Easter is the day that justifies all our hope in vindication. Even if no in this life a final vindication is promised where truth is a settle matter. No more retards to contend with. Even though my eyes can’t capture all God is doing it does not mean He is doing nothing. At every turn before the why question can be formed it is answered. The next day in the mail God made it clear He had more on the horizon we couldn’t have been aware of. This change is a blessing never considered and never revealed before. If the resurrection is not a statement that God can be trusted, nothing is. Death our greatest fear defeated by the promise of God’s word. Do you really think a corrupt judge is a concern? You will see that Mr. Alsup’s evil is our greatest friend. All the traps he has laid will be his undoing. The patient son can allow God to do His work thoroughly and completely. Our prayers have been heard and God is our advocate. There is apparently still some dishonor yet for the Lord to collect. His timing maybe a mystery but it most certainly will be perfect.
As I contemplate our next moves there lies before us a path that could always be interrupted by resurrection power. If not we follow Holy Spirit guidance. Our next move will take about 90 days. The appeal is a slow process. The record can take up to 120 days to go up to the court. Then a briefing schedule invokes from here. This is probably another 90 days. Then they can take 6-9 months after briefed to decide. I will remain diligent to prevail. Anyone who knows this system knows the district courts are bullies. We got bullied but not beaten. I don’t care that path I take, God is my refuge. I have no regrets and enjoy the work of God in my life and yours. Thank you faithful ones. Don’t worry about the retards they can never know what God is up to. I follow what I hear. He who speaks loves me and is faithful. I hope you all had a great resurrection celebration. As I was writing this Scott and I were put in the hole and are permanently separated. We are both willing to bear our cross as brother or individually. Keep us in your prayers. We are strong but we also desire to remain strong. They intended evil against us they will not be able to perform. Remember the critics have no peace when their lives are peaceful, but we have peace in turmoil. Who do you think knows the Lord? I’ll try and keep you informed. The government threatens us with another civil litigation, we shall see. Until then we shall trust.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
96 comments:
"Easter is the day that justifies all our hope in vindication."
HE IS RISEN!
Praise God!
Easter is a day we use to commemorate the Resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, the resurrection that gives full proof of Christ's victory over Death and Satan and provides the living hope and proof of eternal life for all who believe in Christ, and repent of sin.
If that's the vindication of which you speak, Kurt, I can agree with you.
However, if you speak of your personal and DG's vindication, than I fear you will be disappointed. And, I would be disappointed that you would make such a crass and carnal usage of Easter.
"The next day in the mail God made it clear He had more on the horizon we couldn’t have been aware of."
Do tell. God sent you a letter?
"Our next move will take about 90 days. The appeal is a slow process. The record can take up to 120 days to go up to the court. Then a briefing schedule invokes from here. This is probably another 90 days."
Well, well. Another 90 day promise or two.
Who woulda thunk it.
Hows the wife Bruce?Count your blessings asshole.
Of course you are assuming that the appeals court will even agree to hear it, which with your batting record is assuming a great deal.
Sorry I have been away and busy. Nice to see nothing has changed or been finalized. I'll check back in late April or May. Continue doing .....not sure what it is you are all doing?
Oh yeah, I know..Stillwaiting.......
Neo said,
"I do not, though, believe for a moment the foolish argument that folks who borrow money to buy a home were cheated because of the BS line of crap that tries to convince the mentally challenged that their promissory note, of itself, paid their debt.
Want to be debt free?
Pay cash."
Great idea. Only problem is it's not possible in reality. Because of our debt based economy the purchasing power of a dollar is significantly reduced. Probably 60% is servicing debt. Let's say we apply your solution......
Average cost of a home just to be easy we'll say $200k
Average US houshold income $50k. Let's say you are a very disciplined consumer and you manage to obliterate the national average of savings which is -.5% and you can save up 20% of your income every year. It will only take you 20 years to get that house you were saving for, just in time to have the kids start saving for their own.
Get real Neo. That's not possible today. How many people were saying before the Boston teaparty, "If you don't like the tax don't drink tea".
There's a point where action has to be taken. Throwing the tea into the harbor isn't the best solution, but it sent the message. Similairly the "fraud" perpetrated by DG sent a message.
I get tired of the standard christian phrase "just pray for them" Our leaders are out of control and we endure thousands time worse than the founders of the country endured. If they (the founders) were Godly men why didn't they just pray for the king rather than pick a fight? How can we claim to be founded by Godly men on Godly principles if they were disobedient to the scripture?
efthel,
you are not very smot.
its not that neo dislikes the dg process, or think it a scam.
go easy on him.
neo really works for the bankruptcy lawyers.
so rather than see somenone get out of their mtg. by using the dg process, he gets paid fees if you yooze a bankuptcy lawyer and get out of you mtg.
see, hes just out to make a bux.
the result is the same, only with his method, you gotta pay a layer to got you out to file banktuncy. see?
this was all splained on this blaaaagh before.
ND,
You claim who cares about the debt as long as it is managed.....
There comes a point of critical mass.Where it can't be maintained. We are nearing that point.
The depressions were caused by manipulation of the currency. Not just natural factors.
You excuse this grave situation with "no more than other industries"....
Kurt committed fraud no more than the average loan officer. Fudging incomes and generating fake employer letters. As a matter of fact if we were counting how many times a business committed fraud, DG is nothing compared to the average loan broker's boiler room. And the same with "finance" in big auto dealers. They make the numbers fit and everybody knows it.
Don't act so righteous and then say well "their doing it too"...
I would expect more from such grand intelligence.
As for the theological questions on whether God can direct someone to lie and file fake paperwork....
Well we have Rahab who lied to hide the spies... she's mentioned in the "hero's of faith" and became a part of the geneology of Christ.
David lied and acted crazy to avoid a confrontation. Committed adultry and murder to cover it up. And he's known as a man after God's own heart.
When the guards came looking for Paul they lowered him down the wall and said he wasn't there...
I don't think God tells people to lie, but HE uses controversial men and methods....
Stillwaiting3, actually, you might want to wait until June when the next round of fun starts, the divvying up of the remains to the victims, and the restitution orders, like that is ever going to happen.
The only thing that is going to happen between now and then is a great deal more bloviation from the head of the dim duo, who by this point are on their own and one their way to separate prisons and cells .
I suspect we will hear a continuing litany of nonsense from Kurt and sock puppet Moogie about how they will be exonerated on appeal, much the same way Al Capone was innocent of the St Valentine's Day Massacre which will come to the same result. They'll still be in prison, and one of their own making.
As we speak, the state courts are dealing with the mess left behind, striking down one fraudulent (that's right Moogie, I said fraudulent-the exact same language the court used when it disposed of them) mortgage release after another as a fraudulent transaction which just adds to Kurt's claims of legality and legitimacy of his process-NOT.
And then there will be the inevitable screams of anguish when the appeals court declines to waste its time on more of Kurt's gibberish.
Ethel said
There comes a point of critical mass.Where it can't be maintained. We are nearing that point.
True, however that implies that there aren’t sufficient assets to back up the debt, and a total collapse of the economy. Considering your track record on everything else I am not inclined to take your hysteria at anything more than that.
and said
The depressions were caused by manipulation of the currency. Not just natural factors.
If this is what you believe, then you truly haven’t a clue. Try reading a little history before you make your next attempts at this.
and said
You excuse this grave situation with "no more than other industries"...
I am excusing nothing, you were acting like it was soley the banking industry, it isn’t, and I am not excusing it, I merely state that it exists.
and said
Kurt committed fraud no more than the average loan officer. Fudging incomes and generating fake employer letters. As a matter of fact if we were counting how many times a business committed fraud, DG is nothing compared to the average loan broker's boiler room. And the same with "finance" in big auto dealers. They make the numbers fit and everybody knows it.
While lying (misstating information) on a loan application is still fraud, it is not in the caliber as the whole sale fraud affecting titles and mortgages that Kurt accomplished, and it still counts as fraud, so there is no excuse for it either.
and said
Don't act so righteous and then say well "their doing it too"...
Since I never made the statement, it is irrelevant, and since I was not defending it even less so.
and said
I would expect more from such grand intelligence.
So far I’ve gotten about what I would have expected from you.
"...the "fraud" perpetrated by DG sent a message."
DG sent nothing but useless paper, Ethel.
Like it or don't, they accomplished nothing positive.
Also, the debt-based economy is comprised of much more than just house purchases.
Not only are folks financing more house than they can afford, but, doing the same with automobiles and toys they can't afford and can live without.
Want to be mortgage free?
RENT.
As we speak, the state courts are dealing with the mess left behind, striking down one fraudulent (that's right Moogie, I said fraudulent-the exact same language the court used when it disposed of them) mortgage release after another as a fraudulent transaction which just adds to Kurt's claims of legality and legitimacy of his process-NOT.
get over it. it really doesnt matter, state courts, fed courts, i
IT MIGHT AS WELL BE COURTS ON MARS.....
NO MATTER WHICH COURTS STRIKE IT DOWN...ONLY ONE THING IS CERTAIN, ALTHOUGH I WILL ADMIT THE TIMING IS UNCERTAIN....
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANKING SYSTEM AS YOU KNOW IT,
I-S C-O-M-I-N-G D-O-W-N...
ITS NOT IF, BUT WHEN...
GET OVER IT!!!
NOW TAKE THAT TO THE "BANK"
NOW THERE IS A ROCK OF REVELATION FOR YOU!!!
just make it easy on youself....
just repete after me....
ITS COMING DOWN!
ITS COMING DOWN!
ITS COMING DOWN!
ITS COMING DOWN!
ITS COMING DOWN!
ITS COMING DOWN!
ITS COMING DOWN!
ITS COMING DOWN!
...waht did Billy Jack say in the movie....
"...and there aint' a damn thing that you can do about it!"
LOL!
they can keep people locked in jail for 100 years, judges can rule against it here and there,
but its still.....
C-O-M-I-N-G D-O-W-N!
Mr. Wizard behing the curtain, just like junge been, you better put you cloths on, becasue the curtin is
COMING DOWN.
and we dun wanna see you naked in you birthday suit...pleeeeze!
uggggggghhhhhh.........
the emperor hath no cloths.....
the emperor hath no cloths.....
and as toto really doesnt like you at all....watch out when he pull the curtin down, that he dun jump up and bite you on you wankie.....he rember when you try to scare him....he got it in for you good!
all you smoke and miras wont save you from tooto.
but dun worry, totoo turn you into a yoonick.
;O; LOL!
THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANKING SYSTEM AS YOU KNOW IT,
I-S C-O-M-I-N-G D-O-W-N...
ITS NOT IF, BUT WHEN...
GET OVER IT!!!
...in other words,let me make it easy for some of you who have trouble understnaing simple english...like ricky used to say..."let me 'splain it you......
if you now make you money dependant on the corrupt FR sytstem, bankers, morgag lenders, mtg. brokers, corrupt judges who uphole the sytem....
in other words, you should start looking for a new line of wok....i mean work...then again maybe i meen wok...you gonna have a better shot at working in a chinsense joint and cooking chinsey food in a wok....
"i'll have 2 egg rools to go pleese....
"dont rush, take you time...i know you used to be a mortgage broker and now it hard to work for a living....
>>>ITS COMING DOWN<<<
i guss that i can see the day when christians will actually be praying for these types, as wehn the dam finally brakes, and all the wafer comes out, then all those poor familis who loose they huses, and families and children on the street...and some didnt make it...well, better these mortgage types really learn how to use a wok...casue theres lots of non christians out there...and when they find out all the pain was needlesssly casued to them and families, these people will come looking for these banker types with what you call them chinense nifes-ginsu, jinsoo, or something?
and they will cut off their 0-0 nuggets and stir fry them in a wok.
at that point, even real christians will have to pray for the safety of them and thier family.
of course, still god might overrule them. in that case, they will make gonad teriyaki in the wok.
Neo said,
"...the "fraud" perpetrated by DG sent a message."
DG sent nothing but useless paper, Ethel.
Like it or don't, they accomplished nothing positive.
Also, the debt-based economy is comprised of much more than just house purchases.
Not only are folks financing more house than they can afford, but, doing the same with automobiles and toys they can't afford and can live without.
Want to be mortgage free?
RENT.
It's really such a simple solution right. Rent??? From someone who runs a real estate investing website???
Get real. Whether there's people who spend too much or not that's not the problem.
Are you afraid that if you admit the system is fatally flawed you would be siding with Kurt?
I am amazed how you side with atheists and evolutionists as you unite in this cause!!!
Your buddies at quatloos mock you. You are a believer and you are an mlm promoter which makes you a scammer in their eyes. It's funny how you have a little cooperative with people you are opposed to in world view. For what cause? To protect people from falling for DG. Well that's been accomplished so now you can look at reality. There's a bigger problem. You used to be irate over how many people lost their homes because of DG.
Read the papers. People aren't losing their homes over dg and it's a nationwide epidemic with world wide implications. Oh yeah, they are passing laws to give the FED MORE control to protect us from these problems. The fed caused it. Let's give the fox more control over the chickens nest. Meanwhile, Neo says if you don't like it rent. That's the american way. Get real Neo. You come here over and over for years now for what purpose? The guys are locked up for 20 years. So your purpose is achieved. Why not have a realistic conversation about the reality we face. It's a topic that's relevent, timely, and directly related to this blog.
Nd,
There are not sufficient assets to back up the debt. That is the problem. Fractional reserve banking is dependant on debt. The only thing that keeps it running is more debt. You get wrapped up in details over what the note accomplishes, but you ignore the big picture. Common sense tells you that DG can't get houses for free, so you can't except that they are correct about the mechanics of banking. Well, it's correct. Whether people should be allowed to use their rules against them or not is debatable and obviously punishable. But, the fact that the creation of money for profit is wrong is a fact. It is the root of corruption. All the other industries are subserviant to banking.
The depressions were caused by manipulating or revaluing currency. Read the history yourself. Long explanations of the factors in the years preceeding don't change the fact that the cause was a revaluation. Giving the reasons for the revaluation don't make it the cause of the depression.
Maybe you don't "excuse" the banks. You certainly defend them. I guess I should call you a banking advocate.
I think the loan officers did more to affect the industry. In your scenario the DG was a waste, never accomplished anything and the paperwork was ignored. Most loan brokers put out more in a month than DG did all together. Loan officers making up information knowing that the owner couldn't afford the payments, also knowing that they would use the money from the refi to make payments and then come back for another one when it got low.. And each time the loan broker makes more commission than DG collected. The tens of thousands of foreclosures and all the side affects from them were caused by loan officers not dg.
It's funny to me that you say from "my track record" and you've gotten what you expect from me. You don't know me. And I don't have a track record for you to examine. Let's stay on topic and not be so condescending. If anyone has a track record it's you. I could go back and read hundreds of very long posts from you. Almost all of them highlighting the hatred and indignation you feel towards Kurt. Well, that's over now right. Kurt is in jail for a long time. You are kicking a dead horse by spending so much time rebutting every word he types on his blog.
Let's have a real discussion about a real problem, cause this ones been resolved right?
Scott from Vineland,
You mentioned before you disagree with Kurt's opinion on how banking works.
Please view the video on this link and give your opinion.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/135.html
Anyone else who wants to play Siskel and Ebert feel free.
↓↓ITS COMING DOWN↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
AND IT AINT RAIN IM TALKIN' ABOUT......
"toto, go underneath the curtin and BITE whomever you find there!"
LOLO!
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓
Ethel.....Thanks for the link on the brass check TV video. Very interesting even though I knew most of it from my research and studies.
On a side note to the above. I am stillwaiting (no intent there) for Chase to send me the paid off note and the new note with them after my loan was transfered to them from the mortgage company that I just did my loan with in Oct 2007.
On the note prior to the refi in Oct - Chase said it would take 4 to 6 months and I would need to do that in writing in order to get it. now that was after a long discussion were they said they would send me the original (not a copy) and sent me a copy. I explained I didn't want a copy I wanted the original - oh no problem and again a copy. Last phone call was the 4 to 6 months in writing ordeal.
Now that they have my loan again I have asked for paperwork showing were I have a loan with them. Ie., A Note. Something signed by me and them. I even said if they would send me a note or something with the banks signature on it I would gladly (not really) sign it and send it back with my payment. After several go a rounds on the phone then they tell me will - no we are a servicing company. I said so you are serving my loan. (sort of like when the neighbors bull would come down and service our cows). She said yes. I said ok send me some paperwork from the lender that show who my loan is with, their signatures, where I sign so I can make a copy for my records and please show where it says that your department within Chase is serving my loan.
To date I have received Nothing. In another day or two I will be filling an affidavit with the court showing no compliance with Chase. Reason here is to make it a public record in case and they will try to screw my credit rating, which is in the upper 700 to low 800 range. Never missed payment on anything.
So I am stillwaiting........
Still waiting,
Glad you liked the vid. What did you think of their theory for a non profit money system?
I suppose you will be waiting a very long time to get that paperwork. It is an interesting endeavor to get that copy. Keep us posted on that...
thus spake Ethel
There are not sufficient assets to back up the debt. That is the problem.
Your opinion, neither reality or fact.
again
Fractional reserve banking is dependent on debt. The only thing that keeps it running is more debt.
I’m sorry, did you manage to miss out on the last thousand years of so of history? Banking has always been based on fractional reserve in one form or another, banking is and always has been based on the lending and changing of money.
and again
You get wrapped up in details over what the note accomplishes, but you ignore the big picture.
The only thing relevant here is the note and what it accomplishes, the big picture as you put is beside the point.
and again
Common sense tells you that DG can't get houses for free, so you can't except that they are correct about the mechanics of banking.
No, reality tells me that the DG stuff was nonsense, just as it tells me that their theories on money and banking are equally nonsense.
and again
But, the fact that the creation of money for profit is wrong is a fact. It is the root of corruption.
More nonsense based on hallucination.
and again
The depressions were caused by manipulating or revaluing currency.
Sure they were, the economic collapses that preceded them were just illusions.
and again
You certainly defend them. I guess I should call you a banking advocate.
Your confusion and delusion is not my problem or concern.
and again
I think the loan officers did more to affect the industry.
Your point about the loan industry is that one fraud excuses another, which it doesn’t, and the brokers defrauded themselves if anyone, whereas the Dorean dimbos were defrauding other people.
Your track record as you put it, is that you do not know what you are talking about, you live in a fantasy world, your critical thinking is non existent, your ability to draw inference non existent, and you are border line illiterate, is that sufficient for you. You are not amusing, nor are you worth wasting much time on. Life’s tough, you’re boring.
FYI, I have no feelings whatsoever towards or about Kurt, I find his actions offensive and criminal, his con repulsive, and those who try and excuse what he did and his lies and prevarications since appalling.
↓↓ITS COMING DOWN↓↓
↓
i like what dr. gilac said, so i thought i would post.
had to beam back down for a sec. forgot my toothbrush.
well, time to go back ↑
see ya!
Ethel....I liked the video, did some reading on him and forwarded the link to several of my friends. Not long ago in the area where I live the local channel had a piece on TV that ran for about a week or two about the Fed Reserve and the IRS. On it was Ron Paul, Sherry Jackson and others talking about the scam and illegal activities of both. I was floored when I watched it but not as much as the person who called me yelling into the phone to change the channel so I could watch it. Quite interesting.
As for my endeavor - it is a simple approach and may go nowhere. Yet this morning I heard them talking about contracts on TV and both parties signing it to make it legal. Thought that was interesting. In the meantime, I continue to bank away that money should this approach go south and I am will be Stillwaiting.........
According to this news article, the Dorean clients weren't victims, since all clients "played a part", merely by their participation & expectations, so you wonder why the court thought so. Course with no real victim, there isn't any mail fraud:
http://chuckgallagher.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/drowing-in-debt-eliminate-it-founders-of-nationwide-debt-elimination-scheme-dorean-group-sentenced-to-federal-prison-white-collar-crime-speaker-chuck-gallagher-says-theres-no-such-thing/
To say the dorean clients paid no part in the process whatsoever would be untruthful IN THE VERY LEAST. Did all Dorean clients sign documents allowing the Dorean trustees to send out a presentment to the banks, giving the dorean trustees "power of attorney"? Was a paper signed by the client giving the dorean trustees the control benefits of any financial damages against their lenders? Didn't all clients understand that 1/2 of these damages would go to the Dorean Group & 1/2 would eventually go to the client & Brokers? Wasn't there a financial participation at all times that was understood from the very beginning? The answer of course is yes again. Did all clients pay a fee for a service, which service was the expectations to get their mortgage discharged? Of course they did. Did many later clients even file the discharge of mortgage or deed or reconveyance themselves & pay the recording fee? Of course they did. Did many if not most clients file & record an addendum to their mortgage or deed of trust which in effect said in legal language that the borrower provided the funds for his own loan, hence he is the lender & creditor in the mortgage transaction in order to clarify who was entitled to mortgage payments? Yes again. There are many other examples too. I don't believe even one client could legitimately claim he was a victim.
"Now let me be clear - you don’t have to commit the crime in order to have played a part in the overall drama. And, if, IN ANY WAY, you played a part, then you can’t be a VICTIM. If you played a role in a scheme to get legitimate debt eliminated, you are not victimized as the motivation was to victimize the debt holder. While I know that statement will be unpopular, it is nonetheless right."
The first sentence should read: "To say the clients PLAYED no part...."
Stillwaiting - First suggestion: Get off the phone in these situations.
Second suggestion: Become familiar with RESPA and the QWR (Qualified Written Request) process.
Unfortunately, they ignore you and can even lie to you all they want on the phone, but they have deadlines to acknowledge and respond in writing to QWRs.
↓↓ITS COMING DOWN↓↓
Judge...thanks for the info. Got a call today from Chase. Mostly prompts but I play the stupid kid act and then the distressed old man act and then the my spouse is worried sick act. Lots of fun.
Ethel.....I know a lot about Barter and believe in it and know lots of people that use it.
But for now, well, I am stillwaiting........
If Notarial Dissent is correct on one point, the financial institutions were NOT THE VICTIMS of the trial & I maintain that the dorean clients were not the victims EITHER according to the logic of the editor of the post I quoted earlier.
So in essence, according to the court record, THERE ARE NO REAL VICTIMS because even though the financial institutions were originally pled as the victims, that claim was dropped when the bank fraud charges were dropped & WERE NEVER ATTEMPTED TO BE PROVEN. The prosecution said in testimony in the court that the financial institutions were the party that needed to be protected, but since they weren't the victim, there's nothing to protect.
Also no validation or evidence was presented in court as evidence, BOOK KEEPING RECORDS, testimony OR affidavits to show that the financial instituions were the victims & no financial damage was ever assessed according to any court evidence. There is no evidence of any notes being validated as the ownership of the financial institutions either since none of that paperwork was presented either. It was PRESUMED by the Court that the financial institutions pled, brought forth a proper claim as holder in due course.
If you have no real victims, there can't be a scam, nor can there be any mail fraud or even any conspiracy to commit, mail fraud or bank fraud.
If one accepts the premise of the Dorean Group that the promissory note provided the funds for the loan, than the deed of trust need not be paid off, or one should say, IT WAS ALREADY PAID OFF in the beginning by the value of the promissory note, so when a document was filed by the Dorean Group & recorded saying that the indebtedness had been paid off, this is not a FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT or a document showing an untruth.
After all, at closing the trustor/alleged borrower signed a statement SAYING THAT THE HOME WAS FREE & CLEAR & that the trustor was warranting title to the lender, so there is proof right there that the home was free & clear. How can the borrower WARRANT THE TITLE, if the home is not free & clear at the time of closing? What paid off the home? It could be nothing other than the value of the promissory note. This representation or warranty was even before (as much as 3 days BEFORE), any alleged loan was given because a borrower has a 3 day right of recission AFTER HE SIGNS ALL OF THE CLOSING PAPERWORK. The LENDERS CHECK OR loan is not funded until 3 days later. Either the promissory note funded the loan, OR THE PAPERWORK THE LENDER MADE YOU SIGN & REPRESENT TO BE TRUE, IS A FRAUD. Which is it? Either way, the lender is perpetrating mail fraud. There is no other conclusion.
According to the correct & legal interpretation of the mail fraud statutes, the financial instituions have to be the victim of the mail fraud in order for the Federal Court to have jurisdiction & they weren't the victim according to the court evidence.
If the dorean clients were the victim, any one of the 50 States or Attorney General in these States would have filed charges against the Dorean Group to protect the public interest & this never happened with the exception of North Carolina, who was only interested in getting an injunction against the Dorean Group to operate in that State & they also proved nothing of relevance & didn't bring any crimes against the Dorean Group.
Without any subject matter jurisdiction from the federal court, the petite jury becomes irrelevant OR MOOT OR NONEFFECTIVE too as to their findings of guilty on mail fraud or conspiracy. The appellate court will uphold this conclusion.
The question needs to be answered, Mail fraud against whom? Conspiracy against whom? If no financial institutions are damaged by bank fraud, according to the dorean process, did the clients commit conspiracy against themselves if you assume the dorean clients were the true & real victims? Course that doesn't make any logical sense.
How about mail fraud against the property rights of the Dorean clients? What property right was violated by what the Dorean Group did? Any lenders that foreclosed did that on their own & this wasn't due to any acts the Dorean Group did, so clients losing their homes is not the fault of the dorean group. The Dorean Group didn't stop clients from continuing to make monthly payments.
In fact if the homes were free & clear, than why should more extortion money be paid if but only paid under duress & under protest because the System is unwilling to acknowledge the truth & real facts.
If the financial institutions had a property right that was defrauded & the financial institutions suffered a loss through documents the dorean group filed, it was never shown, itemized, or proven, however, when the bank fraud charges were dropped in court, any allegation of loss towards the financial institutions became a moot point & any subject matter of the court was lost. At that point, the defendants really should have been released as free men, but of course were not.
By the way, has anyone heard if Farrel Lecompte was sentenced? We know all the other defendants were sentenced & that Bill Julian got 5 years.
If not, is there any good reasons to postpone this sentencing on Farrell or what is the thinking of the court here? If he has been sentenced, why is there nothing said about this anywhere as to what sentence he was given?
Course come to think of it, what sentence did Sarah Magoon get? Nothing maybe because she didn't show up in court? Or maybe this sentencing is delayed because she didn't show up, or they couldn't find her, who really knows. This all seems peculiar to me.
Moogie ponders:
"Did many if not most clients file & record an addendum to their mortgage or deed of trust which in effect said in legal language that the borrower provided the funds for his own loan, hence he is the lender & creditor in the mortgage transaction in order to clarify who was entitled to mortgage payments? Yes again."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I see stupid people.
Moogie drones on:
"If one accepts the premise of the Dorean Group that the promissory note provided the funds for the loan, than the deed of trust need not be paid off, or one should say, IT WAS ALREADY PAID OFF in the beginning by the value of the promissory note"
Can you really be this stupid, moogs?
...and on:
"After all, at closing the trustor/alleged borrower signed a statement SAYING THAT THE HOME WAS FREE & CLEAR & that the trustor was warranting title to the lender, so there is proof right there that the home was free & clear. How can the borrower WARRANT THE TITLE, if the home is not free & clear at the time of closing? What paid off the home? It could be nothing other than the value of the promissory note."
The title is researched to determine if their are any lien holders that would encumber the sellers rights to convey title.
DG's bogus filings only served to screw up titles royally.
Dude, you are lost in so many ways.
THE GREAT ND SEES FIT TO SPEAK TO THE MASSES OF UNEDUCATED......
thus spake Ethel
There are not sufficient assets to back up the debt. That is the problem.
Your opinion, neither reality or fact.
ARE YOU BEING DUMB ON PURPOSE? WHAT HAPPENS IF EVERYONE GOES TO THE BANK TO WITHDRAW THEIR MONEY AT THE SAME TIME? THERE'S NOT EVEN ENOUGH MONEY PRINTED, LET ALONE ENOUGH "ASSETS". WHO'S ILLITERATE?
again
Fractional reserve banking is dependent on debt. The only thing that keeps it running is more debt.
I’m sorry, did you manage to miss out on the last thousand years of so of history? Banking has always been based on fractional reserve in one form or another, banking is and always has been based on the lending and changing of money.
DIDN'T MISS IT FUKTARD. MOST THOUSAND YEAR OLD SYSTEMS CAN BE BETTERED OR IMPROVED. THERE'S A BETTER SOLUTION. JUST CAUSE IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY DOESN'T MAKE IT GOOD.
and again
You get wrapped up in details over what the note accomplishes, but you ignore the big picture.
The only thing relevant here is the note and what it accomplishes, the big picture as you put is beside the point.
???? SO THE NOTE IS THE ORIGIN OF ALL MONEY? WHAT HAPPENS BEFORE IT IS CIRCULATED? I GUESS IT DOESN'T MATTER????
and again
Common sense tells you that DG can't get houses for free, so you can't except that they are correct about the mechanics of banking.
No, reality tells me that the DG stuff was nonsense, just as it tells me that their theories on money and banking are equally nonsense.
DON'T CONFUSE THE THEORY OF THE APPLICATION AND IMPLICATIONS WITH THE REALITY OF WHAT HAPPENS.
and again
But, the fact that the creation of money for profit is wrong is a fact. It is the root of corruption.
More nonsense based on hallucination.
FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING IS A HALLUCINATION? PEOPLE MAKE PROFITS IN THE ORIGINATION OF MONEY.
and again
The depressions were caused by manipulating or revaluing currency.
Sure they were, the economic collapses that preceded them were just illusions.
EITHER WAY ACCORDING YOU THE GREAT SYSTEM OF FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING WAS IN PLACE AND OPERATING SO THESE THINGS SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED IN THE LAST THOUSAND YEARS OR SO.
and again
You certainly defend them. I guess I should call you a banking advocate.
Your confusion and delusion is not my problem or concern.
I AM NOT CONFUSED THAT YOU CAN ONLY DEFEND THE BANKING INDUSTRY. THE TOPIC WASN'T ABOUT KURT. ABOUT THE INDUSTRY IN GENERAL. YOU SAID "THERE'S CORRUPTION IN OTHER INDUSTRIES". THAT'S AN EXCUSE, HENCE YOU BEING THE BANKERS ADVOCATE..
and again
I think the loan officers did more to affect the industry.
Your point about the loan industry is that one fraud excuses another, which it doesn’t, and the brokers defrauded themselves if anyone, whereas the Dorean dimbos were defrauding other people.
FIRST THAT WAS YOUR POINT DUMBO. I USED THIS SCENARIO TO OFFSET YOUR "CORRUPTION IN OTHER INDUSTRIES" GARBAGE. YOUR ARGUMENT NOT MINE. YOU DISAGREE WITH IT WHEN SOMEONE ELSE SAYS IT, BUT YOU USE IT TO ADVOCATE THE BANKER... THE MORTGAGE BROKERS DIDN'T DEFRAUD THEM SELVES BECAUSE THEY ORIGINATE LOANS, NOT ACTUALLY GIVE OUT THE MONEY. THEY SOLD THE PAPER TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO FUNDED IT. THEY GOT THEIR FEES AND MANY OF THEM CLOSED UP SHOP, NOW THE HOMEOWNERS CAN'T MAKE THE PAYMENTS AND THE BANKS ARE RECORDING BILLION DOLLAR LOSSES. DO YOU NEED MORE EXPLANATION? HARD TO FATHOM YOU CAN'T FIGURE THAT OUT.
Your track record as you put it, is that you do not know what you are talking about, you live in a fantasy world, your critical thinking is non existent, your ability to draw inference non existent, and you are border line illiterate, is that sufficient for you. You are not amusing, nor are you worth wasting much time on. Life’s tough, you’re boring.
FYI, I have no feelings whatsoever towards or about Kurt, I find his actions offensive and criminal, his con repulsive, and those who try and excuse what he did and his lies and prevarications since appalling.
I AM BORDER LINE ILLITERATE, BUT YOU END SENTENCES WITH A QUESTION WITHOUT QUESTION MARKS. AND GREAT USE OF A BIG WORD THAT DOESN'T EXIST IN THE FORM YOU USED...PREVARICATIONS...DOES THE S MAKE IT PLURAL OR POSSESSIVE? YOU ARE HATE FILLED AND YOUR LYING BY SAYING YOU HAVE NO FEELINGS ABOUT KURT ALSO. OUT OF THE ABUNDANCE OF THE HEART THE MOUTH SPEAKS. YOU HAVE HUNDREDS OF VENOMOUS POSTS FOR EVERY WORD WRITTEN BY HIM.
LET'S EXAMINE YOUR GREAT INTELLIGENCE... YOU SAY THIS WAS A USELESS SCAM WHICH ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING, EXCEPT WASTING PEOPLES TIME. YET YOU SPEND AN AWFUL LOT OF YOUR OWN TIME ON HERE TO ARGUE WITH THE VILLAGE IDIOTS. MAKES SENSE. MAYBE YOUR A BULLY. YOU LIKE PICKING ON PEOPLE DUMBER THAN YOU? I AWAIT YOUR GLORIOUS AND OTHERWORLDLY SUPER INTELLIGENT RESPONSE.
↓↓ITS COMING DOWN↓↓
what is?
the FRS.
oh, you meen the Federal Reserve Systmem?
NO.
the Federal Reenslavement System.
the yoke was removed over 2000 years ago, but the FRS tried to reattach it.
but, no matter....
↓↓ITS COMING DOWN↓↓
why still bother arguing back and forth....let it rest already....thats why SOP beamed up....he figured, whats the point, because....
↓↓ITS COMING DOWN↓↓
ya' know, i am not so sure that SOP beamed up....he seem to locked in to the HS....maybe he was "raptured". ;-)
Moogie wonders:
"By the way, has anyone heard if Farrel Lecompte was sentenced?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ancient Chinese Secret
;-)
Prevarications
intr.v. pre·var·i·cat·ed, pre·var·i·cat·ing, pre·var·i·cates
To stray from or evade the truth; equivocate. See Synonyms at lie2.
[Latin praevricr, praevrict- : prae-, pre- + vricre, to straddle (from vricus, straddling, from vrus, bent).]
pre·vari·cation n.
pre·vari·cator n.
ND simply used a plural form of the word 'preverication' - evasions of truth.
hth, Ethel
Why are you YELLING?
Just using caps to differentiate between my post and his...he's smart enough to not need any help. I don't stick up for Mogel, why does ND need your help?
Care to comment on the last post I made directed towards you?
dr. ira gilac said...
why still bother arguing back and forth....let it rest already....thats why SOP beamed up....he figured, whats the point, because....
↓↓ITS COMING DOWN↓↓
SOP must of gotten a kick out of that one. because as....
↓↓ITS COMING DOWN↓↓
SOP WAS....
↑↑GOING UP↑↑
LOL!!
did jugde full bean or 1/2 slop rule aginst you?
www.voidjudgements.net/
tell da judge that you want to see the original toylit paper that he writ his dision on, not a copy of it. ;-)
as prices of everthins goes ↑
soon will down to 1/8 slop.
you get less for you $$$$, i mean $$
as the chinsense say....
it do to infwaytion.....
soon yu will knead an iq of 142 just 2 reed this blaaaahg......it will b eesier to slave the roobix kyoob wile eeting n eggrool.
speeking of eggrools, here is a mofo dat yo do no wa no fo wo
www.youtube.com/watch?
v=T6UTGkC73GE
dees gee 1/2 sum c ree us n eh gee in hiss hans....
if he hit yoo, yoo hed will esplode!
mogel007 said...
If one accepts the premise of the Dorean Group that the promissory note provided the funds for the loan, than the deed of trust need not be paid off, or one should say, IT WAS ALREADY PAID OFF in the beginning by the value of the promissory note, so when a document was filed by the Dorean Group & recorded saying that the indebtedness had been paid off, this is not a FRAUDULENT DOCUMENT or a document showing an untruth.
===========================
But the only folks that accept that "premise" are people that have less than two brain cells to rub together. How many times and how many ways do you have to be told that the promissory note does not provide the funds? It is a promise to pay and the loan is secured by the property.
Right to rescind applies whenever there is non- purchase money security interest in consumer's principal residence (i.e., home equity loans/lines of credit/home improvement loans, etc.)
Pacer shows Lecompte's record as sealed.
And here is what happens afterwards:
http://tinyurl.com/37yxd7
out of the mouth of Moogie
To say the dorean clients paid no part in the process whatsoever would be untruthful IN THE VERY LEAST.
At last, truth, but not from Moogie.
more Moogie mouthings
Did many later clients even file the discharge of mortgage or deed or reconveyance themselves & pay the recording fee? Of course they did. Did many if not most clients file & record an addendum to their mortgage or deed of trust which in effect said in legal language that the borrower provided the funds for his own loan, hence he is the lender & creditor in the mortgage transaction in order to clarify who was entitled to mortgage payments?
This happened, but not to my knowledge the way you are claiming, the dim duo did all the filing as far as I have been able to determine, if you have proof otherwise by all means, put it out.
It would really help Moogs, when you get around to plagiarizing from someone and then mangling it with your twisted interpretations and wishful thinking that you at least do a little better job of it.
Moogie tries to score a point and fails miserably
I maintain that the dorean clients were not the victims EITHER according to the logic of the editor of the post I quoted earlier.
As far as the trial was concerned, neither the lenders, or the clients were considered to be victims as that was not what the charges were in relation to, the charges related to having broken Federal law in using the mails to file fraudulent documents.
Moogie very unclear on the concept
So in essence, according to the court record, THERE ARE NO REAL VICTIMS
The court record is mum for the simple reason that it was not part of the trial.
Again Moogs, the trial was about MAIL FRAUD, and nothing else so nothing else was relevant to the charges. You can rant all you want, but it has nothing to do with the actual trial.
Moogie still very unclear on the concept
If one accepts the premise of the Dorean Group that the promissory note provided the funds for the loan, than the deed of trust need not be paid off, etc
The problem is, that no one sane accepts the premise as it is false, has been repeatedly proven so, and as we speak the filed documents are being ruled fraudulent and void in every court they are brought in to.
Moogie very unclear on the concept
According to the correct & legal interpretation of the mail fraud statutes, the financial instituions have to be the victim of the mail fraud in order for the Federal Court to have jurisdiction & they weren't the victim according to the court evidence.
According only to you, any other sane party understands them to refer to the using of the mails to commit fraud.
and still
If the dorean clients were the victim, any one of the 50 States or Attorney General in these States would have filed charges against the Dorean Group
Not necessarily, at least one of the clients would have had to have filed a complaint with the appropriate DA first, and curiously enough, that didn’t seem to happen.
Moogie very unclear on the concept
Without any subject matter jurisdiction from the federal court, the petite jury becomes irrelevant OR MOOT OR NONEFFECTIVE too as to their findings of guilty on mail fraud or conspiracy. The appellate court will uphold this conclusion.
The conspiracy and mail fraud were all that was necessary to grant jurisdiction, and go to trial. As to the rest, only in your dreams.
Moogie very very unclear on the concept
The question needs to be answered, Mail fraud against whom?
The mail fraud constituted the sending of the fraudulent documents the violation was against the statutes, there is no requirement there even be a victim, the filing of the documents constituted the crime.
per Neo
Can you really be this stupid, moogs?
After all the evidence to affirmative we’ve had, you even have to ask?
and Ethel gibbered on
WHAT HAPPENS IF EVERYONE GOES TO THE BANK TO WITHDRAW THEIR MONEY AT THE SAME TIME?
Why would they want to? What would be the point? A nonsense question to go with a nonsense premise, exactly as expected.
Ethel
DIDN'T MISS IT FUKTARD. MOST THOUSAND YEAR OLD SYSTEMS CAN BE BETTERED OR IMPROVED. THERE'S A BETTER SOLUTION. JUST CAUSE IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY DOESN'T MAKE IT GOOD.
Could have fooled me. Strange it seems to have limped along all by itself all this long time without benefit of your wisdom and genius. There is a better solution?? Pray enlighten us with your revealed wisdom. I'm always interested in a new insight, or a good laugh. By the way where did you say you got your degrees in economics, real estate, commerce, banking, and mathematics from?
Ethel
???? SO THE NOTE IS THE ORIGIN OF ALL MONEY? WHAT HAPPENS BEFORE IT IS CIRCULATED? I GUESS IT DOESN'T MATTER????
So when you can’t think of anything else to say you just twist part of what someone said to justify your delusions? Your statement proves your lack of clue.
Ethel
DON'T CONFUSE THE THEORY OF THE APPLICATION AND IMPLICATIONS WITH THE REALITY OF WHAT HAPPENS.
The problem is one crap theory coupled with another crap theory does not equate to reality, if it does in your mind, your problem not mine.
Ethel
DON'T CONFUSE THE THEORY OF THE APPLICATION AND IMPLICATIONS WITH THE REALITY OF WHAT HAPPENS.
Ethel
EITHER WAY ACCORDING YOU THE GREAT SYSTEM OF FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING WAS IN PLACE AND OPERATING SO THESE THINGS SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED IN THE LAST THOUSAND YEARS OR SO.
Again, a further exhibition of your ignorance. Banking is nothing more than a tool, and it can no more stop an economic collapse than a wall of sound can hold back the ocean.
Ethel
I AM NOT CONFUSED THAT YOU CAN ONLY DEFEND THE BANKING INDUSTRY.
You are the one making false assumptions. You make assumptions based on the fact that I do not accept fraud as an acceptable method of operation and then go on to make a bunch of other unrelated mistakes.
Ethel
BUT YOU USE IT TO ADVOCATE THE BANKER... THE MORTGAGE BROKERS DIDN'T DEFRAUD THEM SELVES BECAUSE THEY ORIGINATE LOANS, NOT ACTUALLY GIVE OUT THE MONEY.
Curious that you insist on taking what was said and twisting it to mean what you want it to mean, not what was said. Since my statement was that they did in fact defraud themselves, as witness the number of those types of firms that are now out of business. I never said they didn’t commit fraud, and I certainly did not excuse it. They in fact probably cheated a great number of people, whether or not they will get what they deserve remains to be seen.
Ethel
I AM BORDER LINE ILLITERATE,.. USE OF A BIG WORD THAT DOESN'T EXIST...PREVARICATIONS
No surely not!!!!! A perfectly good noun, with “s” plural form.
Ethel
YOU ARE HATE FILLED AND YOUR LYING BY SAYING YOU HAVE NO FEELINGS ABOUT KURT ALSO.
You are delusional. Why is it so difficult for you to accept/believe that I have no feelings one way or the other about Kurt and Co.? Why should I care?
As to why I spend my time here, for the simple reason that a lie left unchallenged can grow. Don’t like what I say, then don’t make stupid unsupported statements. My purpose in life does not include stroking your ego, worrying about your feelings, or being concerned if I offend your delicate sensibilities. Besides, Moogey has the market cornered and is far better at it than you are.
ND,
Speaking of twisting and avoiding. Here's a simple one. We were arguing whether or not there are enough assets to back up the debt. You claim there is sufficient assets, I claim there is not. Here's the scenario.... along with your slippery answer.
WHAT HAPPENS IF EVERYONE GOES TO THE BANK TO WITHDRAW THEIR MONEY AT THE SAME TIME?
Why would they want to? What would be the point? A nonsense question to go with a nonsense premise, exactly as expected.
Let me show you how to actually answer questions point by point rather than evading.
Because people would hear rumors that the bank didn't have enough cash to cover the debts and they are insolvent. It's called a bank run. The point is the bank lent out more than it has.... Do you need some examples in history or is it pointless?
dr. ira gilac said...
ya' know, i am not so sure that SOP beamed up....he seem to locked in to the HS....maybe he was "raptured". ;-)
___________________________________
Nah, I'm still here... methinks 'twas Bones or Scotty what beamed him up, not Jesus.
Pauligirl said: "It is a promise to pay and the loan is secured by the property."
________________________________
The promissory note is more than just a promise to pay. A federal reserve note (greenback) is also a promise to pay, but it has an exchangeable value like a promissory note.
Those with only two cells to rub together are those that deny that promissory notes are not sold for value or credits in our financial system.
Without the promissory note signed, there would not be a loan transaction ever finalized period & the wire by the bank never done.
"Fremont contends that the Administrative Demand provided Household with a "roadmap" of the fraud several months before it occurred, upon reviewing the Administrative Demand, the trial court correctly found that "Household's failure to take affirmative action was
not unreasonable[.]" The 38-page Administrative Demand, or so-called "roadmap," was a
confusing compilation of, among other things: (i) various cartoons; (ii) various articles; (iii) a power of attorney; (iv) a "Notice of Intent to Correct Title"; (v) a so-called "Affidavit of Truth";
(vi) a letter from a purported certified public accountant; (vii) and various propaganda. To
characterize this document as bizarre and absurd would be an understatement. The
Administrative Demand was wholly inadequate to raise Household's suspicions of potential
impending wrongdoing by the Dorean Group, especially since, as the trial court found, "the
existence of the mortgage elimination scheme was not well known to mortgage companies such
as Household and Fremont at the time" the Administrative Demand was delivered to Household.
As it would not have occurred to anyone of ordinary business judgment and prudence to make
any inquiry into the information contained therein, Household's inaction was reasonable.
Furthermore, Household did not actually learn of the Unauthorized Cancellation until 26 October
2004,"
Again, a bunch of crap written by the Judge, however, the case shows that if one mortgage is discharged wrongfully, & a new mortgage is created from a contested situation, the subsequent mortgage holder LOSES OUT HIS INTEREST, because the 1st mortgage holder had priority, being the mortgage first recorded in time, so as one of maybe 12 dorean clients, why pay the 2nd mortgage holder at all, if the subsequent mortgage holder has no perfected lien according to this court ruling?
The subsequent mortgageholder, "Fremont" could see that the presentment was a "roadmap", of things to come, but apparently the Judge was too stupid to see the obvious! Why is that? The presentment had a "power of attorney" and an "intent to correct title", and the CLEAR LANGUAGE that if the debt wasn't validated, that the dorean trustees would file a deed of reconveyance, so how could any reasonable person think otherwise, and how could a reasonable and literate person think differently. If someone tells you something, and that what they say they are going to do is a detriment to your interests, it is a reasonable standard to ignore them? If you are the Judge in this case, this is a true & reasonable standard.
If someone FILES A COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU & in writing threatens you OF COMMITTING FRAUD & SAYS THEY ARE GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, & take away any legal interest you are claiming, is it a reasonable standard to ignore the threats in writing, and presume that legally, you must do nothing about it? No, if you do nothing & don't inquire that you could have done something wrong, or what your rights may be by ignoring a situation, YOU ARE BY DEFINITION "NEGLIGENT". According to the standard of this stupid Judge, who had nothing nice to say about the presentment, although considered it nonthreatening, who was also by definition,"illiterate" since he can't read & understand simple language put in front of him, IT IS a reasonable standard to ignore a threat, & ignore an affidavit of truth, and ignore a CPA's take on the lenders fraud.
How anyone can consider the dorean presentment as not something serious or even threatening to a lender, or his interests, is stupid, negligent, and brain dead.
According to the judge, by the dorean trustees saying they were going to eliminate the lenders interest by recording a deed within a set number of days if the debt isn't validated, THIS IS NO CAUSE OF CONCERN, yet Household Bank was not negligent. LOL
The federal court basically labeled the presentment a roadmap of fraud, but the North Carolina Court said that the presentment was nothing to take seriously or even answer or rebut, but more of a joke, and that publications from the federal reserve are considered to be "propaganda". The Federal Court didn't think the cartoons in the presentment were a joke. They thought the Dorean Group was doing "bank fraud". Oh wait, they dropped that joke. LOL
October 26, 2004????? You mean to tell me that many months after the Dorean Group sending out presentments to many lenders & even after the much bad publicity that had already come out by that date, that it still was unreasonable to think that the Dorean Group was serious about what they said they would do & that Fremont Bank still shouldn't think that their mortgage interest may be in jeopardy, when in every case, the dorean trustees have recorded the same documents, taking away the presumed lender's interests of hundreds of banks by then? You've got to be kidding! Don't lenders share information, read the paper, or listen to the news, or read "mortgage fraud" blogs ever or exchange information among title companies? I guess not. LOL
So a so called criminal is only thought to do criminal acts only after becoming very well known and a "household name" in the business community before one should take them as a serious threat & hence Fremont Bank was not negligent by not taking the dorean presentment seriously? You've got to be kidding!! What is this Judge smoking? He probably thinks petting a rattle snake is reasonable & presents no threat either because his rattles may be silent at the time.
The North Carolina Judge said:
"The Administrative Demand was wholly inadequate to raise Household's suspicions of potential impending wrongdoing by the Dorean Group,"
When someone you (1) don't know
(2) says things to you that may appear to be crazy, or (3) if they say & appear to represent someone you already have a relationship with, don't be alarmed, just ignore him. There's no reason in the world to think that his bizarre acts or strange words makes him susceptible to do crazy or fraudulent things IN THE FUTURE that may affect you or your interests. This is a reasonable standard to follow, so says the Judge. LOL
It may be a good time to "rest my case" against the good and reasonable Judge.
So Farrell's sentence is "sealed" and deserves to be whereas all the other charged persons deserve to be a matter of public record as far as their sentence is concerned? So that is some big secret to protect for some good reason?
What's the big deal & why is this deemed to be such a great secret? I feel I'm missing something here.
It just makes me think he won't get any time whatsoever & the System doesn't want to show their hypocrisy and favortism here. The System got Kurt & Scott convicted & sentenced & that's all they really wanted anyway I think. Course I don't believe Farrell provided anything or any relevant testimony that helped convict Kurt & Scott as the naysayers always said & believed would happen.
If that is the case, that he will get no time, I'm happy for him if that's the case. I've always said & believed that none of the defendants deserved to get any jail time out of the court charges.
Notarial dissent said: "At last, truth, but not from Moogie."
________________________________
Notarial Dissent, don't you get it or see your own hypocrisy? If the clients played a role, and I say they did too, all clients played a role, than they can't be victims by definition, yet you say they are the victims of the mail fraud scheme, along with the federal court's determination also. The only victims pled in court were the dorean clients; the financial institutions WERE IRRELEVANT when the bank fraud charges were dropped.
If you play a role, any role in a conspiracy or scam, & expect a financial interest BY AGREEMENT or entitlement later on by your mere participation in a fraudulent scheme, YOU CAN'T BE A VICTIM by definition, or any reasonable standard, and you can't be entitled to financial relief from the government, yet you still allege that some clients may & are entitled to get financial relief down the road maybe by the government.
Some of the Brokers even agreed to pay back restitution to clients, according to the government's demands, or plea arrangments, so yes, the government considers it a fact that the clients who participated were victims, but how can that be?
Even statements the prosecution filed in court said that even the lack of knowledge that the process was a scheme is not a condition to make you immune to prosecution if you furthered the scheme in any way. As a client just by agreeing to participate, by paying a fee, this furthered the so called dorean scheme or "mail fraud" that you believed happened & the court decreed as such. Knowledge of what other parties of the scheme are doing is not considered to be of material importance at all in determining guilt & liability either, according to what the prosecution pled. All that matters according to what the prosecution pled is participation alone to make all participants guilty of conspiracy to commit mail fraud according to the prosecution. You still don't get the hypocrisy of the trial in any way. The clients were made to be victims of the mail fraud, WHEN THAT POSSIBILITY IS IMPOSSIBLE due to the "unclean hands" doctrine.
Either all Dorean clients & Principals are all guilty or they are all innocent according to the so called law.
According to the testimony of the man in charge over Bear Stearns, it was fear & rumors of Bear Stearns financial condition ALONE that caused a run on their bank. According to his testimony it was their inability to borrow when they needed to that caused them to sell their position to JP Morgan/Chase Bank because they couldn't pay their bills that became due. The run down of the stock price was not due to Bear Stearns liquidity or asset value if you believe the CEO.
If that's true, than isn't any great financial institution in this country today also in jeopardy of being bankrupted if enough people want their money back now? How many Bear Stearns crises can our country take before everyone is affected in some material way? With sentiment fading daily, aren't things going to get much worse before they could even get better?
Easy, there Moogles. Too much spinning will make you fall down, go Boom!
moogie seems to be begging to be prosecuted, along with all the clients.
Ethel nattered on
WHAT HAPPENS IF EVERYONE GOES TO THE BANK TO WITHDRAW THEIR MONEY AT THE SAME TIME?
Why would they want to? What would be the point? A nonsense question.
One of two things would happen, either they would pay the depositors off, or they wouldn’t. If they were well run and financially sound, they would borrow short term sufficient cash to cover withdrawals and either continue on in business or liquidate to pay back the loan. Or, they would declare insolvency because they had been loaning money to Ethel and Moogey and the FDIC would take them over and either pay out on the deposits of sell them to another institution. Again, so what!!!!!
more gems from Ethel
Because people would hear rumors that the bank didn't have enough cash to cover the debts and they are insolvent.
Again, another exercise in ignorance. There is not, and never has been a bank that has on hand sufficient cash reserves to pay out more than a fraction of what is on deposit. It is not the cash on hand, but the assets in hand that determine solvency or insolvency. Banks are declared insolvent when the assets do not equal or exceed the liabilities, not when they do not have sufficient cash on hand, but then you would know that if you had clue one about what you were carrying on about.
and Moogey is off and tripping over his tongue again
The promissory note is more than just a promise to pay. A federal reserve note (greenback) is also a promise to pay, but it has an exchangeable value like a promissory note.
A promissory note is nothing more than a promise to pay, a Federal Reserve Note is a BANK NOTE, which is an entirely different item, also known as currency, or legal tender, something a PN isn't, both in custom and law.
Moogie noise
Those with only two cells to rub together are those that deny that promissory notes are not sold for value or credits in our financial system.
Strange, I don’t remember anyone making any such claim, except you.
Moogie noise
Without the promissory note signed, there would not be a loan transaction ever finalized period & the wire by the bank never done.
True, because without the PN there would be no promise to repay.
Moogie noise
so as one of maybe 12 dorean clients, why pay the 2nd mortgage holder at all, if the subsequent mortgage holder has no perfected lien according to this court ruling?
Is this supposed to actually make sense? As to repaying the loan, the contractual obligation still exists even if the surety does not. The only difference being that the reclamation would have to be pursued civilly as a judgement since there is no surety to claim against.
Moogie noise
The subsequent mortgageholder, "Fremont" could see that the presentment was a "roadmap", of things to come
Only after they got slapped in the face with it. The document was nonsense. Despite the fact that it did give a good indication of the indicated fraud, there was no action that the first lender could have taken to have prevented the actual fraud.
So now you are admitting that it was fraud then??
Moogie noise
If someone FILES A COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU
If someone files a complaint against you in court then there are steps you can take to respond. If they send nonsense documents to you there is nothing you can or need to do.
Moogie noise
How anyone can consider the dorean presentment as not something serious or even threatening to a lender, or his interests, is stupid, negligent, and brain dead.
For the simple reason that it was all nonsense, and was threatening actions that made no sense to anyone, and short of turning them over to the local DA there was nothing else that could be done.
Moogie noise
According to the judge, by the dorean trustees saying they were going to eliminate the lenders interest by recording a deed within a set number of days if the debt isn't validated, THIS IS NO CAUSE OF CONCERN, yet Household Bank was not negligent. LOL
And since there was no legal way for them to have done that there was really no reason to be concerned.
You are basically talking apples and oranges as far as the two courts are concerned. The Federal had to do with fraud, the state court had to do with negligence.
So you are now admitting that the Dorean dimbos were committing fraud then?
Moogie comes up with more nonsense
If the clients played a role, and I say they did too, all clients played a role, than they can't be victims by definition, yet you say they are the victims of the mail fraud scheme
Can’t read for comprehension to save yourself can you? The clients were victims of the mail fraud in that they were approached, and contacted using the mails, and were thus defrauded of the funds they paid for fees to the Dorean dimbos. They were victims of the initial fraud and participants in the subsequent fraud.
Moogie’s just jealous, his heros are going to get to trade in their orange jump suits for stripes and he is feeling left out.
Notarial Dissent said: If they were well run and financially sound, they would borrow short term sufficient cash to cover withdrawals and either continue on in business or liquidate to pay back the loan. Or, they would declare insolvency because they had been loaning money to Ethel and Moogey and the FDIC would take them over and either pay out on the deposits of sell them to another institution. Again, so what!!!!!
________________________________
Bear Stearns apparently was unable to borrow short term to fulfill their needs due to the rumors. No one wanted to do business with them at the time in the amounts they needed, so their only option was to sell. Even the collateral they could have put up to save themselves, was not even a plus for Bear Stearns to coax big money lenders to meet Bear's short term needs.
The lesson to be learned here is that many big financial institutions don't have enough liquidity or cash on hand right now. They could be the next Bear Stearns. They may have enough according to the legal standards in place, but that MAY NOT be enough to weather a severe storm like a bank run or even worse public sentiment down the road that could cause even a bigger problem.
You say "so what". So what to what amounts in this Bear Stearns scenario to a government bailout which in effect affects everyone's standard of living down the road?
I think you don't see the big picture, one who says they study history so much.
Course when you say things like "I feel left out", it becomes apparent you don't have a clue sometimes.
Notarial Dissent: Your statements seem to be unfair to me when you infer such things as:
(1) the Dorean presentment was a scam without even having any real testimony, evidence or injured parties
(2) What the Dorean Group did was mail fraud even if there are no victims
(3) You can be a victim & a co-conspirator of bank or mail fraud at the same time
(4) Mail fraud can exist even without any invasion of personal property rights
(5) The Dorean documents were assumed to be forgeries in Federal Court without any evidence or testimony on the issue, or any law to back it up.
The mail fraud federal statute wasn't intended to protect the public from all types of fraud that exists for the simple reason the State statututes give a means for restitution & protection to the public. The federal mail fraud statute is a specific type of fraud that the statute was written about or towards. You seem to think that any type of mail fraud falls under the federal statute's court jurisdiction.
Moogie,
What version of the mail fraud statute are you smoking?
"Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do...[using the mail]"
Repeating the same erroneous statements over and over again will not make you any less wrong than when you first started blathering.
Do the right thing - demand to join your boys in the slammer.
and Moogey is off
The lesson to be learned here is that many big financial institutions don't have enough liquidity or cash on hand right now.
No, Moogems, that is a fact of life. If a financial institution has that much liquidity or cash on hand, then they aren’t doing business and will soon be out of business. That is part of the reason it is referred to as the INVESTMENT industry. There is a big difference between being liquid and having cash on hand, and being solvent.
and still farther off
You say "so what". So what to what amounts in this Bear Stearns scenario to a government bailout which in effect affects everyone's standard of living down the road?
Since I said nothing of the kind your remark is as usual pointless.
I’m sorry, what big picture would that be, the one where one business badly manages itself to the point that it becomes vulnerable either actually, or perceivably to a business rival and gets swallowed? Or the imagined one where there is this great conspiracy to deprive Moogey of something?
and Moogey has finally learned to count, sort of...
1) Moogs, I don’t need as you put it “real testimony” that the presentment was a scam, since I know, and everyone else with two functioning brain cells knows, that the nonsense in it was just that. There was not ONE legal or viable thing in it. I have spent too many years working with financial and real estate law to not know crap when I smell it.
2) Mail fraud constitutes using the mails to commit, or attempt to commit fraud, and the filing of the fraudulent documents, as so ruled by both the Federal Civil courts, and by an ever increasing number of state courts were all that was necessary to commit the offense. It doesn’t matter if they were ever received, or acted upon, or if they ever in fact harmed anyone, it was the act of mailing them that was the crime.
3) You can’t read is what this statement proves. The clients were victims of the initial phase of the fraud, i.e. getting them to give funds to the dim duo, they were not necessarily co-conspirators but certainly participants in the fraud attempted against the lenders, title companies, and any other entities they came in contact with.
4) See 2 above
5) the Dorean documents were assumed, actually adjudged, fraudulent since they purported to be signed by an authorized party, when in fact and law they weren’t, really ought to learn the difference between fraudulent and forged though Moogs, makes you look like less of an ass.
and Moogie prattled on
The mail fraud federal statute wasn't intended to protect the public from all types of fraud that exists for the simple reason the State statututes give a means for restitution & protection to the public......The federal mail fraud statute is a specific type of fraud that the statute was written about or towards....You seem to think that any type of mail fraud falls under the federal statute's court jurisdiction.
Congratulations Moog, you almost got something right, and then dropped it at the last moment-the statute is aimed at a particular type of fraud. And almost right again there Moogs, and then you didn’t actually read the statute as it is very specific about what it covers. And you are almost right again, I do think the statute covers ANY kind of mail fraud, since that is after all what the statute is about, and guess what Moogs, so do the courts, and the Federal Prosecutors. You use the mail to commit fraud, any kind of fraud and you are guilty of MAIL FRAUD, and all they have to do is prove you used the wires or mails to do it, and 30 years a pop.
Neo, Moogie keeps trying to sell his distorted version of reality to the universe, but no one seems to be buying into it, except possibly some of the even more reality challenged than he.
The only problem with Moogey trying to join the boys, is that he failed at this just like he has at everything else. He can’t seem to make up his mind if he was a broker or not, and isn’t honest enough to either admit or deny that he was, probably because he can’t keep track of all the lies he has told and who he told them to over the last three years. I suspect he was a wannabe, and couldn’t find anyone dumber than he was to sell the snake oil to, probably explains why he is so bitter about his good old buddy Flea, who apparently did find enough of the gullible and desperate to ruin his life over.
Notarial Dissent says: "I do think the statute covers ANY kind of mail fraud, since that is after all what the statute is about,"
______________________________
For the umpteenth time, the federal statutue doesn't cover any type of mail fraud, but only covers mail fraud where financial institutions are involved as a victim.
"If the court lacks jurisdiction over party (non financial institution) than it lacks ALL JURISDICTION to adjudicate party's rights, whether or not subject matter is properly before it."
US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 939 F. 2d 1341
"The fraud if real within the Dorean process would not fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government if the financial institutions were absent."
They were absent. No proof of bank fraud on the court record & no financial institution has been entered into evidence.
People like Nemo say, "the jury has spoken" or in other words, "checkmate" it's over, but here's what the law really says:
"jurisdiction can not be inferred to the jury & it cannot be conferred by the jury." Not only that the game isn't over, only the venue has changed, and an appeal will be heard.
If you don't have the right to judge due to jurisdictional issues & if your judgment isn't based upon the facts presented or even on the evidence presented, the jury's decision is moot, void & of no real veracity or force.
Notarial Dissent says "the financial institutions weren't needed, the trial was all about mail fraud."
"The government made it very clear upon the record that the financial institutions WERE THE OBJECT OF PROTECTION. It was part of their closing arguments, so when Notarial Dissent says the trial wasn't about the financial institutions, but ONLY ABOUT MAIL FRAUD, he shows his ignorance of what really transpired in the trial and the important ingredients or elements that needed to exist to give the court jurisdiction.
Notarial Dissent says the bank fraud charges were dropped only because there was more time to sentence on the other charges, but each mail & bank fraud charge carried 30 years possible, so his explanation or excuse wasn't even well thought out.
The truth is bank fraud charges were dropped because the prosecution never intended to prove these allegations & knew that they couldn't, & as things turned out, they didn't & provided no evidence as such on the court record, but dropped all bank fraud charges. This is an abuse of process when financial institutions are a key ingredient to include if the defendants are guilty. "If the bank fraud don't fit, you must acquit."
ND also said the bank fraud charges proven were irrelevant and not needed to put the defendants away. He also booasted before the fact that the Dorean Group would be sentenced to 300+ years, another lie or false prophecy.
Kurt continues: "The government contends we intended to defraud mortgage lenders which were offered to the grand jury as financial institutions in the trial."
MORTGAGE LENDERS AREN'T FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
"MORTGAGE LENDERS or obligations of contracts that are within the State jurisdiction DO NOT CONFER JURISDICTION to the federal government. It is the financial institutions covering contract with the FDIC that gives the federal government standing as a party or what is known as jurisdiction."
"Fact is, not one FDIC certificate or any alleged victim was entered into evidence and no testimony obtained." See US. v. Holloway 259 F. 3rd 1200 (3) (9th Cir. 2001).
Speaking of mail fraud: "The clients of Dorean as individuals do not confer jurisdiction by any relationship to the federal government. They would be protected by their particular state statutues of frauds."
"North Carolina issued a civil injunction based upon this jurisdiction. This case held that
THE CLIENTS WERE THE OBJECT OF THEIR PROTECTION, NOT THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS."
"The Jury instructions were far & away an abuse of the judges discretion in that they were replete with his own personal bias and economic ignorance. They did not instruct according to the statututes charged, mischaracterized like the 'lenders' being financial institutions as defined in Title 18 S 20 being necessary for jurisdiction and conviction (footnote 10), and silent on the issue of money which was essential to the accurate deciphering of the factual dispute between the parties."
10 Neder v. U.S. 527 US 1, 144 L Ed 2 35 (12 a-12c). 119 S. Ct. 1829(1999).
Nemo, the statute was intended to protect the property rights of financial institutions:
"furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article,"
It was originally intended to be a statute about a specific type of fraud, not all general fraud. The State "statute of frauds" covers the other frauds you are talking about.
You are not reading the whole statute in it's proper context.
Nemo: If you think the mail fraud statute is talking about ALL FRAUD OF ANY KIND, then explain this precedence to me in terms of what you believe to be true:
"If the court lacks jurisdiction over party (non financial institution) than it lacks ALL JURISDICTION to adjudicate party's rights, whether or not SUBJECT MATTER is properly before it."
US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 939 F. 2d 1341
Pity Moogs can't read any better than he does.
There is nothing in the mail fraud statute that "requires" the fraud to be against a financial institution, only that it is aggravated if it does.
"18 USC 1341--makes it illegal to cause anything to be sent through the U.S. mails in furtherance of a scheme to defraud. For the purposes of this statute, items sent via commercial carriers such as FedEx, United Parcel Service (UPS), DHL, and others also implicate the Mail Fraud statute.
"
The crime Moogems was in using the mails to file fraudulent documents.
Nemo: Also explain to me what property rights or client rights the dorean clients had (since they were presumed to be the victims) that were violated by mailing the dorean presentments to the banks & how the dorean group activities violated any contractual rights between the clients & the dorean group by any of the mailings that were considered to be mail fraud.
Then explain to me why the Federal Government had the right to interfere with the contractual rights of the parties.
Then explain to me why no mailing correspondence between client & the dorean group, and no monies sent from the clients to the dorean group was considered as mail fraud or presented as evidence in the federal court.
Moogies mouth runneth over again
For the umpteenth time, the federal statutue doesn't cover any type of mail fraud, but only covers mail fraud where financial institutions are involved as a victim.
Oh, based on what, the divine revelations of St Kurt? I would suggest you read the statute again, but since you obviously never read it to begin with it would be pointless.
There is ABSOLUTELY nothing in the statute that restricts it to financial institutions. In fact it is quite general in that it applies to ANY mail fraud.
The rest of your rant is pointless and baseless since it is based on your tortured reading of the statute, as opposed to what the actual statute says.
No, Moogie, the trial was about mail fraud who main victims were financial institutions, and thus the aggravated circumstances.
Moogie’s mouth moves again
"Fact is, not one FDIC certificate or any alleged victim was entered into evidence and no testimony obtained."
Moogs, you don’t even know what an FDIC certificate is, much less what one is used for.
Just keep making noise Moogs, you and Kurt are the only ones who believe this nonsense, and when the appeals court declines to hear the appeal you can complain about that too.
Nemo: Let's take out the important specific part of the mail fraud statutue that refers to the subject matter & see if the mail fraud statute make any sense:
"Whoever, having devised or intending to devise ANY SCHEME or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do...[using the mail]"
As you can see, it sounds like an incomplete sentence that makes no sense whatsoever.
So Nemo, you're wrong, it can't include all type of of GENERAL FRAUD as you say, so the statutue's intent must have only included a specific type of fraud.
Congress knew exactly what their intent was when they passed this, but you are perverting the meaning to include things not intended, however, you are in good company because so did the Judge & prosecution.
Course you do the same thing with scripture as you do with law. You wrest the meaning to your own destruction by your ignorance in contradition of what was really intended.
ND said: " A promissory note is nothing more than a promise to pay, a Federal Reserve Note is a BANK NOTE, which is an entirely different item,"
_______________________________
Are you inferring that only bank notes are the only specific item that can be deposited at a bank for credit? If not, than you missed my point.
Here's an interesting case where I see a few parallels of the Dorean Case & this one:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/
cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=10th&navby=case&no=034019
In a two-count indictment, a federal grand jury charged Todd Harold Cooper with bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113 and using a firearm while committing a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii).
After a trial, a jury found him guilty on both counts. Mr. Cooper appeals from the judgment of the district court on grounds of INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, FLAWED JURY INSTRUCTIONS, improper denial of his request for access to a law library, and an ILLEGAL SENTENCE. We affirm.
Moogey, no matter how you try and twist or turn it, the mail fraud statute is sufficient, and broad enough to cover any type of fraud that uses the mails in perpetration of the fraud, notwithstanding your obvious linguistic shortcomings and deficiencies. All your dancing and trying to ignore what it says isn’t going to change that fact. Using the mails for any part of a fraud or fraud attempt, and you have committed mail fraud, for which you can be tried and convicted of such, just as the Dorean dimbos were. All it requires is the use of the “mails”.
Moogey has a dumb question he’s tried before, and is still trying get up to mean down
Are you inferring that only bank notes are the only specific item that can be deposited at a bank for credit? If not, than you missed my point.
Not at all what I said and you know it. A bank note is by law currency/money, a promissory note is a financial instrument, and IS NOT currency/money and cannot be treated or considered in the same fashion, and is covered under the UCC and various state statutes, two very different items both by custom and law, and treated and handled entirely differently. You can deposit your garter belt at the bank, but that doesn’t make it anything other than a garter belt, Moogs.
Moogey strikes again
Here's an interesting case where I see a few parallels of the Dorean Case & this one:
Yep, Moogs, a lot of similarities. In US V. Cooper as with the Dorean dimbos, Cooper lost at trial, and he lost on appeal, hands down, looks like a repeat pattern here as well.
Actually, there was another similarity, Cooper tried to take a nonsense position on several things and bluff his way through the courts, it didn't work either.
The only amusing thing that I did find was that a sitting Federal judge would be thick enough to even contemplate the existence of a bank that is not FDIC insured in the first place, since it is a legal requirement, and you cannot get a Federal Charter without subscribing to FDIC, as it is a mandate requirement. It is simply physically/legally impossible for a bank to exist without it, the law gives no alternatives. It should have been taken as a legal presumption that it existed, unless proven otherwise, which it never could be. Nice try anyway Moogs. Not the most boring couple of minutes I’ve ever spent, but certainly some of the poorest writing I’ve seen recently in a legal decision.
ND said: "Just keep making noise Moogs, you and Kurt are the only ones who believe this nonsense,"
_________________________________
See: U.S. v. Holloway 259 F. 3rd 1200 [3] (9th Cir 2001)
"It is the financial institution's covering contract with the FDIC that gives the federal government standing as a party or what is known as jurisdiction if their idea of the statute is considered accurate. Not one FDIC certificate of any alleged victim wsa entered into evidence and no testimony was obtained."
In the Dorean criminal trial, "The jury was precluded from an investigation of the facts and the defense was precluded from their right to rebut the presumptions"
See: Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312 (1932)
Second problem in the dorean criminal trial:
"The presumption that a loan transaction occurred because those who benefit from the fraud have a special relationship with Congress and should be trusted is not sound law, jurisprudence, or a reasonable presumption. It affords no opportunity for the presentation of facts or due process."
See: U.S. v. Manufacturers' Ass'n of Reloc. Bldg. Ind. 462 F.2d 50
(1972)
Thirdly unlike Notarial Dissent affirms, "The Federal Reserve Act has legislated an avoidance of the bank lending it's equity as prohibited by Revised Statute 62 through the monetization of another's credit. This is the fictional universe of Judge Alsup and his banker buddies does not fall within the reasonable customs of trade when it gives the party who provides the service the rights of the party who provides the product."
Another problem of the Dorean trial: "in simple terms the alleged lenders are allowed to come to the courts without clean hands."
See Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814
Lastly, "Neither the judge nor the jury resided within the territories of the UNITED STATES as required by law."
See 28 U.S.C. S1865(b)(1)
Moogie’s off the deep end
Not one FDIC certificate of any alleged victim wsa entered into evidence and no testimony was obtained."
Nor need there have been, since it was the act of mailing the documents, not who they affected that engendered the violation of the law. Affecting a financial institution is an aggravating factor not a primary or jurisdictional factor.
Your second “second problem” makes no sense, that is to say, even less sense than the rest of your nonsense so far.
sinking fast
"The Federal Reserve Act has legislated an avoidance of the bank lending it's equity as prohibited by Revised Statute 62 through the monetization of another's credit.
Which resembles not in any part anything I have said, and is mostly gibberish. The Federal Reserve Act established the Federal Reserve system, and did nothing else. The rest of the statement bears no relationship to reality, as there is no such statute, and at best you are badly mangling an altogether unrelated statement having nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Since the trial had nothing whatsoever to do with banking or banking practice, the rest is equally unrelated nonsense.
without a clue
Another problem of the Dorean trial: "in simple terms the alleged lenders are allowed to come to the courts without clean hands."
And which trial would this be Moogems, since the lenders were not involved in this trial to begin with????
and gone down for the last time
Lastly, "Neither the judge nor the jury resided within the territories of the UNITED STATES as required by law."
Even for you this is fatuous nonsense.
The revised banking statute does exist:
http://vlex.com/vid/192260
Only in your fevered imagination, non existent link, very much like your non-existent theories.
Try this link, or try typing it in:
http://vlex.com/vid/19226022
Moogs,
Congratulations, you have discovered Title 12, now, is there some particular part that tickles your fancy?
"The Federal Reserve Act has legislated an avoidance of the bank lending it's equity as prohibited by Revised Statute 62 through the monetization of another's credit."
The shareholders equity can't be
loaned & accounting that is audited based upon any regulatory notice, can't show this as happening:
http://vlex.com/vid/19225459
So in other words, you discovered Title 12 and haven’t a clue as to what it is all about. There is no such statute within Title 12 that says that. Either point out the complete and correct citation or give it up.
A bank may not stand as surety for another, but that is not the same as extending credit to an individual based on business criteria, and banks do in fact, and always have extended credit based on the assets of the bank.
Notarial Dissent: You said that "Revised Statute 62" doesn't exist. This link gives reference to it, so it must exist:
http://vlex.com/vid/19226022
References In Text
Title 62 of the Revised Statutes, referred to in text, was in the original "this Title" meaning title LXII of the Revised Statutes, consisting of R.S. Secs. 5133 to 5244, which are classified to sections 21, 22 to 24a, 25a, 26, 27, 29, 35 to 37, 39, 43, 52, 53, 55 to 57, 59 to 62, 66, 71, 72 to 76, 81, 83 to 86, 90, 91, 93, 93a, 94, 141 to 144, 161, 164, 181, 182, 192 to 194, 196, 215c, 481 to 485, 501, 541, 548, and 582 of this title.
Post a Comment