jury, or the court."
Despite these facts, the jury still convicted the defendants without understanding this statute!!!
Where's the good Judge instructions (PERTAINING TO THE LAW) and fairly given to the Jury, WHEN IT'S VITALLY NECESSARY? LOL
and that mouth that is Moogie opened and drivel issued forth "The Defense moves this court for a judgment of acquittal of the entire indictment BASED UPON RULE 29."
You’re kidding right?? You’ve got to be kidding? This is so much poorer than the usual level of dreck we have come to expect and laugh at, that I am really disappointed. Even the 9th circuit wouldn’t waste their time on something like that.
You’re really tootin’ along now Moogs, if you weren’t such a good little Mormon boy I’d ask what drugs you were on, but then again, maybe that would explain your total lack of grasp of reality.
Moogie tries to pontificate, and fails "Mortgage lenders or obligations of contracts that are within the state jurisdiction DO NOT CONFER JURISDICTION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT."
Since none of the charges relate to that your point is mute, or in your case more nonsense. However, since they decided to air their public fraud in a public forum, a Federal civil court room, it became a Federal matter. Kind of like throwing litter down in front of a cop and then wondering why you get busted for littering.
So who are you going to sue, Moogs? The judge, the prosecutor, and the courts are immune from suit. I spell it Moogey having pipe dreams again.
The FDIC would have no involvement in any of this unless there was a bank failure involved, so just more of your usual nonsense. Get it through your thick head, that the Dorean clients were not involved in the crimes the dim duo were charged with. The charges were for document, mail, and wire fraud which are violations of Federal law not tort law. They used the mails and the phone system and that brings it under Federal purview. So just one hare you are off after that will never come home.
and tries again "The jury instructions were far and away an abuse of the judges discretion in that they were replete with his own personal bias and economic IGNORANCE.
BS Moogie, there was nothing in any copy of the instructions that I saw that was not true and correct as to law and fact, and common knowledge.
Your sample, is true in fact and practice, contrary to what you would like to believe. Always has been the truth. As to Mr Todd, he gave no such testimony, and you know it. He barely admitted to his own name, that he had had conversation with the dim duo at one time, and that was it. He would not have been foolish enough to get up in court and say any of the things you are trying to claim. For one thing he doesn’t want to go to jail for lying to the court or committing perjury or being an accessory to fraud, loose his license by breaking any of the professional canons, where he can’t wiggle out of it. In other words you’re lying. Mr Todd is real good about putting out all sorts of statements that appeal to the dim, but when he gets to court he suddenly develops lock jaw and quits talking.
Contrary to your nonsense, banks can and do borrow short term from the Fed, and there is no reason why they can’t, so just more wool gathering on your part, and contrary to your poor mathematics, the banks assets and liabilities remain in constant balance, the asset-note is matched by the liability-loan outstanding.
According to Notarial Dissent, the Dorean Process had no success. What does that mean in terms of the alleged mail fraud:
"Regardless of whether there is a fraudulent scheme, there IS NO MAIL FRAUD, unless the mailing is for the purpose of executing such scheme and is casually linked to the SCHEME'S SUCCESS, though the mailing ITSELF IS NOT FRAUDULENT."
U.S. v. Kwiat 817 F.2d 441
"The lenders are not proven to be possessed with any federally protected right AS TO MONEY OR PROPERTY. The financial institutions might be if they were proven to be within the jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES, but that we will never know because NO EVIDENCE WAS EVER ENTERED."
"The conviction cannot stand where the government HAS FAILED TO INTRODUCE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to sustain an essential element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt."
Jackson v. Virginia 61 L.ed.2D 560 (1970)
A DOUBLE STANDARD EXISTS
"The accusation made, perhaps to the Grand Jury, and this petite jury was that the defendants had no standing to represent the alleged borrower (paragraph 11 indictment) and yet this court in the civil case ruled as though standing was not an issue. The evidence presented at trial completely rebutted this presumption. This was not made clear to the jury which by the jury instructions was led to believe that there was not law to support the actions taken by the borrower's representatives in a alleged loan transaction. The alleged creditor was given carte blanche to declare its terms of the contract factually correct WITHOUT EXAMINATION while the borrowers were treated like swindlers for even challenging these presumptions."
CONSTRUCTIVE AMENDMENT
"In total the constructive amendment of the indictment by these various dismissals (bank fraud charges) and redactions, created a scenario absent jurisdiction. It was further amended by the trial tactics. The victims were switched, victims outside the scope of charged conduct not on the witness list were brought in, property rights were switched, all without an opportunity to defend through discovery and trial preparation. At each and every juncture the government, by a change in the essential evidence they thought they could prove, constructively AMENDED THE INDICTMENT when they had a duty to allow the grand jury a chance to supercede or not. THIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WAS DENIED THE DEFENDANTS AND THE GRAND JURY.
In this instant case they went to the grand jury with bolstered accusations outside the evidence they had available to prove and when the time came to put on a case, they merely amended the indictment at their own discretion. This is clearly outside the scope of their power and is fatal to the due process built into the institutions of government. It is the executive branch encroaching on the judicial in violation of the separation of powers."
CLEAR ABUSE
"It is clear Judge Alsup forgot that he was an unbiased trier of fact when the defendant's lawyer brought a civil complaint into his court against a few banks in late 2004. He immediately fell back into defense lawyer reminiscence except now possessing the power of a judge, and referred the defendants to criminal prosecution. To ensure that his personal agenda of destruction of those brave enough to confront the banker's fraud would not be thwarted, he convinced himself THERE WERE NO CONFLICTS when he arrested this case from ANOTHER JUDGE to maintain control while continuing to show himself conflicted during his tenure of presiding over the criminal prosecution. He did not care if the prosecution constructively amended the indictment or if the sufficiency of the evidence was lacking because with his help during the trial and ultimately his jury instruction he would get his desired guilty verdict."
MORE UNFAIR PLAY
"Furthermore, the indictment did not contemplate the transaction between the landlord and the tenants which was completely outside the scope of charged conduct, outside of the discovery provided, inconsistent with the evidence presented to the grand jury, and provided no reasonable opportunity to defned since it was foisted upon the defense halfway through trial. It was offered as relevant conduct but had nothing to do with the scheme or artifice alleged in the indictment. The landlord tenant dispute was a California issue and was being addressed by litigation in the appropriate jurisdiction.
The financial loss WAS CHANGED from mortgages of financial institutions to the honest services of business, not contemplated by the statutes, midway through the trial. The scheme or artifice was changed from documents mailed to financial institutions to documents mailed to clients that somehow effected financial institutions that never appeared at trial. Interestingly enough the documents mailed by the clients to Dorean were ignored as relevant to the scheme."
"The indictment alleged that the full reconveyance documents used in the scheme misstated that "the loan secured by the property had been fully paid" [paragraph 13] was a fraudulent misrepresentation and yet no evidence was put on by the prosecution that this was not factually correct. The Jury were precluded from doing so because they were given instructions of law that precluded facts from being relevant and absent."
THE CONUNDRUM
"The biased and conflicted judge now has a legal duty to grant this motion even though it runs contrary to all his personal desires, economic incentives, and political concessions. If he grants it, he'll expose the dirty play he's coddled. If he does not he continues in his dishonor, but exposes IT TO A HIGHER RECORD."
I wondered what lunatic documents Moogs was quoting from, until I realized that St. Kurt seems to have published/filed another motion with the court, apparently in the nature of a motion for JNOV, despite the fact that it is not timely and, unless I missed something, was not preceeded by the requisite motion for a directed verdict by St. Kurt the Oblivious.
I'm going to take a wild guess here that Sir Moogles the Obtuse (SMO) has simply parrotted the by-now familiar non-sequitur laden prose of St. Kurt the Oblivious (SKO), believing in his little heart of hearts that it will somehow make this all go away.
Good luck with that, Moogs.
Perhaps Moogs thinks that this is the "Vorpal Blade" that St. Kurt needs to wield snicker-snack to relieve the evil Judge Alsup from his head. More Jaberwocky, I guess.
Do you suppose it's possible that SKO is submitting his document efforts to SMO for editorial approval prior to submission to the court? That would truly be a case of the blind leading the blind, wouldn't it???
Wow.
So many words, so little substance.
Still waiting to hear new evidence, moog, other than your implied admission that there were no Dorean successes.
Gashler, you're not only a brazen liar, your attempt to sound as if you know something about the legal system only makes you look even more foolish than you were when you were promoting the scam.
Anyone with only a few months of law school behind them could do better than that, and I'm guessing you copied it from someone at least as nutty as Kurt and his dad, if not more.
You're living in a fantasy, Byron. You promoted a scam for your own financial gain, and then after the originators of it were convicted, you're still trying to promote it as if there is some magic pot of gold at the end of your imaginary rainbow.
If you have any assets, your victims should start waking up and suing your ass, then you can try the legal idiocy you offer for yourself.
Judge Bean:
"Heads I win, tails you lose."
Those are pretty good odds to me.
Jd said: "That would truly be a case of the blind leading the blind, wouldn't it???"
_______________________________
Dorean is "God inspired" according to Kurt's paradigm. If the blind is leading the blind, you are inferring that God is blind in Kurt's world. Sounds like blasphemy to me. Don't want to touch that with a 10 foot pole. I think you stand a greater chance of getting hit by lightening than coming up with any comment of substance.
mogel007 said...
Jd said: "That would truly be a case of the blind leading the blind, wouldn't it???"
_______________________________
Dorean is "God inspired" according to Kurt's paradigm. If the blind is leading the blind, you are inferring that God is blind in Kurt's world. Sounds like blasphemy to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Way to twist words, moogie.
We all can see JD was saying that IF Kurt(SKO) is submitting his document efforts to YOU, Moogie(SMO) for editorial approval prior to submission to the court THEN that would truly be a case of the blind leading the blind.
In other words, one idiot advising another idiot will return nothing but idiocy.
Thanks for proving his point many times over, spin meister.
Now, trot out the new evidence, please.
and it’s another schwing and a miss for the Moogster According to Notarial Dissent, the Dorean Process had no success. What does that mean in terms of the alleged mail fraud:
Dorean successes??? Dorean Successes??? Now would that be the foreclosures, or the arrests you’re talking about, since there were no Dorean successes, at least none you or anyone else has ever been able to prove. With regard to the charges at hand absolutely nothing, the fraud charges have to do with filing fraudulent and false documents, and using the mails to do so.
Since the lenders were not part of the charges, your whole rant is a waste of time Moogey boy, the charges are fraud and mail fraud.
Apparently the judge, the prosecutor, and the jury all disagree with you as to sufficiency of evidence, and it only took them six hours to do so. It only takes one provable item to meet the requirements, and they more than met it.
Moogey lies some more-no really I'm shocked I tell you The evidence presented at trial completely rebutted this presumption.
Sure it did Moogie, they presented no creditable evidence of anything but the fraud they committed. There was no time or condition under which dim and dimmer had any legal authority to represent anyone but their suckers. They had no standing to take any action for the lenders, and they fraudulently signed documents claiming they were, which constitutes fraud, and since they used the mails to do so they also committed mail fraud. Tough luck Moogey but reality wins out over fantasy every time. They jury was quite capable of figuring out that they were lying and committing fraud, since it was so obvious to anyone but the morally blind.
and Moogey exhibits his great knowledge of legal process-NOT THIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WAS DENIED THE DEFENDANTS AND THE GRAND JURY.
You’re blathering Moogey, the grand jury voted the charges that were filed, but it is the prerogative of the prosecution, and to a limited degree the court to dismiss at any time included charges if they feel so inclined. They just can’t add more charges without going back to the grand jury and starting over. So despite your great legal knowledge, wrong again Moogie boy.
Moogems, when dim and dimmer decided to exhibit their criminal incompetencies in a Federal court by filing suit, their lawyer, if he had been even half competent, and more importantly honest should have warned them of just exactly what happened. Their case got bounced for abuse of process and fraud, and they were referred for investigation, and guess what, they got investigated, indicted, tried and convicted. When you get up in front of a federal judge in a civil case and admit you were committing tax fraud don’t be surprised when you get referred to the justice department for investigation of tax fraud.
Hate to break it to you, but showing a pattern of behavior, or in this case fraud, is perfectly acceptable. They committed fraud with the mortgages, and they tried to commit fraud with their landlord, too bad, but no cookie there either. Blather blather blather Moogies, still nothing of substance.
Moogie, the crime was in signing the document to release the lien, not in what was claimed on it, the fraud was in claiming they had the authority to sign it.
More fantasy Moogs, the judge isn’t required to do anything, and particularly not based on dim and dimmer’s fantasies.
Neo, we know one thing for certain, most of the nonsense presented here isn’t Moogs, too many big words, so whoever he is parroting is at least as dysfunctional as Kurt. Moogey makes a good parrot, and a fair bit of comic relief, but isn’t that a pathetic comment on his existence.
To say that Dorean was inspired is within the realm of possibility, to say that it was God inspired is purest blasphemy. Dorean has nothing to do with anything godly, it is and was a cheap and tawdry thing of greed, lies and deceit based on the same blackness of spirit and heart its master possesses. Moogey, what is left of your soul is in grave peril, your hero’s souls are already spoken for and paradise is not where they are headed for.
Maybe all the seekers of truth on this blog can figure out who these "scammers" are?
THE STRAIN OF ALL THIS IS CAUSING PAULSON TO TWITCH
Mind you, all this strain seems to be affecting Mr Paulson physically.
Specifically, the Editor received numerous reports about Mr Paulson’s curious behaviour during the White House news conference held on 6th December, at which the US kakocracy (2) announced their latest scam, illegally tearing up securities contracts by freezing Adjustable Rate Mortgages for five years, triggering a further deterioration in the values of mortgage-backed securities, plus the invention of their new core scamming entity, the Hope Fund, with its seed money stolen from the Ambassador’s $4.5 trillion.
The source of funds for the 'Hope Fund' was blandly described as 'private money', with no further elaboration, naturally, since the funds had been stolen/derived from funds stolen and diverted from Ambassador Wanta's Settlement of $4.5 trillion which Paulson first hijacked in June 2006.
This package amounted to nothing less than Bush Jr.’s version of his Godfather’s Savings and Loan scamming operation in the 1980s, complete with a brand new fund that will permit secret hypothecation of the stolen $5.0 billion, to generate trillions of unsupervised, untaxed fiat money accruals, i.e. fraudulent finance for self-enrichment purposes, as usual.
announced their latest scam, illegally tearing up securities contracts by freezing Adjustable Rate Mortgages for five years, triggering a further deterioration in the values of mortgage-backed..."
"Godfather’s Savings and Loan scamming operation in the 1980s,
Judge Bean, so tell me now, bean as you and your ilk here, are very good at detecting "scamming operations", well certainly you MUST have something to say about this mega-trillion $$ "scamming operation"
announced their latest scam, illegally tearing up securities contracts by freezing Adjustable Rate Mortgages for five years, triggering a further deterioration in the values of mortgage-backed..."
Now, Judge Bean, how you do this? HOw you "unilaterally" tear up a mortgage contract after is signed?
Tell me, how you do that?
The only thing in the mortgage contract that has changed is that the rate has been frozen, which is preferable to having it go into foreclosure. So rather than causing a further deterioration it should improve thier position since they shouldn't be in jeopardy of failure. So your point is nonsense. The contract is otherwise valid and enforceable and you are carrying on about something that isn't happening.
Sorry about that.
Thanks, Neo; nice to see someone got the point, anyway. It seems SMO pretty much makes a religion out of missing it, no matter what it is.
Perhaps I should have said "the blind leading the blind, deaf, and DUMB!" Or is it the other way around?
The only thing in the mortgage contract that has changed
The contract is otherwise valid and enforceable
Hmmmm.. How does a THIRD party get to change the stipulations of a contract?
How you do that?
Seems like the banks are getting scammed to me?
If a third party can step in and do that, then why not just forgive the loan altogether?
Now who is running "scamming operations?
Come on, you dont need to be a lawyer, or even David Merrill to figure this out?
Judge Bean, the original Suicide Jurist.
how you do that? pondered Hmmmm.. How does a THIRD party get to change the stipulations of a contract?
The same way that you say how much can or cannot be charged as an interest rate or who can or cannot contract. It’s called a law.
how you do that? opined Seems like the banks are getting scammed to me?
You assume a lot and know little. In what way are they being scammed, since that implies a fraud of some sort. This is a simple legislative action intended to prevent them from actually losing their investment when they have to foreclose and lose on depreciated property.
Unconvinced.
Seems like "scamming operations" to me.
And I repeat, why, and who is getting scammed? Scamming requires someone attempting to deceive someone, this is absent here, and all that is being done is above board and in the open.
I wish I could change the terms in a contract without getting in trouble.
N D leave you look like an idiot trying to defind this one.
I wish I could change the terms in a contract without getting in trouble.
N D leave you look like an idiot trying to defind this one.
I wish I could change the terms in a contract without getting in trouble.
N D leave you look like an idiot trying to defind this one.
Shoot! Now what am going to do. I just put a down payment on a house and going to get a mortgage from them?
Updated 8 December 2007 at 2353 HRS EST
*** BREAKING NEWS ***
CITIBANK REPORTED TO BE "INSOLVENT"
FORMER MEMBER OF INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND SAYS LARGEST U.S. BANK IS BROKE!
This story is developing very fast with further details to be published on Sunday.
Those of you with accounts/mortgages at Citibank may wish to consider if that is the proper place for your funds.
Please check back for further details Sunday afternoon.
And you may want to take your gold out of their safety deposit boxes too.
See, you cant even trust Quatloss these days...
There is much disinformation on the Internet pertaining to this law.
Sources such as quatloos.com which is a CIA front, nesara.org which is owned by the Bush family, the 33rd Zion Lodge , the NSA, Sherry Shriner, and various Internet channeling's straight out of CIA Langley have been spouting much disinformation and confusion on the subject.
The information on the Wikipedia even has its facts wrong. Wikipedia gives you the history of Harvey Barnard NESARA law.
If you look closely this law it stands for National Economic Stabilization and Recovery Act, which would reform the economy and replace the income with a national sales tax. This law was rejected by congress in the 1990's. However there is another NESARA law on the books.
This NESARA, stands for the National Economic Security and Reformation Act. It's the most ground breaking reformation to sweep not only this country but our planet in its entire history. The act does away with the Federal Reserve Bank, the IRS, the secret government, and much more.
Sources such as quatloos.com which is a CIA front, nesara.org which is owned by the Bush family,
The correct site is nesara.com
Very interesting post at worldreports.org.
Seems like even they are getting biblical here:
BIBLICAL UPDATE, 10TH DECEMBER:
Since the Editor has been 'got at' by a few Luciferians who take exception to Biblical references in these reports, the following passage from Isaiah is appended by way of reposte to such people:
'Because ye have said, we have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we in agreement: when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves'. Isaiah, Chapter 28, verse 15.
NESARA implements the following changes;
1. Zeros out all credit card, mortgage, and other bank debt due to illegal banking and government activities
2. Abolishes income tax
3. Abolishes IRS; creates 14% flat rate non-essential "new items only" sales tax revenue for government
4. Increases benefits to senior citizens
5. Returns Constitutional Law to all our courts and legal matters.
6. Establishes new Presidential and Congressional elections within 120 days after NESARA's announcement
7. Monitors elections and prevents illegal election activities of special interest groups
8. Creates new US Treasury currency, "rainbow currency," backed by gold, silver, and platinum precious metals
9.. Initiates new U.S. Treasury Bank System in alignment with Constitutional Law
10. Eliminates the Federal Reserve System
11. Restores financial privacy
12. Retrains all judges and attorneys in Constitutional Law
13. Ceases all aggressive, US government military actions worldwide
14. Establishes peace throughout the world
15. Initiates first phase of worldwide prosperity distribution of vast wealth which has been accumulating for many decades. Every American citizen over the age of 21 will receive $100,000 a month for 11 years. The law requires that the farmers claims to be paid first before the general public receives funds. Remember, these funds will come from the Level 5 Trust, bank roll programs.
16. Releases enormous sums of money for humanitarian purposes
17. Enables the release of new technologies such as free energy devices, pollution cleanup, and sonic healing machines.
Judge Bean, sharpen your pencils, looks like you will be going back to school shortly.
12. Retrains all judges and attorneys in Constitutional Law, especially a certainly corrupt Judge Bean.
Close the lights.....
QUICK! Turn the lights for just a few seconds...
MORTGAGE MELTDOWN
Interest rate 'freeze' - the real story is fraud
Bankers pay lip service to families while scurrying to avert suits, prison
Sean Olender
Sunday, December 9,
New proposals to ease our great mortgage meltdown keep rolling in. First the Treasury Department urged the creation of a new fund that would buy risky mortgage bonds as a tactic to hide what those bonds were really worth. (Not much.) Then the idea was to use Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy the risky loans, even if it was clear that U.S. taxpayers would eventually be stuck with the bill. But that plan went south after Fannie suffered a new accounting scandal, and Freddie's existing loan losses shot up more than expected.
Now, just unveiled Thursday, comes the "freeze," the brainchild of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. It sounds good: For five years, mortgage lenders will freeze interest rates on a limited number of "teaser" subprime loans. Other homeowners facing foreclosure will be offered assistance from the Federal Housing Administration.
But unfortunately, the "freeze" is just another fraud - and like the other bailout proposals, it has nothing to do with U.S. house prices, with "working families," keeping people in their homes or any of that nonsense.
The sole goal of the freeze is to prevent owners of mortgage-backed securities, many of them foreigners, from suing U.S. banks and forcing them to buy back worthless mortgage securities at face value - right now almost 10 times their market worth.
The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.
And, to be sure, fraud is everywhere. It's in the loan application documents, and it's in the appraisals. There are e-mails and memos floating around showing that many people in banks, investment banks and appraisal companies - all the way up to senior management - knew about it.
I can hear the hum of shredders working overtime, and maybe that is the new "hot" industry to invest in. There are lots of people who would like to muzzle subpoena-happy New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to buy time and make this all go away. Cuomo is just inches from getting what he needs to start putting a lot of people in prison. I bet some people are trying right now to make him an offer "he can't refuse."
Despite Thursday's ballyhooed new deal with mortgage lenders, does anyone really think that it can ultimately stop fraud lawsuits by mortgage bond investors, many of them spread out across the globe?
The catastrophic consequences of bond investors forcing originators to buy back loans at face value are beyond the current media discussion. The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest U.S. banks combined, and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability sufficient to cause even the largest U.S. banks to fail, resulting in massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, and even FDIC.
The problem isn't just subprime loans. It is the entire mortgage market. As home prices fall, defaults will rise sharply - period. And so will the patience of mortgage bondholders. Different classes of mortgage bonds from various risk pools are owned by different central banks, funds, pensions and investors all over the world. Even your pension or 401(k) might have some of these bonds in it.
Perhaps some U.S. government department can make veiled threats to foreign countries to suggest they will suffer unpleasant consequences if their largest holders (central banks and investment funds) don't go along with the plan, but how could it be possible to strong-arm everyone?
What would be prudent and logical is for the banks that sold this toxic waste to buy it back and for a lot of people to go to prison. If they knew about the fraud, they should have to buy the bonds back. The time to look into this is before the shredders have worked their magic - not five years from now.
Those selling the "freeze" have suggested that mortgage-backed securities investors will benefit because they lose more with rising foreclosures. But with fast-depreciating collateral, the last thing investors in mortgage bonds ought to do is put off foreclosures. Rate freezes are at best a tool for delaying the inevitable foreclosures when even the most optimistic forecasters expect home prices to fall. In October, Goldman Sachs issued a report forecasting an incredible 35 to 40 percent drop in California home prices in the coming few years. To minimize losses, a mortgage bondholder would obviously be better off foreclosing on a home before prices plunge.
The goal of the freeze may be to delay bond investors from suing by putting off the big foreclosure wave for several years. But it may also be to stop bond investors from suing. If the investors agreed to loan modifications with the "real" wage and asset information from refinancing borrowers, mortgage originators and bundlers would have an excuse once the foreclosure occurred. They could say, "Fraud? What fraud?! You knew the borrower's real income and asset information later when he refinanced!"
The key is to refinance borrowers whose current loans involved fraud in the origination process. And I assure you it was a minority of borrowers whose loans didn't involve fraud.
The government is trying to accomplish wide-scale refinancing by tricking bond investors, or by tricking U.S. taxpayers. Guess who will foot the bill now that the FHA is entering the fray?
Ultimately, the people in these secret Paulson meetings were probably less worried about saving the mortgage market than with saving themselves. Some might be looking at prison time.
As chief of Goldman Sachs, Paulson was involved, to degrees as yet unrevealed, in the mortgage securitization process during the halcyon days of mortgage fraud from 2004 to 2006.
Paulson became the U.S. Treasury secretary on July 10, 2006, after the extent of the debacle was coming into focus for those in the know. Goldman Sachs achieved recent accolades in the markets for having bet heavily against the housing market, while Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch and others got hammered for failing to time the end of the credit bubble.
Goldman Sachs is the only major investment bank in the United States that has emerged as yet unscathed from this debacle. The success of its strategy must have resulted from fairly substantial bets against housing, mortgage banking and related industries, which also means that Goldman Sachs saw this coming at the same time they were bundling and selling these loans.
If a mortgage bond investor sues Goldman Sachs to force the institution to buy back loans, could Paulson be forced to testify as to whether Goldman Sachs knew or had reason to know about fraud in the origination process of the loans it was bundling?
It is truly amazing that right now everyone in the country is deferring to Paulson and the heads of Countrywide, JPMorgan, Bank of America and others as the best group to work out a solution to this problem. No one is talking about the fact that these people created the problem and profited to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars from it.
I suspect that such a group first sat down and tried to figure out how to protect their financial interests and avoid criminal liability. And then when they agreed on the plan, they decided to sell it as "helping working families stay in their homes." That's why these meetings were secret, and reporters and the public weren't invited.
The next time that Paulson is before the Senate Finance Committee, instead of asking, "How much money do you think we should give your banking buddies?" I'd like to see New York Sen. Chuck Schumer ask him what he knew about this staggering fraud at the time he was chief of Goldman Sachs.
The Goldman report in October suggests that rampant investor demand is to blame for origination fraud - even though these investors were misled by high credit ratings from bond rating agencies being paid billions by the U.S. investment banks, like Goldman, that were selling the bundled mortgages.
This logic is like saying shoppers seeking bargain-priced soup encourage the grocery store owner to steal it. I mean, we're talking about criminal fraud here. We are on the cusp of a mammoth financial crisis, and the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury are trying to limit the liability of their banking friends under the guise of trying to help borrowers. At stake is nothing short of the continued existence of the U.S. banking system.
Sean Olender is a San Mateo attorney. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates.
The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.
WHAT are you talking about?
Fraud in the origination process? Huh!?
I know that the process is honest, because Judge Bean, neodemes, ND and many others have said that it is. Thats good enough for me.
It should be good enough for you too. ;-)
And, to be sure, fraud is everywhere.
It's in the loan application documents, and it's in the appraisals.
There are e-mails and memos floating around showing that many people in banks, investment banks and appraisal companies - all the way up to senior management - knew about it.
More drivel. Right Judge, neo?
There are lots of people who would like to muzzle subpoena-happy New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to buy time and make this all go away.
Cuomo is just inches from getting what he needs to start putting a lot of people in prison.
Something about someone on here talking about "cockroaches" in the prison or something...
Awwwww, poor banker boys. Just bring a can of bug spray when you go in.
WHAT are you talking about?
Fraud in the origination process? Huh!?
I know that the process is honest, because Judge Bean, neodemes, ND and many others have said that it is. Thats good enough for me.
It should be good enough for you too. ;-)
___________________________________
LOL!!! Exactly, Exactly...Well said.
And all these guys need to read that article by Mr. Sean Olender over and over and over until they finally understand what is really happening.
This may be an obvious question.
How is it , that if the banks created the money by fiat, meaning they really did not loan any money, and were compensated the loan amount by the Fed, how is it they are going broke because of the defaults on all the loans?
how you do that? said...
There are lots of people who would like to muzzle subpoena-happy New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to buy time and make this all go away. Cuomo is just inches from getting what he needs to start putting a lot of people in prison. I bet some people are trying right now to make him an offer "he can't refuse."
___________________________________
Cool! Anyone who commits mortgage fraud in any of it's various forms should be indicted and hopefully convicted and sent to prison, whether they are working from outside or within the bank or mortgage company. I hate sleazy, fly-by-night loan officers as much as anybody. But your constant guilt by association mentality is really wearing thin.
A wild ass guess that they sole the "Promise to Pay" to non Fed European banks for cash (bank entries) up front.
As these banks could not monetize the PNs, now they have to eat them.
Even in a phony "fiat system," as they say, the buck has to stop somewhere, and even thieves do not like to get stolen from. The last thief has no chair to sit down on when the music stops.
Most likely, as always, the "lower level" thiefs who came late into the system will now buy much ketchup for their large meals of fiat paper.
Sort of seems like the same as the last people to get in on a previously paying HYIP.
Those "near the end", well they get.....the end.
But your constant guilt by association mentality is really wearing thin.
Can you be an "honest criminal?"
Can you be a "nice guy" in a mafia organization?
If the top is corrupt, can you really be a "good guy" in a corrupt organiztion?
If the judicial system is corrupt, can you really be an honest judge?
If the head of the FBI is corrupt, can you actually be an "honest agent" working in a corrupt law enforcement agency?
I would say that point blank, the answer to all these questions is UNEQUIVOCALLY NO!
Peanut (demonstrating confusion) asked: "This may be an obvious question.
How is it , that if the banks created the money by fiat, meaning they really did not loan any money, and were compensated the loan amount by the Fed, how is it they are going broke because of the defaults on all the loans?"
First, the "banks" didn't create the money by fiat. Your gross oversimplification is based on some mythology you've heard or read about from scammers like Johnson and Gashler.
They don't want to understand that mortgage lending may or may not have anything to do with a "bank" or the Fed. Mortgage lending involves a large number of financial institutions some of which have nothing to do with the Fed nor the FDIC.
The "banks" aren't going broke from defaults, nor did they or any other lender get paid back by the Fed. You're mixing apples and oranges with basketballs. Just because they are round doesn't make them a suitable point of reference. Mortgages have little or nothing to do with Fed sources of money because the funds for most mortgages ultimately come from the bond markets. In between are specialized lenders who do the short-term lines of credit for the days or weeks required to collateralize the pools.
Most mortgage lenders rarely make loans on residential mortgages using their own deposits or even their own capital. There are some "hard money" lenders but their share of the market is tiny.
The process of originating and then selling off the loans into the RMBS conduit can be more profitable than making loans and holding onto them over time.
This is why the nonsense BS that gets quoted by the scammers always comes unglued in an actual legal setting when the foolish borrower tries to solve their mortgage problem with scam approaches.
The "banks" aren't going broke because of defaults in sub prime. Some of the investment "banks" held on to the junk too long because they were being lied to. The trustees and insurers for the holders of those notes and the investors in the pools are up in arms because of excessive defaults in subprime loans, but it's because they were lied to about the risks. In turn, they lied to their investors and kep their funds on the books in those cesspools of toxic-waste loans. Eventually they had to do a mark-to-market on their books and take the losses. It's an ugly year for some of them.
In a few cases, those investors may be able to shove the loans back to the originators (if they're still in business), but there are very few "banks" with Fed connections who made those kinds of loans in large amounts. Most of them came from the companies like Ameriquest and Countrywide.
Where some banks will get hurt is in their ownership of the CDO's associated with the pools. Those are risky investments they were warned about, but they were potentially so profitable and allegedly so well backed that some banks have invested their client's money in them, and if they fell for the hype and believed the raters they deserve whatever happens to them.
All of which simply points out a simplistic understanding of lending as presented by scammers is a minefield for people who are having trouble with their mortgage payments or a predatory servicer.
Most mortgage lenders rarely make loans on residential mortgages using their own deposits or even their own capital.
Interesting statement.
So, then where does the money come from?
I know, I know. It doesnt come from "thin air."
Re-fried (Judge?) beans.
BUT, still tasty, mmmmm......
A man by the name of Jerome Daly got a lot of attention over 20 years ago when a trial was held in the court of Credit River Township in Minnesota,that prevented a bank from seizing and selling his home because he was delinquent on some mortgage payments.Daly's defense was that the bank had not lent him any actual money,but had simply created credit on it's books by the technique of fractional reserve banking;and that,therefore,since nothing of value had been advanced by the bank,it was not entitled to seize an asset,consisting of real estate as a forfeiture. Banks do not lend money deposited by their customer's.The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Montgomery,MN,which is a member of Minneapolis,admitted that the bank created the money and credit upon it's own books by which it acquired or gave as consideration for the Note;that this was standard banking practice;that the credit first came into existence when they created it,and they knew of no United States Statutes which gave them the right to do this. A jury of farmer's sided with Daly,and he retained his property.The Minnesota Trial Court declared the Federal Reserve Act,The National Banking Act and the mortgage extended to Daly ,by the Bank,along with the foreclosure and the sherrif's sale to be unconstitutional.The bank did not appeal.
For decades,the courts,the Fed and the politicians have kept this burning issue under wraps.but now that foreclosures have become quite common,especially among farmer's,there is a concerted movement to prevent the seizure of property.An increasing number of citizen's whose property has been sold at sherrif's auctions are still occupying them,pending the outcome of lawsuits which have been filed against the banking institutions for fraud because of violations of the Truth-Lending-Act and other very significant reasons.
We learn for example,that Barbara Jasso of Michigan was still occupying her property sold by the sherrif 14 months previously. Frank Verhoff's family in Alabama was still operating his farm which was auctioned in the same manner a year earlier.Both have filed suits and no eviction seems possible while these are pending.They are demanding jury trials and must,under the law,be given the benefit of these. Jerry Wright of Colorado has filed a $100 million suit against the bank and the Farmers Home Administration,charging them with fraud. Wright's property was sold at auction.But he is still operating it,pending the outcome of his litigation.Many other suits have been and are being filed.Not one has come to trial and no one who has taken such action has been evicted.The banks fear such trials,which is not difficult to understand.
These are the principal charges being leveled at the banks. Since no actual money has been lent,they are in violation of Art.1,Sec.10 of the U.S. Constitution. Federal Reserve Notes are NOT dollars,and Congress had no jurisdiction to authorize the Federal Reserve to create such or issue bills of credit. Since the banks never lent any real money at all,but merely advanced credit created out of nothing on their books,they have no right to seize any real estate. Curiously enough,the courts,including the highest,have declared on numerous occasions that"credit" money is not lawful currency.And thereby hangs a crucial issue which must eventually be resolved. I enough people reject banks' bogus claim on their real property the monetary system in the United States will have to be returned to pre-Federal Reserve status to meet Constitutional requirements.
The banks now have loans so created totaling over $2 trillion,on which they collect more than $200 billion
a year in interest.Thus we find that over 90% of our money in existence is only checkbook or debt money. Banks are insatiable parasites that feed on all of us by incessantly generating more and more inflation that keeps reducing the purchasing power of our currency.They thrive by being allowed to steal from the entire nation.
Jerry Wright of Colorado has filed a $100 million suit against the bank and the Farmers Home Administration,charging them with fraud.
Jerry, hope that you are right!
Banks are insatiable parasites that feed on all of us by incessantly generating more and more inflation that keeps reducing the purchasing power of our currency.
They thrive by being allowed to steal from the entire nation all the while being protected by corrupt judges like Judge Beans.
"insatiable parasits"
those pretty strong words Judge
what you got say for yourself?
Judge, can you see, I mean smell the handwritting on the wall?
I think even you can smell that you are "near the end."
It's funny how notorial dissent won't stand up to one of "how you do that's" post. COWARD. What's the matter N D you Big COWARD. Judge roy is a COWARD to.
It's funny how notorial dissent won't stand up to one of "how you do that's" post. COWARD. What's the matter N D you Big COWARD. Judge roy is a COWARD to.
How:
You know, that's interesting reading, but I have a couple of problems with most of it.
Like a lot of urban myths, I notice that it is unattributed. It's clearly not written by you, but the inclusion of names and specific amounts and factoids without attribution are typical hallmarks of urban and internet myths. Kind of "a friend knows somone's brother who heard" type of source. That type of attribution, to simulate reality or to create versimilitude in these stories is interesting but unpersuasive. It would be much more convincing if you displayed the source of the stories, or some actual citations for the sources, since these items typically tend to dissolve into the ether upon closer inspection.
Just a thought.
Just for example:
There is no court in Credit River Township, MN. Credit River is a (literally) wide spot in the road in Scott County, MN, and the nearest court is the District Court about 13 miles away in Shakopee, MN.
It's getting harder to sling this type of BS thanks to the internet. I'm pretty certain internet searches for other factoids in your creative story will yield similar results.
Notice to rearend, the reason I don’t respond to howdy doody is that he so seldom says anything that isn’t complete nonsense, most of which has already been refuted previously and repeatedly, or is so totally ridiculous as to be not worth bothering with. By comparison he makes Moogie sound intelligent, and you sound almost literate.
The one question he did ask that does bear answering is the following.
quoting howdy doody accidently making a coherent statement So, then where does the money come from?
The obvious place oh dimmer than a rock. They borrow it in one form or another, or they sell prepackaged loans that they got from a bigger wholesaler, or they float bonds or securities packages based on them. Too complicated for your little mind I know, but it is how modern loans are marketed.
And then just to prove that howdy doody is a complete idiot, he drags out the Credit River farago which was a crock from start to finish. Jerome Daly was a shyster lawyer who never met a scam he didn’t like, and got disbarred and jailed for it to prove it. Somehow he managed to convince the local sot of a JP to help him dodge the foreclosure he was facing and they orchestrated a trial to overturn the foreclosure. Big problem, a JP, and particularly a JP in MN did not have the authority or ability to hold any kind of jury trial, had no authority to do anything more on the foreclosure action than order it to proceed and hand the paper over to the sheriff for action, or refer it to the local district court. A MN JP’s court is not a trial court, has no authority or power to be one, and is nothing more than a glorified dog pound court. He did none of those things, stepped far outside his jurisdiction and authority and interfered in the foreclosure action, and produced a batch of paperwork with no legal standing. While the court did supposedly “declared the Federal Reserve Act,The National Banking Act and the mortgage extended to Daly ,by the Bank,along with the foreclosure and the sherrif's sale to be unconstitutional.” It had absolutely no authority to do so, and the MN Supreme Court declared null and void all of the rumpot JP’s actions null and void, and would have removed him from the bench for violating not only the SC’s orders, but the laws of the state of MN had he not had the good grace to die ahead of his removal proceedings. Daly’s “win” was voided, actually had already been voided by the court of jurisdiction and the house foreclosed on as the “award” had in fact been appealed to the court of competent jurisdiction and voided. So another part of the myth busted.
And then we have the old Art 1 Sec 10 nonsense, it only applies to the States, not the Federal Govt, and since the states have not legislated on the matter since 1789 it is moot anyway. The Congress on the other hand has the right, and the authority to declare what is or is not money, and produce it in any fashion they so choose. Federal Reserve Notes, are by law legal tender and are dollars by Federal Statute.
Then we get back to the old vapor money nonsense, gee big surprise. It too has been refuted by the courts if in no other forum(that’s sarcasm for the illiterate).
Please feel free to cite the basis for this quote, that on “numerous occasions that"credit" money is not lawful currency”, you won’t be able to, but please feel free to try.
The rest is more vapor money nonsense and not worth bothering with, much like it’s generator.
As to Jerry Wright, you are about 30 years out of date, he lost.
The problem with our friend howdy, is that he deals in myths, legends, half truths, and generally out right lies, facts are foreign and an abomination to him, you won’t find any in his posts they ruin his carefully crafted stories. His big hope, and his mode of action is that he expects his audience to be less aware than he is, and unfortunately he is usually right.
Credit River was nothing more than a justice of the peace tantrum that was soon nullified by a court of competent jurisdiction.
It's yet another urban myth that just keeps cropping up when people who don't know any better crank up the debt elimination scheme.
People believe all kinds of nonsense, and it is interesting how many times this goofy stuff survives to show up in actual court filings, only to be ruled as frivolous.
Licensed attorneys know better than to propound mythology before a court system that has repeatedly ruled against legal nonsense so this almost always has to come from people who are lured into filing this without counsel.
What they obviously didn't wan't to know, and would soon learn, is that arguing lunatic theories like people should not have to pay taxes or banks didn't loan you real money is a dead end.
You won't get very far without facing sanctions for frivolous filings or worse, being ruled a vexatious litigant. There are idiots who get to that stage and apparently they don't mind paying the sanctions and being a complete laughing stock to anyone other than their handful of misinformed and deluded friends.
Here's a reality check: The system (as corrupt as you might think it is) is immune to ludicrous challenges.
Hello - if you think it's corrupt why do you think it will recognize, let alone respect frivolous arguments that are the equivalent of poking a large, dangerous animal with a stick? Especially when there's a sign there that says "don't piss off the dragon with that stick." That sign was posted because all the previous nitwitts who dragged out the same old tired methods were pretty much annoying and reduced to ashes.
This blog is tedious, at best and the Dorean sycophants are determined to lure victims into going further down into the cauldron of debt elimination nonsense.
There are so many people who deserve genuine help in their fight against predatory lenders and servicers that the tiny numbers of actual Dorean victims who come here are almost invisible.
That in itself is telling.
Anyone else realize the remaining cheerleaders are rah-rahing to an alsmost empty room?
'til next year - enjoy reality with your families and don't expect a solution from scammers.
JDJD said...
Just for example:
There is no court in Credit River Township, MN. Credit River is a (literally) wide spot in the road in Scott County, MN, and the nearest court is the District Court about 13 miles away in Shakopee, MN.
-----------------------------
Most of the stuff posted came from here: http://www.nationmakers.com
/chap4.htm
There really was a Credit River decision, but it didn't happen quite the way it's told here.
Court was held in a grocery store by a Justice that didn't have jurisdiction. Daly stacked the jury with employees and former clients. It's not clear from opposing attorney's notes if the banker was even there. The justice died before it could be retried, Daly wrote the opinion that you run into on the net. He ending up losing the farm and being disbarred.
http://www.fights4rights.com/data/Bank_
Affidavit_Re_Trial_
and_Appeal.pdf
Nice try, but there is a slight "problem" with the events as described by Judge Bean. (natch)
Here is whole true story:
FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
NULL AND VOID BY THE COURT
MARTIN V. MAHONEY JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
From: http://www.theawaregroup.com/federalreservenotes.htm
On January 6, 1969 this Court filed a Notice of Refusal to Allow Appeal with the Clerk at the District Court, Hugo L. Hentges, for the County of
Scott and the State of Minnesota, which is as follows:
NOTICE OF REFUSAL TO ALLOW APPEAL
TO: Hugo L. Hentges, Clerk of District Court, Plaintiff, First National Bank of Montgomery and Defendant Jerome Daly:
You will Please take Notice that the undersigned Justice of the Peace, Martin V. Mahoney, hereby, pursuant to law, refuses to allow the Appeal in the above entitled action, and refuses to make an entry of such allowance in the undersigned's Docket. The undersigned also refuses to file in the office of the clerk of the District Court in and for Scott County, Minnesota, a transcript of all the entries made in my Docket, together with all process and other papers relating to the action and filed with me as Justice of the Peace. The undersigned concludes and determines that M.S.A. 532.38 was not complied with within 10 days after entry of Judgment in my Justice of the Peace Court Subdivision 4 thereof requires that $2.00 shall be paid within 10 days to the Clerk of the District Court for the use of the Justice before whom the cause was tried. Two so-called "One Dollar" Federal Reserve Notes issued by the Federal Reserve Bank at San Francisco L1278283C and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Serial No. 18041C697A were deposited with the Clerk of the District Court to be tendered to me.
These Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money within the contemplation of the Constitution of the United States and are null and void. Further, the Notes on their face are not redeemable in Gold or Silver Coin nor is there a fund set aside anywhere for the redemption of said Notes.
However, this is a determination of a question of Law and Fact by the undersigned pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. Plaintiff is entitled to be accorded full due process of Law before the Court in this present determination not to allow the Appeal.
If Plaintiff will file a brief on the Law and the Facts with this Court within 10 days, or if Plaintiff will file an application for a full and complete hearing before this Court on the determination, a prompt hearing will be set and if Plaintiff can satisfy this Court that said Notes are lawful money issued in pursuance of and under the authority of the Constitution of the United States of America the undersigned will stand ready and willing to reverse himself in this determination.
TAKE NOTICE AND GOVERN YOURSELVES ACCORDINGLY.
Dated January 6, 1969
BY THE COURT
/s/ Martin V. Mahoney
MARTIN V. MAHONEY
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMO
I am bound by oath to support the Constitution of the United States and laws passed pursuant thereto and the Constitution and Laws of Minnesota not in conflict therewith. This is an important Case to both parties and involves issues, apparently, not previously decided before. It is also important to the public. The Clerk of the District Court is an officer of the Judicial Branch of the State of Minnesota. His act is the Act of the State. U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10 provides "No State Shall make any Thing but Gold and Silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." The tender of the two Federal Reserve Notes runs counter to the fundamental Law of the land, the Constitution of the United States of America. It appears on the face of it that the Notes are ineffectual for any purpose and that I am not justified in taking any steps toward the allowance of an Appeal in this case.
It is, however, the Order of this Court that the parties are entitled to a full hearing before this Court, and, if requested a full hearing will be granted.
Dated January 6, 1969
BY THE COURT
/s/ Martin V. Mahoney
MARTIN V. MAHONEY
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Minnesota Statutes Annotated 532.38 required that the Appellant, First National Bank of Montgomery deposit with the Clerk of the District Court within ten (10) days, Two ($2.00) Dollars (lawful money of the United States) for payment to the Justice of the Peace before whom the cause was tried. This is one of the conditions for the allowance of an appeal.
Two One ($1.00) Dollar Federal Reserve Notes were deposited with the Clerk of the District Court. One was issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, bearing Serial No. L12782836 and the other on deposit was issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis bearing Serial No. 180410697A.
This Court determined that said Notes on their face were contrary to Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States and also based upon the evidence deduced at the hearing on December 7, 1968, the Notes were without any lawful consideration and therefore were void; however, this Court indicated it would give the Plaintiff, First National Bank of Montgomery, a full and complete hearing with reference to this issue.
No hearing was requested by Plaintiff, First National Bank. This Court was ordered to show cause before the District Court. The Order to Show Cause is as follows:
IN DISTRICT COURT STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF SCOTT
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota, Plaintiff,
vs.
Jerome Daly, Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On reading the application for an Order attached hereto, and on Motion and Affidavit of Theodore R. Melby, Attorney for Plaintiff, due showing having been made that an exigency exists.
IT IS ORDERED, that Martin V. Mahoney, Justice of the Peace, Credit River Township, County of Scott, State of Minnesota, appear in person before the above Court at 10:00 a.m., Friday, January 17, 1969, at the Special Term of Court of Scott, State of Minnesota or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard to show cause why he should not file in the office of the Clerk of District Court, First Judicial District, County of Scott, State of Minnesota, a transcript of all the entries made in his docket, together with all process and other papers relating to the above identified cause of action in his possession or the possession of any other Justice of the Peace of the State of Minnesota.
LET THIS ORDER APPLICATION FOR ORDER, AFFIDAVIT, all heretofore attached, be served on Martin V. Mahoney by leaving with him copies of the same and exhibiting this original ORDER with the signature of the Judge of District Court hereto, affixed, service to be made forthwith.
Dated at Shakopee, Minnesota this 8th day of January, 1969.
BY THE COURT /s/ Harold E. Flynn Judge of District Court, Therefore, upon Motion of Defendant Jerome Daly, this Court ordered a hearing before this Court on January 22, 1969 at 7:00 p.m.. The First National Bank of Montgomery made no appearance although service of the Motion and Order was served upon Ralph Hendrickson, its Cashier on January 20, 1969. No continuance was requested by Plaintiff or its Attorney. The Defendant appeared by and on behalf of himself. After waiting for one hour for the Bank or its representative to appear the Court received the testimony of Defendant bearing upon the issue of the validity of the Federal Reserve Notes. Now, Therefore based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein and the evidence offered, this Court makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgment and Determination with reference to the allowance of an appeal.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, JUDGMENT AND DETERMINATION.
That the Federal Reserve Banking Corporation, is a United States Corporation with twelve (12) banks throughout the United States, including New York, Minneapolis and San Francisco. That the First National Bank of Montgomery is also a United States Corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the United States and is a member of the Federal Reserve System, and more specifically, of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
That because of the interlocking control activities, transactions and practices, the Federal Reserve Banks and the National Banks are for all practical purposes, in the law, one and the same bank.
As is evidenced from the book: "The Federal Reserve System; Its Purposes and Functions,"; (1st Ed.) pages 74 to 78 and 177 and 180, put out by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C., 1963, and from other evidence adduced herein, the said Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks create money and credit upon their books and exercise the ultimate prerogative of expanding and reducing the supply of money or credit in the United States. See especially page 75 of the Manual.
This creation of money or credit upon the Books of the Banks constitutes the creation of fiat money by bookkeeping entry.
Ninety per cent or more of the credit never leaves the books of the Banks as the Banks produce no specie as backing.
When the Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks acquire United States Bonds and Securities, State Bonds and Securities, State Subdivision Bonds and Securities, mortgages on private Real property and mortgages on private personal property, the said banks create the money and credit upon their books by bookkeeping entry. The first time that the money comes into existence is when they create it on their bank books by bookkeeping entry. The banks create it out of nothing. No substantial fund of gold or silver is back of it, or any fund at all.
The mechanics followed in the acquisition of United States Bonds are as follows: The Federal Reserve Bank places its name on a United States Bond and goes to its banking books and credits the United States Government for an equal amount of the face value of the bonds. The money or credit first comes into existence when they create it on the books of the bank. National Banks do the same except they must have One ($1.00) Dollar in Credit on hand for every Four ($4.00) Dollars they create.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis obtains Federal Reserve Notes in denominations of One ($1.00) Dollar, Five, Ten, Twenty, Fifty, One Hundred, Five Hundred, One Thousand, Ten Thousand, and One Hundred Thousand Dollars for the cost of the printing of each note, which is less than one cent. The Federal Reserve Bank must deposit with the Treasurer of the United States a like amount of Bonds for the Notes it receives. The Bonds are without lawful consideration, as the Federal Reserve Bank created the money and credit upon their books by which they acquired the Bond. With their bookkeeping created credit, National Banks obtain these notes from the Federal Reserve banks.
The net effect of the entire transaction is that the Federal Reserve Bank and the National Banks obtain Federal Reserve Notes comparable to the ones they placed on file with the Clerk of District Court, and a specimen of which is above, for the cost of printing only. Title 31 U.S.C., Section 462 (392) attempts to make Federal Reserve Notes a legal tender for all debts, public and private. See page 72. From 1913 down to date, the Federal Reserve Banks and the National Banks are privately owned. As of March 18, 1968, all gold backing is removed from the said Federal Reserve Notes. No gold or silver backs up these notes.
The Federal Reserve Notes in question in this case are unlawful and void upon the following grounds.
Said Notes are fiat money, not redeemable in gold or silver coin upon their face, not backed by gold or silver, and the notes are in want of some real or substantial fund being provided for their payment in redemption. There is no mode provided for enforcing the payment of the same. There is no mode provided for the enforcement of the payment of the Notes in anything of value.
The Notes are obviously not gold or silver coin.
The sole consideration paid for the One Dollar Federal Reserve Notes is in the neighborhood of nine-tenths of one cent, and therefore, there is no lawful consideration behind said Notes.
That said Federal Reserve Notes do not conform to Title 12, United States Code, Sections 411 and 418. Title 31 USC, Section 462 (392), insofar as it attempts to make Federal Reserve Notes and circulating Notes of Federal Reserve Banks and National Banking Associations a legal tender for all debts, public and private, it is unconstitutional and void, being contrary to Article I, Section 10, of the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits any State from making anything but gold and silver coin a tender, or impairing the obligation of contracts.
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota,
It is hereby DETERMINED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that the Appeals Statutes of the State of Minnesota for Civil Appeals from the Court to the District Court is not complied with within 10 days after entry of Judgement. Therefore the Appeal is not allowed by this Court and my docket so shows.
Dated February 5, 1969
BY THE COURT
/s/ Martin V. Mahoney
MARTIN V. MAHONEY
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
MEMORANDUM
The division and separation of the three great powers of government, the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial and the principle that these powers should be forever kept separate and distinct as of vital importance to the maintenance and establishment of a free government, without which this Republic cannot possibly survive.
The particular wording of the Declaration of Independence which set up an obsolete cut off with the British form of Government is contained in the first two paragraphs thereof.
Thereafter the Constitution was ordained and established as a law for the government by the People of the United States.
All legislative powers granted are vested in the Congress of the United States consisting of a House of Representatives and a Senate elected as representatives of all the people.
"Judicial Power" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as the authority vested by Courts and Judges, as distinguished from the Executive and Legislative power.
"Cases and Controversies" is defined in Blacks' Law Dictionary - "This term as used in the Constitution of the United States embraces claims or contentions of litigants brought before the Court for adjudication by regular proceedings for the protection of wrongs; and whenever the claim or contention of a party takes such a form that the Judicial Power is capable of acting upon it, it has become a case or controversy." See Interstate Commerce Commission vs. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 14 Sup. Crt. 1125, 38 Law Ed. 1047; Smith vs. Adams, 130 U.S. 1679, 32 L.Ed.. 895.
Under our form of government every American, individually or by representation, is the high and supreme sovereign authority. The authority at each of the three departments of government is defined and established.
It is entirely fitting and proper to observe that in all instances between the states and the United States, and the people, there is no such thing as the idea of a compact between the people on one side and the government on the other. The compact is that of the people with each other to produce and constitute a government.
To suppose that any government can be a party to a compact with the whole people, is supposing it to have an existence before it can have a right to exist.
The only instance in which a compact can take place between the people and those who exercise the government, is that the people shall pay them while they choose to employ them.
A Constitution is the property of the nation and more specifically of the individual, and not those who exercise the government. All the Constitutions of America are declared to be established in the authority of the people.
The authority of the Constitution is grounded upon the absolute, God-given free agency of each individual, and this is the basis of all powers granted, reserved or withheld in the authorization of every word, phrase, clause or paragraph of the Constitution. Any attempt by Congress, the President or the Courts to limit, change or enlarge even the most claimed insignificant provision is therefore ultra vires and void ab initio.
When considering the United States Constitution, one must absolutely and completely clear his mind of all British, monarchical, papal, clergical, continental, financial, or other alien influences or conceptions of government the rights of the individual and what is Constitutional.
Our Constitution stands absolute and alone.
It must be read in the light of all engagements entered into before its adoption including the Declaration of Independence and the privileges and immunities secured by Common Law confirmed by Magna Charta and other English Charters, excepting therefrom all clerical, papel and monarchical nonsense.
No one applying the Constitution to any situation has any business, right or duty to look in any direction for sovereignty but toward the people. Any attempt or inclination to do so is a violation of one's oath and continuing duty to uphold, maintain and support the Constitution of the United States of America.
See Waring vs. Mayor of Savannah, 60 Georgia, Page 93, where it is quoted as follows:
"In this State as well as in all republics, it is not the Legislature, however transcendent its powers, who are supreme - but the people - and to suppose that they may violate the fundamental law, is, as has been most eloquently expressed, to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master, that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of delegated power may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
The law is made by the Legislature, but applied by the Courts.
See generally Mr. Justice Story's commentaries on the Constitution found in Story on the Constitution, Vol. 1, Section 198 through 280 on the History of the Revolution and the Confederation, origin of the Confederation, analysis of the Articles of the Confederation and the Decline and Fall of the Confederation including the reasons for it, which in chief was a debasement of our money and currency by the banks, similar to what is taking place in the United States today.
For authority to support the proposition that an Act of Congress in violation of the Constitution confers no rights or privileges see 16 Am. Jur. 2d "Constitutional Law,"; Sections 177 thru 179
Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that no State shall make any Thing but gold and silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts.
The act of the Clerk of the District Court is the act of the State. The Clerk of the District Court is the agent of the Judicial Branch of the Government of the State of Minnesota. See Briscoe et al vs. The Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, 11 Peters Reports at Page 319, "A State can act only through its agents; and it would be absurd to say that any act was not done by a State which was done by its authorized agents."
For the Justice Fees the bank deposited with the Clerk of District Court the two Federal Reserve Notes. The Clerk tendered the Notes to me. My sworn duty compelled me to refuse the tender. This is contrary to the Constitution of the United States. The States have no power to make bank notes a legal tender. See 35 Amer. Jur. on Money, Section 13. Only gold and silver coin is a lawful tender.
See also 36 Am. Jur. on Money, Section 9. Bank Notes are a good tender on money unless specifically objected to. Their consent and usage is based upon the convertibility of such notes to coin at the pleasure of the holder upon presentation to the bank for redemption. When the inability of a bank to redeem its notes is openly avowed they instantly lose their character as money and their circulation as currency ceases.
There is also no lawful consideration for these notes to circulate as money. The banks actually obtained these notes for the cost of the printing. There is no lawful consideration for said Notes.
A lawful consideration must exist for these Notes to circulate as money. The banks actually obtained these notes for the cost of the printing. There is no lawful consideration for said Notes.
A lawful consideration must exist for a Note. See 17 Amer. Jur. 2d on Contracts, Section 85 and also Sections 215, 216 and 217 of 11 Amer. Jur. 2nd on Bills and Notes. As a matter of fact, the "Notes"; are not Notes at all as they contain no promise to pay.
The activity of the Federal Reserve Banks of Minneapolis, San Francisco and the First National Bank of Montgomery is contrary to public policy and the Constitution of the United States and constitutes an unlawful creation of money and credit is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States.
The Federal Reserve and National Banks exercise an exclusive monopoly and privilege of creating credit and issuing their Notes at the expense of the public, which does not receive a fair equivalent. This scheme is obliquely designed for the benefit of an idle monopoly to rob, blackmail and oppress the producers of wealth.
The Federal Reserve Act and the National Bank Act is in its operation and effect contrary to the whole letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States, confers an unlawful and unnecessary power on private parties; holds all of our fellow citizens in dependence; is subversive to the rights and liberties of the people. It has defied the lawfully constituted Government of the United States. The Federal Reserve and National Banking Acts and Sec. 462 (392) of Title 31, U.S.C. are not necessary and proper for carrying into execution the legislative powers granted to Congress or any other powers vested in the Government of the United States, but, on the contrary, are subversive to the rights of the People in their rights to life, liberty and Property. The aforementioned acts of Congress are unconstitutional and void and I so hold.
The meaning of the Constitutional provision "No State Shall make any Thing but Gold and Silver Coin a tender in payment of debts" is direct, clear, unambiguous and without any qualification. This Court is without authority to interpolate any exception. My duty is simple to execute it, as written, and to pronounce the legal result. From an examination of the case of Edwards v. Kearzev, 96 U.S. 595, the Federal Reserve Notes (fiat money), which are attempted to be made a legal tender, are exactly what the authors of the Constitution of the United States intended to prohibit. No State can make these Notes a legal tender, are exactly what the authors of the Constitution of the United States intended to prohibit. No State can make these Notes a legal tender. Congress is incompetent to authorize a State to make the Notes a legal tender. For the effect of binding Constitutional provisions see Cooke v. Iverson, 108 M. 388 and State v. Sutton, 63 M. 147. This fraudulent Federal Reserve System and National Banking System has impaired the obligation of Contract, promoted disrespect for the Constitution and Law and has shaken society to its foundations.
The Court is at a loss, because of the non-appearance of Plaintiff to determine upon what legal theory Plaintiff could possibly claim that the Notes in question are a legal tender. If they have any validity it must come from the Constitution of the United States and laws passed pursuant thereto. Inquiry was made of Mr. Daly as to what laws these Notes could be possibly based upon to sustain their validity. To aid the Court he presented the following: Section 411, 412, 417, 418, 420 of USC Title 12 and Title 31, USC Sec. 462 (392).
On the one hand Section 411 holds and states that the Notes are to be used for the purpose of making advances to Federal Reserve Banks through Federal Reserve Agents and for no other purposes. Then Title 31, Section 462 (392) states: "All Federal Reserve Notes and circulating Notes of Federal Reserve Banks and National Banking Associations heretofore or hereafter issued, shall be legal tender for all debts public and private."
The Constitution states, "No State shall make any Thing but Gold and Silver Coin a legal tender in payment of debts." The above referred to enactments of Congress state that the Notes are a legal tender. There is a direct conflict between the Constitution and the Acts of Congress. If the Constitution is not controlling then Congress is above and has superior authority from the Constitution and the People who ordained and established it.
Title 31 USC, Section 462 (392) is in direct conflict with the Constitution insofar at least, that it attempts to make Federal Reserve Notes a Legal Tender, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Sec. 462 (392) is not a law which is made in pursuance of the U.S. Constitution. It is unconstitutional and void and I so hold. Therefore, the two Federal Reserve Notes are null and void for any lawful purpose so far as this case is concerned and are not a valid deposit of $2.00 with the Clerk of the District Court. I hold that the case has not been lawfully removed from the Court and jurisdiction thereof is still vested in the Court.
However; there is a second ground of invalidity of these Federal Reserve Notes previously discussed and that is the Notes are invalid because on no theory are they based upon a valid, adequate or lawful consideration.
At the hearing scheduled for January 22, 1969 at 7:00 p.m., Mr. Morgan, nor anyone else from or representing the Bank, attended to aid the Court in making a correct determination.
Mr. Morgan appeared at the trial on December 7, 1969 and appeared as a witness to be candid, open, direct, experienced and truthful. He testified to 20 years of experience with the Bank of America in Los Angeles, the Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis and the Plaintiff in this case. He seemed to be familiar with the operations of the Federal Reserve System. He freely admitted that his Bank created all of the money or credit upon its books with which it acquired the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964. The credit first came into existence when the Bank created it upon its books. Further he freely admitted that no United States Law gave the bank the authority to do this. There was obviously no lawful consideration for the Note. The Bank parted with absolutely nothing except a little ink. In this case the evidence was on January 22, 1969 that the Federal Reserve Banks obtain the Notes for the cost of the printing only. This seems to be confirmed by Title 12 USC, Section 420. The cost is about 9/10ths of a cent per Note, regardless of the amount of the Note. The Federal Reserve Banks create all of the Money and Credit upon their books by bookkeeping entry by which they acquire United States and State Securities. The collateral required to obtain the Notes is, by Section 412, USC, Title 12, a deposit of a like amount of Bonds, Bonds which the Banks acquired by creating money and credit by bookkeeping entry.
No rights can be acquired by fraud. The Federal Reserve Notes are acquired through the use of unconstitutional statutes and fraud.
The Common Law requires a lawful consideration for any Contract or Note. These Notes are void for failure of a lawful consideration at Common Law, entirely apart from any Constitutional Considerations upon this ground the Notes are ineffectual for any purpose. This seems to be the principal objection to paper fiat money and the cause of its depreciation and failure down through the ages. If allowed to continue Federal Reserve Notes will meet the same fate. From the evidence introduced on January 22, 1969, this Court finds that as of March 18, 1968 all Gold and Silver backing is removed from Federal Reserve Notes.
The law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See 1 Amer. Jur. 2nd on Actions, Sections 50, 51 and 52.
This Court further observes that the jurisdiction of the Court is conferred by Article 6, Sec. 1 of the Minnesota Constitution. "Sec. 1. The judicial power of the state is hereby vested in a Supreme Court, a District Court, a Probate Court and such other Courts, minor judicial officers and commissioners with jurisdiction inferior to the District Court as the legislative may establish." Pursuant thereto an Act of the legislature credited this Court.
Nothing on the Constitution or laws of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court. The Constitution of Minnesota does not limit the jurisdiction of this Court. It therefore has complete Jurisdiction to render justice in this cause in accordance with and agreeable to the Supreme Law of the Land. See 16 Am. Jur. 2d on Constitutional Law Sections 210 thru 222.
"When a Court is created by Act of the Legislature the Judicial Power is conferred by the Constitution and not by the Act creating the Court. If its Jurisdiction is to be limited it must be limited by the Constitution." See Minn, Const. "Bill of Rights."; In any event the Banks has not raised any question as to the jurisdiction of this Court.
Slavery and all its incidents including Peonage thralldom and debt created by fraud is universally prohibited in the United States. This case represents but another refined form of Slavery by the Bankers. Their position is not supported by the Constitution of the United States. The People have spoken their will in terms which cannot be misunderstood. It is indispensable to the preservation of the Union and independence and liberties of the people that his Court adhere only to the mandates of the Constitution and administer it as written. I therefore hold the Notes in question void and not effectual for any purpose.
January 30, 1969
BY THE COURT
/s/ Martin V. Mahoney
MARTIN V. MAHONEY
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP
SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
NOTE:
The Defendant, (Attorney) Jerome Daley, shortly after the above Court declared the above decision, again brought the issue of the Federal Reserve Notes before the Courts. On Appeal to a Federal Court; the Federal Judicial Officers publicly rediculed Mr. Daley for challenging the validity of the Notes of the Federal Reserve Bank and had Mr. Daley "disbared"; from practicing law (United States v. Jerome Daly, 481 F.2d. 28). This "act" of our Federal Judicial Officers to "disbar" a fellow member of the "Bar" for questioning the validity of the monetary system of the United States raises the question as to who the Federal Judicial Officers are employed by? It is obvious that they are employed by the International Banking Cartels; NOT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Credit River Decision: Introduction
From: http://www.worldnewsstand.net/money/mahoney-introduction.html
THE CREDIT RIVER DECISION
INTRODUCTION
A Minnesota Trial Court's decision holding the Federal Reserve Act unconstitutional and VOID; holding the National Banking Act unconstitutional and VOID; declaring a mortgage acquired by the First National Bank of Montgomery, Minnesota in the regular course of its business, along with the foreclosure and the sheriff's sale, to be VOID.
This decision, which is legally sound, has the effect of declaring all private mortgages on real and personal property, and all U.S. and State bonds held by the Federal Reserve, National and State Banks to be null and VOID. This amounts to an emancipation of this nation from personal, national and State debt purportedly owed to this banking system. Every True American owes it to himself/herself, to his or her country, and to the people of the world for that matter, to study this decision very carefully and to understand it, for upon it hangs the question of freedom or slavery.
A WORD FROM AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE WHO KNEW AND WORKED WITH JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY, STATE OF MINNESOTA, ABOUT THE CASE.
The "Credit River Decision" handed down by a jury of 12 on a cold day in December, in the Credit River Township Hall, was an experience that I'll never forget.
The Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court had phoned me a week before the trial and asked me if I would be an associate justice in assisting Justice Martin V. Mahoney since he had never handled a jury trial before. I accepted, and it took me two hours to get my car running in the 22 below zero weather.
I got to the court room about 30 minutes before trial, and helped get the wood stove going, since the trial was being held in an unheated store room of a general store. This was the first time I met Justice Mahoney, and I was impressed with his no nonsense manner of handling matters before him. My OB was to help pick the jury, and to keep Jerome Daly and the attorney representing the Bank of Montgomery from engaging in a fist fight. The court room was highly charged, and the Jury was all business.
The banker testified about the mortgage loan given to Jerome Daly, but then Daly cross examined the banker about the creating of money "out of thin air," and the banker admitted that this was standard banking practice. When Justice Mahoney heard the banker testify that he could "create money out of thin air," Mahoney said, "It sounds like fraud to me." I looked at the faces of the jurors, and they were all agreeing with Mahoney by shaking their heads and by the looks on their faces.
I must admit that up until that point, I really didn't believe Jerome's theory, and thought he was making this up. After I heard the testimony of the banker, my mouth had dropped open in shock, and I was in complete disbelief. There was no doubt in my mind that the Jury would find for Daly.
Jerome Daly had taken on the banks, the Federal Reserve Banking System, and the money lenders, and had won.
It is now twenty eight years since this "Landmark Decision," and Justice Mahoney is quoted more often than any Supreme Court justice ever was. The money boys that run the "private Federal Reserve Bank" soon got back at Mahoney by poisoning him in what appeared to have been a fishing boat accident (but with his body pumped full of poison) in June of 1969, less than 6 months later.
Both Jerome Daly and Justice Martin V. Mahoney are truly the greatest men that I have ever had the pleasure to meet. The Credit River Decision was and still is the most important legal decision ever decided by a Jury.
Bill Drexler
* * * * * * * * * * *
RE: First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly
IN THE JUSTICE COURT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF SCOTT
TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER
JUSTICE MARTIN V. MAHONEY
First National Bank of Montgomery,
Plaintiff
vs
Jerome Daly,
Defendant
JUDGMENT AND DECREE
The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 am. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel, R. Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf.
A Jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in the Case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf.
Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19 Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started.
Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the consideration for the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964 and alleged failure of the consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff's sale passed no title to plaintiff.
The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years.
Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the Consideration and that the Defendant was estopped from doing so.
At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant.
Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of United States and the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith ;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1.That the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office.
2.That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null and void.
3.That the Sheriff's sale of the above described premises held on June 26, 1967 is null and void, of no effect.
4.That the Plaintiff has no right title or interest in said premises or lien thereon as is above described.
5.That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota Statute binding the jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the Bill of Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this Cause.
The following memorandum and any supplementary memorandum made and filed by this Court in support of this Judgment is hereby made a part hereof by reference.
BY THE COURT
Dated December 9, 1968
Justice MARTIN V. MAHONEY
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota
MEMORANDUM
The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute of the facts for the Jury to resolve.
Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Ansheuser-Busch Brewing Company v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318, 46 N.W. 558. The Jury found that there was no consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing.
Even if Defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of Law this is no defense to the Plaintiff. The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See sections 50, 51 and 52 of Am Jur 2nd "Actions" on page 584 "no action will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which Plaintiff was a party."
Plaintiff's act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful right can be built.
Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original Jurisdiction with right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This is a Common Law action. Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render Complete Justice between the parties. Any provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and void. No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by either party at the trial. Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts to the Jury, at least in so far as they saw fit.
No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan the path of duty was direct and clear for the Jury. Their Verdict could not reasonably been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, freely and without purchase, conformable to the laws in this Court of December 7, 1968.
BY THE COURT
December 9, 1968
Justice Martin V. Mahoney
Credit River Township
Scott County, Minnesota.
Note: It has never been doubted that a Note given on a Consideration which is prohibited by law is void. It has been determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal. The emission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations for the purpose of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful. See Craig v. Mo. 4 Peters Reports 912. This Court can tread only that path which is marked out by duty. M.V.M.
JEROME DALY had his own information to reveal about this case, which establishes that between his own revealed information and the fact that Justice Martin V. Mahoney was murdered 6 months after he entered the Credit River Decision on the books of the Court, why the case was never legally overturned, nor can it be.
The banker testified about the mortgage loan given to Jerome Daly, but then Daly cross examined the banker about the creating of money "out of thin air," and the banker admitted that this was standard banking practice.
LOL! "money out of thin air"
HOw dare he state this!?
Now, obviously this stupid banker doesnt know what hes talking about.
How did he ever get to be a banker stating that standard practice routinely creates "money out of thin air."
Wonder that the Illuminati never got him.
Either Sopsback in Minnesota, or someone has figured out that he never posts here anymore and figured out his password on this blog and is using it illegally.
Report this to Webmaster.
SOP, you're not supposed to give your password to anyone else.
THATS CHEATING!
AND YOU CAN BE BANNED FROM THIS BLOG.
Thanks, Pauli & Judge.
I bow to your superior research and knowledge.
Thanks to you also, SOPS for dredging up and posting the documents. Historically they are delightfully fascinating, even though your commentary at the end indicates that your own skills of construction are woefully inadequate.
Guess I should know better than to argue with the seriously deluded.
Thanks also to ND. Didn't mean to overlook your contribution.
See how much more interesting and entertaining this stuff is when it's properly documented and attributed? I learned something tonight thanks to you all.
The Aware Group, huh?
You must have saved all that crap for a special occassion.
theawaregroup.com expired on 12/14/2006 and is pending renewal or deletion.
See for yourself
And another one bites the dust.
Oops.
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/
All gone.
Who woulda thunk it.
Have Kurt and Scott been arrested?
Have Kurt and Scott been arrested?
Arrested, indicted, tried and convicted. They are in jail awaiting sentencing, which will be followed by a long, long time in federal prison.
WOW when did this all take place?
We're surrounded by idiots.
I know Bruce we can't get away from them. But Bruce if you think about it your the one who keeps sticking around you don't have to stay. Dumbass!!!!!!!!!!!
kill em all, let God sort em out said:
___________________________________
Can you be an "honest criminal?"
Can you be a "nice guy" in a mafia organization?
If the top is corrupt, can you really be a "good guy" in a corrupt organiztion?
If the judicial system is corrupt, can you really be an honest judge?
If the head of the FBI is corrupt, can you actually be an "honest agent" working in a corrupt law enforcement agency?
I would say that point blank, the answer to all these questions is UNEQUIVOCALLY NO!
___________________________________
I don’t know... that Bobby Baccalieri seems like a pretty nice guy.
near the end said...
It's funny how notorial dissent won't stand up to one of "how you do that's" post. COWARD. What's the matter N D you Big COWARD. Judge roy is a COWARD to.
5:13 PM
___________________________________
Maybe they were ignoring it because it's all SSDD. You did a fine job of bringing them both back to the table though, NTE. (Pauligirl too.) I don't think you did howdy any favors though... can you say "shot down in flames"?
Scott;shot down in flames I got you to Dumbass. I brought you right back. Damn I'm good!!!!!!!!!
near the end said...
Scott;shot down in flames I got you to Dumbass. I brought you right back.
__________________________________
Yes, you did... nice work! However, please note...
TO: a preposition denoting motion towards.
TOO: an adverb meaning also, likewise or besides..... Dumbass!
That grammer shit don't mean nothin to me I'm a redneck. DUMBASS.
Hey why don't you go throw your old friend Kurt under the bus some more.
near the end said...
That grammer shit don't mean nothin to me I'm a redneck DUMBASS
___________________________________
Truer words were never spoken.
near the end said...
Hey why don't you go throw your old friend Kurt under the bus some more.
__________________________________
Which bus are you talking about? Do you honestly think my words have had the slightest impact on the outcome of Kurt's situation?
Nope I don't. But it's pretty cheap and dirty to kick a friend when he's down. Your a loser. Glad to be a Redneck and a rich Redneck at that.
Post a Comment