What I find most disturbing about the conversations on this Blog is the public perception. This is the mindless abstraction that does not exist but is kept by those who are too cowardly to be individuals. You parrot the boogidy-boogidy of the government, listen to a press that has a private agenda hidden behind their public persona, follow licensed professionals down to the shackles of their masters, and last ridicule the truth which offends you. I am not the problem, it is your mediocrity and timidity that is offended when it is confronted with someone who will challenge the status quo. You can talk into infinitum and regurgitate every theorem until you've convinced yourself you are a sound expert on a subject, but experts and their opinion view from the outside of a situation and not from the inside. The inside of yourselves is the secret to your demise and our perpetual conflict. I am honest with myself which allows me to be honest with you. You are dishonest with yourself which never satisfies you.
Take the law for example. There are laws of man and laws for man. The laws of man are a constant that can be scientifically examined! Take a few as hunger, thirst, breath, sleep etc. These laws work themselves onto everyman as a subject. If there is an exception then the law has to be rewritten to incorporate the new knowledge. The laws for man are not of the same caliber. These are not fixed or constant but rather can be avoided altogether by application. A man cannot measure his behavior as a part of this law but as being apart from this law. These laws are to modify behavior and to deal with something that is absent as opposed to something that is present. Most of you don't understand the difference of law and then attempt to use your ignorance to analyze the laws of God. God is not subject to the laws of man. God did not create the law for man. God is bound by neither. Now if you say God's laws are for man you error. No man can keep them and no behavior can change them breaking them. These laws are for God and God alone. They were only given to man as a sign, a show, a schoolmaster. They are a constant that God lives by. He is not subject to them but they are subject to Him. They come out of Him because they are created by His voice. "Thou shall not commit murder," can equally be, "Thou shall commit murder" tomorrow and be equally valid and righteous because of who utters it. There is no one to annul His commands and no one to usurp His power. That makes His words the Law. Now you think you can understand His laws by traditions, regulations, procedures, or the written word? How is that possible when He can change them for any given instance? You can't keep His law only He can and you can't pretend to. Jesus is the only one as a man who can keep the law because He is the law. Now he will give you credit as though you kept the law if you will be obedient to the law which is Him. He now lives the law through you which is the new law, the law of faith. This law is the only path to truth and it is by your ears that it matures. Your mouth is the breeding ground of foolishness. When Christ tells me to take on the bankers with the Dorean process who are you to condemn? Even if you are right in your understanding that my methods were unethical how do you deal with the sanction of the law? This is an individual and serious place of honest examination that a parrot will never attend. That is the rub; those who are lawless are giving all the legal advice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
"When fascism comes to america it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis 1935
The Bilge Report for Dec 27, 2007
Wherein Kurt talks much too much and continues trying to hide his crimes behind a false front of religion.
What part of the commandments, thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not lie, do you no understand, unless it is like the legal ones against not stealing or committing fraud that you don’t seem to get and that they don’t apply to you.
Just another round of lies, obfuscation, and rationalization and we are back around to the fact that you are a liar, a fraud, a thief, and a twice convicted felon, and a truly pathetic excuse for a human being.
Overnight markets:
Hong Kong down 8% tonite
Japan down 5%
This is tonite on top of last nites loss.
Expect big down in US on what else Jan -22-
What else?
Magic number
11,22,33,.....
IS IT LIVE OR IS MEMOREX?
(long link-paste on line at a time)
http://news.yahoo.com/
nphotos/White-House-
President-George-W-Bush
-Treasury-Secretary-
Henry-Paulson/photo//
080122/photos_ts_wl_afp
/87b809c83d6f41c0941928
30a9d714cd//s:/ap/2008
0122/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe
/economy_stimulus;_ylt=
Avv.UBZotK4MKALupx8ps
EaWwvIE
US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson??? listens as President George W. Bush discusses the economic downturn at the White House on January 18. EU governments have openly voiced doubts that a US stimulus plan will avert recession in the world's biggest economy as stock markets suffered a second day of heavy losses.
(AFP/File/Tim Sloan)
nice pic-does not really look like; wheres the "geek" glasses normally wears??
In fact, that is pic no. 7 of 51 in a slide show.
Every pic has the SEC TREAS in it. Check out all 51 of em.
Doesnt really look like SEC TREAS.
Kurt said…
"’Thou shall not commit murder,’ can equally be, ‘Thou shall commit murder’ tomorrow and be equally valid and righteous because of who utters it.”
and…
“Now you think you can understand His laws by traditions, regulations, procedures, or the written word? How is that possible when He can change them for any given instance?”
___________________________________
Kurt, one of the more frustrating things for me has been seeing how often you seem perfectly capable of understanding Truth but how you choose to perceive Truth in the way that you do. Yes, if God desired to change His Word tomorrow, that would certainly be within His power. But didn't John call Jesus “The Word” and didn’t Paul tell us that Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? The canon of scripture is written… it won’t be changing, no matter how much anyone may want it to.
You will probably say that I can’t comprehend your words. I do believe that you’re not trying to say that God WILL change His Word, only that He could. But if He has already told us Himself that He has not changed nor will He ever, what exactly is the point you are trying to make?
Kurt said...
That is the rub; those who are lawless are giving all the legal advice.
___________________________________
I think you've said yourself...God's law and man's law are not the same. So which are you referring to here? You insist that the courts and the banks and your detractors on this forum are lawless in God's eyes and there is no doubt an element of truth to that. But their legal advice pertains to man's laws. As much as we might aspire to merge those two sets of laws, you and I both know it will never happen as long as our world continues to reject Christ.
REAL TIME:
STOCKS DOWN OVER 400 PTS. @ 9:43 AM
It's very frustrating, Kurt. As I reread this particualr blog, there is so much truth in there but then a line or two surfaces here and there that reveals your very different perception of things and calls your motives into question again. I guess while Truth and reality are NOT subjective qualities, our perceptions of Truth and reality are.
just what is "maricrime law? said...
REAL TIME:
STOCKS DOWN OVER 400 PTS. @ 9:43 AM
___________________________________
Now would be a really good time to panic. I'm just glad there are more dumb people than smart people out there since all the smart people are no doubt liquidating their 401-K's and burying the cash in mason jars. ;-)
Scott, it still boils down to Kurt saying the laws don't apply to Kurt, yet he has been proven so very wrong, twice now in fact.
WAIT!
I just saw TREAS SEC on the noon news!
Well, I tawt I taw the SEC TREAS.....was it him?
Was it a clone?
Who nose??
LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT MARICRIME LAW:
INTRODUCTION
We have a problem and we are here to analyze that problem. Why do the courts refuse to admit certain arguments and cites of the United States Constitution? And further, find some in contempt of court if they persist in doing so? Why is there so little justice in our courts today? Our problem is, we have been fighting the wrong thing -- playing the wrong ball game.
We have found that we are not in Common Law under the Constitution -- in fact, we're not in Equity under the Constitution -- we are in Maritime Law (the Law of International Commerce -- Law Merchant, Admiralty Law, Military Law, and Prison or Warden Law).
Editors note: New information about the US Constitution has come to light since this paper was written. That information may effect the value of some of the following information. The Constitution was never properly ratified; and, is, therefore, not a proper Common Law constitution. It appears that it is being used as a Roman Law "operating orders". All such Roman Law documents (so-called constitutions), when used as the guide to operate a country under Roman Law, always contain a "notwithstanding" clause. This allows the "captain of the ship", the President, leave to disregard any provision of such a constitution at his discretion.
Just what is this Law of Admiralty? Admiralty Law encompasses all controversies arising out of acts done upon or relating to the sea, and questions of prize. Prize is that law dealing with war, and the spoils of war -- such as capture of ships, goods, materials, property -- both real and personal, etc.
Another way to understand admiralty law -- it is the command enforcement necessary to maintain the good order and discipline on a ship, especially as a ship was operated in the mid-1700's. As the availability of crewmembers was a finite problem in the middle of the ocean, the enforcement of ship law had more to do with getting wayward crewmembers back into a state of obedience and usefulness, rather than as the imposition of lawful punishments -- the latter being the purpose of law enforcement on the land.
Maritime Law is that system of law that particularly relates to commerce and navigation. Because of this fact, as you will see, you don't have to be on a ship in the middle of the sea to be under Admiralty Jurisdiction. This jurisdiction can attach merely because the subject matter falls within the scope of Maritime Law -- and, bills, notes, cheques and credits are within the scope of Maritime Law.
Admiralty Law grew and developed from the harsh realities and expedient measures required to survive at sea. It has very extensive jurisdiction of maritime cases, both civil and criminal. Because of its genesis, it contains a harsh set of rules and procedures where there is no right to trial by jury, no right to privacy, etc. In other words, there are no rights under this jurisdiction -- only privileges granted by the Captain of the maritime voyage.
For instance: in this jurisdiction there is no such thing as a right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal case -- the Captain can; however, if he wishes, grant you the privilege against self-incrimination. There's no such thing as a right to use your property on the public highways -- but the Captain may grant you the privilege to do so, if he so chooses. There is no such thing as a right to operate your own business -- only a privilege allowed as long as you perform according to the captain's regulations.
Having identified the symptoms of the problem, we must diagnose the cause to find a solution. We have been fighting the effects too long while the disease rages unabated. Since we have identified the cause, and understand its nature and characteristics, we [hopefully] can build a winning case.
In marshalling our information and facts it is necessary to go back in time. Let us examine the evidence and facts: Back at the time, just before the revolution -- when our Colonies were festering and threatening revolt from the King -- when we had the Common Law of the Colonies. The King's men came over to collect their taxes. They didn't use the Common Law on us, they applied Admiralty Law on us -- arrested people, held Star Chamber proceedings and denied us our common rights as Englishmen.
This, more than any one thing, (sure, taxation without representation was part of it) -- but it was denial of our Common Law rights by putting us under Admiralty Law wherein the King was the Chancellor. His agents deprived us of jury trials, put us on ships, sent us down to ports in the British West Indies -- where many died of fever in the holds of ships -- and very few returned. This was one of the main reasons for the revolution in 1776.
What is the Common Law? Historically, the Common Law came from the Anglo-Saxon Common Law in England. It existed, and controlled and ruled the land of England previous to the reign of William the Conqueror [1066], when the Normans conquered Anglo-Saxon England. In it was the Golden Rule (Rule of Civil Justice) that in the negative form reads: "Do not unto others as you would not have others do unto you." P.S. The positive form deals with Social Justice.
Where did this law come from -- this Anglo-Saxon Common Law? Did it come from Christianity's introduction to England? Apparently not. . . It is on record in the Vatican --- The early Christian missionaries reported that the people of Northern Germany "already have the law". It is suspect that early Hebrew tin traders taught these people the law many years before Christ.
So what has happened? The English people had this simple and pure Common Law of rights and property rights. But there also existed along side of it, even in those days, the law of commerce, which is the Maritime Law. The earliest recorded knowledge we have of Maritime Law is in the Isle of Rhodes, 900 B. C. -- then there's the Laws of Oleron, Laws of the Hanseatic League, Maritime Law, which was part and parcel of their civil law. This is the law of commerce, whereas the Common Law was the law that had to do with the land, and with the people of the land.
William the Conqueror subjugated all the Saxons to his rule except London Town. The merchants controlled the city and their walls held off the invaders. The merchants were able to provision the city by ships and William's soldiers were not able to prevail. Finally, acknowledging that he could not take the City by force, he resorted to compromise. The merchants demanded "the "Lex Mercantoria" [the Maritime Law]. This was granted and remains to this day. The inner City of London has its special law where the Merchant's Law is the law of the City of London.
Protection of their shipping industry was one of the main reasons for the resistance by the merchants of London. The Saxon Common Law had no provision for fictitious persons (companies) or limited liability; but, recognized only natural persons and full liability. The Roman Civil Law was a derivative of the Maritime Law and is the basis of Civil Law in most European countries. Identifying features of Roman Common Law are the usage of precedent and judgement by magistrate(s) in courts of Summary jurisdiction.
At Runnymede, in 1215, the Barons of England forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, one of three primary documents establishing the fundamental rights of the English people to this day, {The others being the revision of the Magna Carta in 1225, the Petition of Rights [1628] and the Bill of Rights [1689]}. The primary objective and content of the Magna Carta was the prohibition of the use of Summary jurisdiction [the Roman or Admiralty Law] as a means of unauthorized taxation and seizure of property without due process of Law or just compensation. The colonists were, on the whole, very well schooled in the Common Law and were quite aware of the wrongs that King and Parliament were committing against them. This eventually forced them to rebel.
The Common Law that we had in our land is parallel to another ancient law. You will find that when our Founding Fathers set up the declaratory trust, known to us as the Declaration of "Independence", Jefferson listed 18 grievances and in each one of these grievances he showed how we were being denied our rights as free-born Englishmen. So, he made an appeal to the nations of the world that the acts being committed against the colonists were acts committed against the Laws of Nations, and it (the Declaration of Independence) became an ordinance, a public trust, within the Law of Nations -- and those Founding Fathers knew that they would have to fight to win the independence that they had so declared.
Editors note: It now appears that Jefferson used George Mason's 'Virginia Declaration of Rights' (June 12, 1776) as the basis for his Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776); but Jefferson deleted the very specific 'property rights' included by George Mason. Read here.
After the English surrendered at Yorktown, the Articles of Confederation period followed. Then our Founding Fathers implemented the Constitution into this Public Trust, which was the mechanism to provide for us our hopes and aspirations. In the Constitution you will find principles; but, not necessarily those found in the Declaration of Independence.
Editor's note: To learn the reality of the grand deception by the Founding Fathers, read here.
Some of the writers of the Constitution thought it was a little too restrictive. It was generally conceded, for instance, that the people had the right to bear arms, but they also knew that if we ever were placed or allowed ourselves to be brought under Maritime Admiralty Law concerning our persons and property, we would have dire need of a guarantee for our rights -- thus, the ten amendments were added to the Constitution, and that became the substantive part of the Constitution. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution defines the Maritime Admiralty jurisdiction.
How have we been tricked out of our Common Law rights; and, into the Admiralty courts? How has equity as well as Admiralty been corrupted? How has the Federal Government made it almost impossible for us to receive our constitutional rights -- our substantive rights in the Constitution?
Now, to understand the Constitution -- we must examine the Declaration of Independence and those 56 men who signed it, and pledged their lives, liberty, family, property, and their honor to this sacred trust. All of these men were very knowledgeable and learned in the Common Law -- they knew the law because they studied the law, they may not have had a high school education (many of them). But they could read, and they read and studied law. They were men of the age of reason and they knew and they understood. They knew exactly what the king was doing. They knew the law.
Knowledge is a very important thing. And, as James Madison wrote years ago: "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." Education should never be terminal! The First Amendment to the US Constitution cites "Freedom of Religion" that in actual fact is "Freedom of Education" since the church controlled education, at the time of its writing.
Now, there is a chronological sequence of events that placed us where we are today. We can almost assure you that you will reject, or want to reject, parts of what you are about to see and hear. There is a theory known as the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (TCD) that holds that the mind involuntarily rejects information not in line with previous thoughts and/or actions. Brace yourself, the following message may be entirely different from anything you heretofore believed to be true. If you are unaware, you are unaware of being unaware!
Proceed to PART TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE TEN ELEVEN TWELVE THIRTEEN Any Questions? cmlaw1.htm
New updatse from "THE EDITOR"
I laughed at Paulson being dead but then i saw this...Hmmmmm, makes you think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIPVrMLXgBc
You know, THE EDITOR, writes a good "story", but whom does he really work for?
I mean, didnt Rome subjugate England a long time ago in 1066?
The King admitted as much.
So, whats the real Story here?
Does the Pops have to approve all 'stories?'
OK. So Paluson was on the evening news tonight about the rates and trying to calm the markets.
And the latest now, is that he was only "warned" with a TASER shot. WTF??
HOld on tight, becasue the PTB are going to try to drive everyone to insantiy.
CUSTOMER: "Yes, I would like to witdraw $200 from my account."
BANK CLERK: "Are you sure that you deposted your money here? We have no record of any depoists. Perhaps you deposted at one of our clone banks?"
WTF??
maricrime; Relax.
notorial dissent said...
Scott, it still boils down to Kurt saying the laws don't apply to Kurt, yet he has been proven so very wrong, twice now in fact.
8:11 AM
No argument with that. The laws of the United States are what they are. We can follow those laws or choose to live elsewhere (or go to Federal prison for breaking those laws). I guess I'm still just trying to figure out what Kurt truly believes in (probably an exercise in futility on my part). It's something the rest of of you (N.D., Neo, Judge Bean, et al) really can't relate to unless someone you knew as a kid grows up to be a Kurt F. Johnson.
Oh, yeah. A couple weeks before Xmas, someone had asked what the FRSA acronym was as used by THE EDITOR.
It stands for: Fellow of the Royal Society of the Arts.
Which arts? Cant tell you. Dont know.
Whether Bullshit Arts, Martial Arts, Arts and Crafts, Culinary Arts, take you pick.
Anybody hear what happened in court yesterday?
I'm sure by now everyone has seen the video clip of Slick Willie falling asleep at the MLK event yesterday...But just in case here it is:
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=6033276&ch=4226713&src=news
I think his mind control programing is wearing and he's starting to sleep it off...LOL!!!
just what is "maricrime law? said...
REAL TIME:
STOCKS DOWN OVER 400 PTS. @ 9:43 AM
6:44 AM
___________________________________
Hey maricrime... how's that market looking today?
Markets lookin alot better hey maricrime law why don't you answer Scott????????????????????????
Sure, the fed really knows how to manipulate it and play the game dont they?
Scott, I agree, I have no idea of where Kurt is coming from, or what he does or doesn’t believe. Nor in fact do I care.
You have the advantage of having known him of a time and place.
I am in the position of not having known him, and of having no other contact with him other than viewing his actions, both overt and covert. Thereby, my opinions are based only on what I have seen and observed. While I do not believe in letting mere appearances determine an opinion, I do believe that actions and facts speak quite loudly, and generally honestly of themselves. Those actions and facts do not paint a pretty picture of the person of Kurt Johnson. By his actions, and words, he has made it plain that he does not believe the laws of man, or the religious ones he tries to hide behind apply to him, and that none of that applies to him. Part of which is very sad, and the rest of which goes back to character, and none of it positive.
Well boy, we sure did a good job of it yesterday.
We brought the market backover 600 pts. from the bottom.
I didnt even have time to get a cup coffee working hard all day with the PPT, as you know, the Plunge Protection Team.
As you know, we use the Fed to "buy up" stocks when they fall,like a safety net.
But, those damn BASEL bankers are trying hard to short circuit us. Maybe one day we cant use our codes to access the Fed anymore to buy up the stocks and then all hell is going to break loose. That day may be coming sooner than most think....
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Popular financial expert Jim "Mad Money" Kramer has called for the Federal Reserve to be investigated in light of recent wild interest rate cuts, insinuating that the Fed is following a different agenda to the interests of the American people as the economy teeters on the brink of a recession.
"I actually want to call right here for an investigation of what the Fed did. An investigation of the institution, because I think the institution has been behind almost every boom and bust that we've had for many many years. And its really starting to [be the] time to look to see what this institution is all about," Kramer told TheStreet.com in a video report yesterday.
Kramer slammed those that gave the Fed carte blanche to take whatever action it wanted without scrutiny, stating, "You should never give a blank check to anyone - particularly someone as inexperienced as Bernanke," and questioned the bizarre slap-dash nature of recent rate cuts when compared to Bernanke's rhetoric.
"When you look at the statements that have accompanied every Fed rate cut, you could reach no conclusion other than the fact that the man has no idea what he's doing," scorned Kramer.
Kramer has turned up the heat against the Fed in recent months, famously stating they had "run amok" and were "an unregulated group of people who frankly are not responsive or held accountable to anybody," during an interview with Congressman Ron Paul.
Note Disssent
"By his actions, and words, he has made it plain that he does not believe the laws of man, or the religious ones he tries to hide behind apply to him, and that none of that applies to him."
Can you note or list those actions and words that say he does not believe in the laws of man?
Also what do you mean by "or the religious ones he tries to hide behind apply to him," ??
provb1022,
Dont you know that Notorial D doesn't answer legitimate questions? He only makes ignorant statements and judgements about Kurt and hopes no one notices they dont add up when you really examine what he says.
provb,
Pay closer attention to something other than the voices in your head.
Your question has already been answered in previous posts. I merely restated what I had already said.
kaka, go back under your rock, your tinfoil helmet doesn't protect you otherwise.
provb1022,
I should also warn you that he may say stuff like "Your question has already been answered in previous posts." when in reality all of his previous posts are the same BS as current ones.
Also keep in mind that he may end his post with childish giberish that serves as further evidence that he hasnt advanced past the 6th grade and he really cant grasp the topic of corrupt banking practices in our country.
Hopefully this information will help you recognize the nature of idiot you are dealing with when you ask him a legitimate question in the future.
Bank trader loses 7 billion, touted as the biggest fraud ever
discovered:
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/
up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&
cl=6066842&ch=4226714&src=news
Scott from Vineland: What is so difficult to understand after reading this statement below of Kurt's? Does it get any plainer as to his motivation & drive? Don't tell me you don't understand Kurt unless you choose to close your ears & eyes to what has already been said:
"When Christ tells me to take on the bankers with the Dorean process who are you to condemn? Even if you are right in your understanding that my methods were unethical how do you deal with the sanction of the law?"
Do you obey God or man & should you condemn someone when they truly believe they are following God's will? If you condemn someone like that, aren't you possibly putting yourself in the way of hellfire & damnation too by your own assault? Didn't Jesus say, you are either with me or against me? Those are your two options. If you are lukewarm, that He will "spew you out of his mouth".
You are either committed to following Him or you aren't. For someone to say they don't understand the motivation of Kurt when he has plainly said what motivates him a hundred times, is just nonsense by you or blind ignorance.
Of course you can't conceive or even possibly believe that he is following the Lord, since that would condemn your words & your own actions & then it becomes personal, doesn't it? You probably don't fare well, when things become personal would be my guestimation.
The laws of man are applicable to all, but they don't apply to Kurt Johnsons convictions on all of the counts. That's the rub, as I see it.
You have the government get grand jury indictments based upon bank fraud allegations since supposedly the banks are being violated and financially harmed by the dorean process. Without these allegations, a grand jury indictments & trial probably would have never commenced. Then the prosecution drops all of these bank fraud charges before a trial, knowing full well, that they can't be proven in court, because such charges are based upon fantasy & then they alleged mail & wire fraud based upon the mistaken bank fraud that allegedly took place, which bank fraud charges were a false assumption & charge to begin with. This is plainly playing against the rules & spirit of the Court System of fair & consistent play. The dorean clients were made to be the victim in the trial, yet no law applied to the dorean clients as being the victims of bank, wire, or mail fraud, so the Defendants weren't convicted based upon any justifiable reasons, just supposition of laws that were never proven or didn't apply.
On the contrary, I believe the laws apply to Kurt & Scott, but the laws in the trial weren't applicable to their situation of how they conducted their business. That's the rub as I see it. That's why the convictions need to be overturned or dismissed in all fairness.
But why assume that the courts are always fair & truthful in their conduct and decisions , and hence their actions are based upon reality and good law? If you believe in a lie, does that justify the penalty, and is God pleased by the Jury's conclusions in such a scenario?
habakkuk said...
Sure, the fed really knows how to manipulate it and play the game dont they?
5:30 PM
__________________________________
When the stock market improves, my puny 401-K performs better.... when the stock market tanks, mortgage rates fall, more people borrow and my job security goes up. So I reap SOME benefit no matter what happens... maybe that's why I'm such a happy guy!
If there is no bank fraud done by the Dorean Group by their presentment & paperwork challenge, then the presentments were justified and all the actions by the trustees by their filings and recordings were also justified if the banks weren't financially harmed & weren't the true victims. I don't think many can disagree, since the bank fraud charges were never proven against the Dorean Group. In fact they were dropped because they couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but this lie was needed in order to get the Grand Jury to indict the Principals.
If the dorean paperwork was justified & based upon facts, and also fair, then the Principals acted in the best interests of their clients, so the clients could never be considered the victims. If that is the case, the dorean process can't be considered a scam, hence there is no mail or wire fraud against any clients interests, although that's why the Jury convicted the Defendants, since the clients were deemed to have not been given what they expected to get, specifically a recognized and undisputed free & clear title to their property for their upfront fee. However, all the lenders recognized and agreed they didn't originate a real loan from their own assets by their default of not proving or showing the accounting records of the transaction or the need to do so. In essence this silence by the lenders, shows the UNDISPUTED STATUS of the title. The lenders silence is equated to their fraud, according to Supreme Court precendences, so the Dorean Group in fact did deliver, so where's the beef & where's the real crime?
The administrative paperwork default and notary acknowledging this default, showed who the true victor really was, and who was right in their accusations. It is still a settled matter, irregardless of the Jury convictions, so the criminal trial should have never taken place anyway. That's why the convictions are meaningless & without jurisdiction, so any conviction or sentencing is moot. You can't fairly convict and sentence when you have violated a persons rights by ignorning other laws designed to protect & especially when you deny certain administrative facts that say something completely different from the jury verdicts. The convictions aren't based upon any clear cut law, but have many holes in it's assumptions, so a long prison sentence is not necessarily an automatic thing.
The important questions are, will justice be satisfied on earth soon, and is real justice in keeping with God's will in these matters and issues, and does God really care & will He intercede to see that justice is done pertaining to this criminal trial & can that be expected soon?
notorial d. says...
You have the advantage of having known him of a time and place.
___________________________________
Actually, this is somewhat of a disadvantage when it comes to trying to understand Kurt now. Having never known him as a flesh and blood person, I'm sure I could never give him the benefit of the doubt now either, based solely on his words on this blog. So I can understand perfectly the contempt most of you feel. As you can see, it's hard enough for me to cut him any slack and I knew him as a generally decent and honest kid.
And mogel007 said...
Blah, Blah, Blah
And the people said...?
People...?
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And the people said "AMEN"!!!!!
What, no Southern Baptists on this forum?
""Thou shall not commit murder," can equally be, "Thou shall commit murder" tomorrow and be equally valid and righteous because of who utters it."
I'm disappointed you know so little of God's nature, Kurt.
Too sad.
I can only think you are as lost and foolish as moogie.
Nemo said: "Thou shall not commit murder," can equally be, "Thou shall commit murder" tomorrow and be equally valid and righteous because of who utters it."
_________________________________
Murder & killing are too different things as defined by the intent and purposes of the act. One who deliberately kills with no good motive is a murderer, but even killing is sanctioned in our society when we put to death murderers on death row in the gas chamber or killing by lethal injection. We call that justice.
A murderer will die as to things pertaining to righteousness & die a spiritual death. However, the Lord giveth & the Lord taketh away. The Lord giveth life and also takes it. Does that make God a murderer? Of course not!
You only have to read the Old Testament where the Lord commands his righteous people, the House of Israel, to go into certain towns and wipe out all the inhabitants there & even the animals too--- all life to be slain. Now, I'm sure there are good reasons for that command, in those specific instances, but the ultimate authority commanded it, so it must be righteous. Unless of course, you feel you know more than God?
Nemo, in your finite mind, that is probably murder, isn't it?
Following the Lords commands is always right, even if you are asked to do something like taking a life.
Was God committing conspiracy to commit murder, when he commanded Abraham to sacrifice Issac upon the alter? Nemo, in your finite mind, you probably think so based upon your previous comments.
Of course God was not culpable in a sin like act.
God was teaching a valuable lesson in faith & obedience and a lesson in what will come, the greatest sacrifice of all where even God allowed his Son to be slain for the sins of the world. God was teaching Abraham what even the greatest of all, God the Father, would have to give up his Son's life in order to provide ultimate salvation for the world.
Some people who read the Book of Mormon can't get past the first book where the Spirit of the Lord commands Nephi to slay the evil man, Laban, who refuses to give the historical & scriptual records to the Lord's annointed. Nephi is constrained not to follow these promptings of the Spirit intially, since he had never before taken a life, but with enough coaxing does the act & smites off the head of this man with the sword of Laben, who the Lord gave to him to slay. The justification the Lord gave to Nephi was: "It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle & perish in unbelief" by not having the important historical & scriptual words of God.
The rule is that the Lord knows best when a life has served it's purpose and needs to die & go on to the next life. It is not up to man to question God's wisdom, yet Nemo, I find that you do that. Why is that?
Is it so hard to accept whatever God does or commands is right 100% of the time, even if it seems that your are asking to do something contrary to the word.
So let’s be perfectly clear about all this Kurt, God told you it was alright to defraud people, lie and cheat and steal, file false documents, and take the Lord’s name in vane. I seem to have missed reading the codicil to the Ten Commandments stating that Kurt Johnson was exempt from them. Just curious, what he wearing a check coat with striped pants when he told you all this?
Moogey tries yet again and fails miserably
You have the government get grand jury indictments based upon bank fraud allegations since supposedly the banks are being violated and financially harmed by the dorean process.
Problem is Moogs, the majority of the charges were for wire and postal fraud in the filing of false documents. They used the mails, the telephone, and the internet as part of an organized scheme to file fraudulent documents and commit fraud. Dim and dimmer provided the proof of their fraud by their own hands.
more Moogey doubletalk
I believe the laws apply to Kurt & Scott, but the laws in the trial weren't applicable to their situation of how they conducted their business. That's the rub as I see it. That's why the convictions need to be overturned or dismissed in all fairness.
Sure you do Moogs, again the problem is, at least for you, that thankfully the real world doesn’t operate under your realm of delusion. The jury looked at what dim and dimmer did and being sane, rational, and part of the real world saw the fraud and deceit for what it was, and acted accordingly.
further Moogey nonsense
If there is no bank fraud done by the Dorean Group by their presentment & paperwork challenge, then the presentments were justified and all the actions by the trustees by their filings and recordings were also justified if the banks weren't financially harmed & weren't the true victims.
There is no if Moogs, it was fraud, two courts have ruled it was, and any sane individual who hadn’t exchanged their brains for gumdrops knows it was fraud, and twelve jurors who hadn’t a clue who the dim duo were also saw it for what it was. It was and is fraud Moogs, and no matter how you try and twist around it it still remains fraud.
more Moogey blather
If the dorean paperwork was justified & based upon facts, and also fair, then the Principals acted in the best interests of their clients, so the clients could never be considered the victims.
The Dorean paperwork was a collection of legally meaningless gibberish having no basis in fact or reality, and was treated as what it was, bird cage liner. Filing documents, using the mails, that you have no legal authority to file is fraud Moogs, that is what this is all about.
Moogey’s toupe has finally slipped
The administrative paperwork default and notary acknowledging this default, showed who the true victor really was, and who was right in their accusations. It is still a settled matter, irregardless of the Jury convictions, so the criminal trial should have never taken place anyway.
Moogs, a nonexistent legal process, notarized or not, does not trump a jury verdict or a court order, and in fact has no legal standing whatsoever. There is no such thing as your so called administrative process, and a notary has no authority to acknowledge anything of the sort. Just more meaningless nonsense, to go with a long list of meaningless nonsense.
The convictions aren't based upon any clear cut law, but have many holes in it's assumptions, so a long prison sentence is not necessarily an automatic thing.
In your dreams Moog, the law is quite clear and plain in this matter, as it has been for over two hundred years. A long prison sentence is not only possible, but highly likely given the circumstances.
Post a Comment