tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23127871018443499282024-03-13T16:34:08.247-04:00THEFT BY DECEPTIONAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-11767847461861362632012-06-20T16:50:00.001-04:002012-06-20T18:17:37.190-04:00A Global PeaciList<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<iframe frameborder="0" height="1577" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/embeddedform?formkey=dGFjRU01RlZvQnpmb2xYQ091SmQxd1E6MQ" width="760">&lt;p&gt;Loading...&lt;/p&gt;</iframe>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-53284645857469660442011-01-08T18:08:00.000-05:002011-01-08T18:08:03.714-05:00The American Dream By The Provocateur Network<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZPWH5TlbloU?fs=1" width="480" frameborder="0" height="295"></iframe>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-21180784153146427992010-10-07T21:44:00.002-04:002010-10-07T21:44:51.219-04:00WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><b><u><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 18pt;">YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO CASH PAYMENT FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE — Coming to a Billboard Near YOU </span></u></b><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 18pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">Posted on September 27, 2010 by Neil Garfield </span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; text-align: center;"><b><u><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">SERVICES YOU NEED </span></u></b><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">EDITOR’S NOTE: Well it has finally happened. Three years ago I couldn’t get a single lawyer anywhere to consider this line of work. I predicted that this area of expertise in their practice would dwarf anything they were currently doing including personal injury and malpractice. I even tried to guarantee fees to lawyers and they wouldn’t take it. Now there are hundreds, if not thousands of lawyers who are either practicing in this field or are about to take the plunge. The early adopters who attended my workshops and read my materials, workbooks and bought the DVD’s are making some serious money and have positioned themselves perfectly ahead of the crowd. </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">Congratulations, everyone, it was the readers who made this happen. Without your support I would not have been able to reach the many thousands of homeowners and lawyers and government officials whoa re now turning the corner in their understanding of this mess and their willingness to do something about it. </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">The article below from Streitfeld sounds like it was written by me. No attribution though. No matter. The message is out. The foreclosures were and are wrongful, illegal, immoral and the opposite of any notion we have of justice. They were dressed up to look right and they got way with it for years because so many homeowners simply gave up convinced they had only to blame themselves for getting into a raw deal. Those homeowners who gave up were wrong and now they will find themselves approached by lawyers who will promise them return of the house they lost or damages for the wrongful foreclosure. When you left, you thought your loan had not been paid and that the notice you received was legitimate. You were wrong on both counts. The loan had been paid, there were other people who had signed up for liability along with you to justify the price on steroids that was sold to your lender (investor). </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">For those who are just catching up, here it is in a nutshell: Borrower signs a note to ABC Corp., which says it is the lender but isn’t. So you start right away with the wrong party named on the note and mortgage (deed of trust) PLUS the use of a meaningless nominee on the mortgage (deed of </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; page-break-before: always;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">trust) which completely invalidates the documents and clouds the title. Meanwhile the lender gets a mortgage bond NOT SIGNED BY THE BORROWER. The bond says that this new “entity” (which usually they never bothered to actually form) will pay them from “receivables.” The receivables include but ARE NOT LIMITED TO the payments from the borrower who accepted funding of a loan. These other parties are there to justify the fact that the loan was sold at a huge premium to the lender without disclosure to either the borrower or the lender. (The tier 2 Yield Spread Premium that raises some really juicy causes of action under TILA, RESPA and the 10b-5 actions, including treble damages, attorney fees and restitution). </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><b><span style="color: red; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">And and by the way for the more sophisticated lawyers, now would be the time to sharpen up your defense skills and your knowledge of administrative laws. Hundreds of thousands of disciplinary actions are going to filed against the professionally licensed people who attended the borrower’s “closing” and who attended the closing with the “lender.” With their livelihood at stake, their current arrogance will morph into abject fear. Here is your line when you quote them fees: “Remember that rainy day you were saving up for? Well, it’s raining!” Many lawyers and homeowners are going to realize that they have easy pickings when they bring administrative grievances in quasi criminal proceedings (don’t threaten it, that’s a crime, just do it) which results in restitution funded by the professional liability insurer. careful about the way you word the grievance. Don’t go overboard or else the insurance carrier will deny coverage based upon the allegation of an intentional act. You want to allege gross negligence. </span></b><span style="color: red; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><b><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">EVERYBODY in the securitization structure gets paid premium money to keep their mouth shut and money changes hands faster than one of those street guys who moves shells or cards around on a table. Yes everyone gets paid — except the borrower who never got the benefit of his the bargain he signed up for — a home worth whatever they said it was worth at closing. It wasn’t worth that and it will never be worth that and everyone except the borrower knew it with the possible exception of some lenders who didn’t care because the other people who the borrower knew nothing about, had “guaranteed” the value of the lender’s investment and minimized the risk to the level of “cash equivalent” AAA-rated. </span></b><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><b><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">The securitization “partners” did not dot their “i’s” nor cross their “t’s.” And that is what the article below is about. But they failed to do that for a reason. They didn’t care about the documents because they never had any intention of using them anyway. It was all a scam cleverly disguised as a legitimate part of the home mortgage industry. It was instead a Ponzi scheme without any of the attributes of real appraisals, real underwriting reviews and committees and decisions. They bought the signature of the borrowers by promising the moon and they sold the apparent existence of signature (which in many cases) did not even exist) to Lenders by promising the stars. </span></b><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; page-break-before: always;"><b><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">And now, like it wasn’t news three years ago when we first brought it up, suddenly mainstream media is picking up the possibility that the foreclosures were all fraudulent also. The pretender lenders were intentionally and knowingly misrepresenting themselves as lenders in order to grab property that didn’t belong to them and to which they had no rights — to the detriment of both the borrowers and the lenders. And some judges, government officials and even lawyers appear to be surprised by that, are you? </span></b><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">———– </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 18pt;">GMAC’s Errors Leave Foreclosures in Question </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 18pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">By </span></b><b><u><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;">DAVID STREITFELD </span></u></b><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 7.5pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">The recent admission by a major mortgage lender that it had <b>filed dubious foreclosure documents </b>is likely to fuel a furor against hasty foreclosures, which have prompted complaints nationwide since housing prices collapsed. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">Lawyers for distressed homeowners and law enforcement officials in several states on Friday seized on revelations by </span><u><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">GMAC </span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">Mortgage, the country’s fourth-largest home loan lender, that it had violated legal rules in its rush to file many foreclosures as quickly as possible. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">Attorneys general in Iowa and North Carolina said they were beginning separate investigations of the lender, and the attorney general in California directed the company to suspend all foreclosures in that state until it “proves that it’s following the letter of the law.” </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">The federal government, which became the majority owner of GMAC after supplying $17 billion to prevent the lender’s failure, said Friday that it had told the company to clean up its act. </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">Florida lawyers representing borrowers in default said they would start filing motions as early as next week to have hundreds of foreclosure actions dismissed. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">While GMAC is the first big lender to publicly acknowledge that its practices might have been improper, defense lawyers and consumer advocates have long argued that numerous lenders have used inaccurate or incomplete documents to remove delinquent owners from their houses. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">The issue has broad consequences for the millions of buyers of foreclosed homes, some of whom might not have clear title to their bargain property. And it may offer unforeseen opportunities for those who were evicted. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">“You know those billboards that lawyers put up seeking divorcing or bankrupt clients?” asked Greg Clark, a Florida real estate lawyer. “It’s </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; page-break-before: always;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;">only a matter of time until they start putting up signs that say, ‘You might be entitled to cash payment for wrongful foreclosure.’ ” </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 13.5pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">The furor has already begun in Florida, which is one of the 23 states where foreclosures must be approved by courts. Nearly half a million foreclosures are in the Florida courts, overwhelming the system. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">J. Thomas McGrady, chief judge in the foreclosure hotbed of St. Petersburg, said the problems went far beyond GMAC. Four major law firms doing foreclosures for lenders are under investigation by the Florida attorney general. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">“Some of what the lenders are submitting in court is incompetent, some is just sloppy,” said Judge McGrady of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Clearwater, Fla. “And somewhere in there could be a fraudulent element.” </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">In many cases, the defaulting homeowners do not hire lawyers, making problems generated by the lenders hard to detect. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">“Documents are submitted, and there’s no one to really contest whether it is accurate or not,” the judge said. “We have an affidavit that says it is, so we rely on that. But then later we may find out that someone lost their home when they shouldn’t have. We don’t like that.” </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">GMAC, which is based in Detroit and is now a subsidiary of Ally Financial, first put the spotlight on its procedures when it told real estate agents and brokers last week that it was immediately and indefinitely stopping all evictions and sales of foreclosed property in the states — generally on the East Coast and in the Midwest — where foreclosures must be approved by courts. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">That was a highly unusual move. So was the lender’s simultaneous withdrawal of important affidavits in pending cases. The affidavits were sworn statements by GMAC officials that they had personal knowledge of the foreclosure documents. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">The company played down its actions, saying the defects in its foreclosure filings were “technical.” It has declined to say how many cases might be affected. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">A GMAC spokeswoman also declined to say Friday whether the company would stop foreclosures in California as the attorney general, Jerry Brown, demanded. Foreclosures in California are not judicial. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">GMAC’s vague explanations have been little comfort to some states. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">“We cannot allow companies to systematically flout the rules of civil procedure,” said one of Iowa’s assistant attorneys general, Patrick Madigan. “They’re either going to have to hire more people or the foreclosure process is going to have to slow down.” </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; page-break-before: always;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">GMAC began as the auto financing arm of </span><u><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">General Motors</span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">. During the housing boom, it made a heavy bet on subprime borrowers, giving loans to many people who could not afford a house. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">“We have discussed the current situation with GMAC and expect them to take prompt action to correct any errors,” said Mark Paustenbach, a spokesman for the Treasury Department. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">GMAC appears to have been forced to reveal its problems in the wake of several depositions given by Jeffrey Stephan, the team leader of the document execution unit in the lender’s Fort Washington, Pa., offices. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">Mr. Stephan, 41, said in one deposition that he signed as many as 10,000 affidavits and other foreclosure documents a month; in another he said it was 6,000 to 8,000. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">The affidavits state that Mr. Stephan, in his capacity as limited signing officer for GMAC, had examined “all books, records and documents” involved in the foreclosure and that he had “personal knowledge” of the relevant facts. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">In the depositions, Mr. Stephan said he did not do this. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">In a June deposition, a lawyer representing a foreclosed household put it directly: “So other than the due date and the balances due, is it correct that you do not know whether any other part of the affidavit that you sign is true?” </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">“That could be correct,” Mr. Stephan replied. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">Mr. Stephan also said in depositions that his signature had not been notarized when he wrote it, but only later, or even the next day. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">GMAC said Mr. Stephan was not available for an interview. The lender said its “failures” did not “reflect any disrespect for our courts or the judicial processes.” </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">Margery Golant, a Boca Raton, Fla., foreclosure defense lawyer, said GMAC “has cracked open the door.” </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">“Judges used to look at us strangely when we tried to tell them all these major financial institutions are lying,” said Ms. Golant, a former associate general counsel for the lender </span><u><span style="color: blue; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">Ocwen Financial</span></u><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">Her assistants were reviewing all of the law firm’s cases Friday to see whether GMAC had been involved. “Lawyers all over Florida and I’m sure all over the country are drafting pleadings,” she said. “We’ll file motions for sanctions and motions to dismiss the case for fraud on the court.” </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in; page-break-before: always;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">For homeowners in foreclosure, the admissions by GMAC are bringing hope for resolution. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">One such homeowner is John Turner, a commercial airline pilot based near Detroit. Three years ago he bought a Florida condo, thinking he would move down there with a girlfriend. The relationship fizzled, his finances dwindled, and the place went into foreclosure. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; margin-left: 0in; margin-right: 0in;"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">GMAC called several times a week, seeking its $195,000. Mr. Turner says he tried to meet the lender halfway but failed. Last week it put his case in limbo by withdrawing the affidavit. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 11.5pt;">“We should be able to come to an agreement that’s beneficial to both of us,” Mr. Turner said. “I feel like I’m due something.”</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-3108739598670536252010-09-13T22:00:00.002-04:002010-09-13T22:00:40.649-04:00THE HISTORY OF NESARA<div align="center"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: blue; font-size: medium;">History Behind the National Economic Security And Reformation Act (NESARA)</span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><br />
</div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">NESARA’s reformations are the main tools for implementing important US Supreme Court rulings made in January 1993 on several cases filed by farmers living in US Midwest and Mountain states areas against banks, specific government officials, certain judges, and others. Certain US Generals and Admirals were supportive of, and one General was co-plaintiff in, the Farmers’ Cases that went to the US Supreme Court. You may recall in the 1970’s and 1980’s there were news reports and documentaries about thousands of family farmers losing their farms to foreclosure. Willie Nelson has been doing Farm Aid concerts for years to help these farmers. </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">In the 1980’s some of the farmers investigated why there were so many bank foreclosures on their farms and discovered certain banks were fraudulently foreclosing on their farms. When these farmers turned to government officials for assistance and filed lawsuits against these banks, they learned certain government officials and judges were working in collusion with the banks. The farmers also learned that certain aspects of the current Federal Reserve banking system were unconstitutional and pursued their lawsuits through the Federal District Court in Denver and other locations. Some of the farmers involved in the lawsuits were harassed by the IRS and in turn investigated the IRS involvement with the bankers. After years of lawsuits, several of the farmers’ lawsuits reached the US Supreme Court including Baskerville and Foster v. Credit Bank of Wichita, Federal Land Bank, and First Interstate Bank of Fort Collins from the Denver Federal District Court. For simplicity, I call these cases at the US Supreme Court the "Farmers’ Cases". </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">In early 1993, the nine US Supreme Court judges ruled seven to two in favor of the farmers on all major issues including that the Federal Reserve Banking system was unconstitutional, that the US has been operating outside the Constitution since March 1933, that major reformations of government and our banking system are required, and that financial redress and remedies must be provided for </span><span style="font-size: small;">financial losses due to bank fraud suffered by generations of Americans. The farmers involved certain very powerful US military Generals and Admirals in their cases. These Generals and Admirals made it clear to the US Supreme Court judges that they knew the farmers’ cases were righteous and watched in the courtroom as the US Supreme Court Judges heard the cases. The presence of the Generals and Admirals is why the majority of the judges felt they had to rule properly and in favor of the farmers. Because of the extraordinary nature of the necessary reformations, the Court sealed all court records and put all people directly involved under Non Disclosure agreements (gag orders) until the reformations are publicly and officially announced. </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">The Court had a duty to design and implement reformations to correct the injustices; therefore, the Court recruited experts in Constitutional Law, banking, economics, and monetary systems to work in task force groups to develop the needed reformations. During the two years these expert groups developed the reformations, irrefutable proof was provided to the US Supreme Court Judges that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, the income tax amendment, had not been properly ratified. The Judges had no choice but to include abolishing income taxes in the reformations development process. It was also found that there had been a definite pattern of federal administrations and Congress ignoring the Constitution in laws passed since 1933. FDR took the US out of Constitutional Law when he declared a national banking emergency and amended the Trading with the Enemy Act in March 1933. </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Constitutional Law experts working on government reformations determined that to end the pattern of blatant disregard for the Constitution, it would be necessary to require the sitting US administration and US Congress to resign when Constitutional Law is restored. Following completion of the development of the reformations, the Court appointed certain experts and others to a "committee" which has authority to manage the process of announcing and implementing the reformations.</span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Once the reformations were developed, the Court made half-hearted efforts to implement the reformations through an "Accords" agreement process with the Clinton administration. During that time, very little progress was made to implement the reformations. However quantities of the new US Treasury currency backed by gold were printed and shipped to certain banks in the US where the currency has sat in bank vaults for years awaiting the announcement of the reformations. When NESARA is announced, many more shipments of the new Treasury currency will be shipped to all banks in the US under guard by US military units. </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">During the years of the Accords process, the Court approved a "claims against the government process" (also known as Farm Claims or Bank Claims) which was meant to provide specific financial redress to Americans, however, various groups and individuals interfered with the claims process. </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Finally in 1998, the powerful US military Generals and Admirals consulted with constitutional law experts regarding the lack of progress in getting the much-needed reformations implemented. The Generals, Admirals, and constitutional law experts all knew the US Supreme Court Judges were purposely stalling the reformations process. It was decided that the only other way to accomplish the crucial reformations was to compile all the needed reformations into a law and have the law passed by Congress. The National Economic Security And Reformation Act (NESARA) containing required reformations was submitted to Congress in 1999 where it sat with little action for almost a year. Late one evening in March 2000, a written quorum call was hand-delivered by Delta Force and Navy SEALs to only members of the US Senate and the US House who were sponsors and co-sponsors of NESARA. The members were immediately accompanied by the Delta Force and Navy SEALs to their respective voting chambers where they passed the National Economic Security And Reformation Act.</span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">The National Economic Security And Reformation Act provides the following, some of which will take place immediately after the official announcement of NESARA which is to be televised live from Washington, DC:</span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">1. Restores Constitutional Law in the USA. </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">2. Requires the current US administration to resign their positions to allow a fresh start at the national level and installs Constitutionally acceptable NESARA President and Vice President Designates until new elections can take place within six months. The President and Vice-President will resign, the Cabinet and Appointees by the President, and all members of Congress must resign within 72 hours of NESARA’s announcement. </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">3. NESARA US President Designate declares "peace" because NESARA abolishes unconstitutional states of emergency. </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">4. As partial remedy for 100 years of government and banking fraud, credit card balances are zeroed out and bank debt relief is given to Americans for bank loans including mortgages, car loans, education loans, business loans, and other bank debt. Banks will be paid $9000 per each credit card account with a balance; these funds were raised in special revenue generating activities in Europe. NESARA requires other bank debts be made self-liquidating loans and US banks are instructed to use new high revenue generating processes to pay off Americans’ bank loans.</span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">5. Initiates the US Treasury Bank System with new U.S. Treasury currency backed by precious metals. The Federal Reserve is abolished and Federal Reserve facilities and most personnel are absorbed into the Treasury Bank System. We will be exchanging our Federal Reserve notes, which are not backed by gold, for the US Treasury currency which is backed by gold. Many bank personnel have already been trained on NESARA and the new currency is already in some banks’ vaults. </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">6. Abolishes Income Taxes in US and creates a national sales tax on new, non-essential items as revenue for government. Essential items such as food and medicine, and used items are exempt from the sales tax. </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">The NESARA law requires that a minimum of one time each year, there must be an effort made to announce NESARA. Three current US Supreme Court judges control the committee in charge of NESARA’s announcement. The Judges have used their overall authority to secretly sabotage NESARA’s announcement; thus each year NESARA has been blocked from being announced. </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">This is why NESARA has not been announced: the people with the overall authority to order NESARA’s announcement are, in fact, blocking NESARA. </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Due to the gag order on NESARA, it is difficult for true NESARA supporters to learn exactly what has happened to stop NESARA from being announced. </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Investigating details with hundreds of people has yielded exactly what needs to be done to resolve key issues and bring NESARA to announcement. After learning what the "problems" related to NESARA are, I’ve researched deeply to find the "solutions" and those people who can carry out the solutions and bring NESARA to announcement. </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">In many ways, our country is facing the worst crisis of its history:</span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">More Americans are unemployed, drowning in debt, and living in poverty than anytime since World War II </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Our government irresponsibly races to assume more debt on top of highest historical debts </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Our military lose their lives in battles for greedy corporations’ gains </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Our elections revolve around lies, bribery, and betrayals.</span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">We do not hear "truth" in our media; the media is controlled by opponents of Americans and America’s Constitutional Law. </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Some of our greatest Americans speak the truth of today’s America:</span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Thomas Paine, December 19, 1776</span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln</span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. …We have it in our power to begin the world over again. Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776</span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">Our Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln had true courage. Our Founding Fathers faced the reality of the tyranny by the English Crown and chose to put their lives on the line to gain freedom! </span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"> </span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">We Americans must now follow the lead of our Founding Fathers and restore America through resolving the problems blocking NESARA and bring NESARA to announcement! NESARA Now!</span></span></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-91638636743466200122010-09-09T23:05:00.000-04:002010-09-09T23:05:55.700-04:00INTERNAL REVENUE LAWS WERE REPEALEDInternal Revenue Laws Were Repealed<br />
By Al Thompson althompsonca@cs.com<br />
December 11th, 2003<br />
Background<br />
When Congress passes laws, there is a very specific procedure that they follow. Laws are enacted by either a Bill or a Resolution that may originate in the House or the Senate. “A bill that has been agreed to in an identical form by both bodies becomes the law of the land only after: 1. Presidential approval; or 2. failure by the President to return it with objections to the House in which it originated within 10 days, (Sundays excepted) while Congress is in session; or 3. the overriding of a presidential veto by two-thirds vote in each House.”<br />
For a full explanation see<br />
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/formsofaction.html<br />
Once a bill or resolution is enacted it must be published. “One of the important steps in the enactment of a valid law is the requirement that it shall be made known to the people who are bound by it.” This makes sense, since the people must have a place to refer to, in order to find out what their obligations are, if any, to the Government.<br />
When the bills and resolutions are enacted, they are first published as a “slip law”, which means they are published in an “unbound pamphlet.”<br />
These slip laws become “competent evidence” in all federal and state courts, tribunals, and public offices.<br />
They then become published in the United States Statutes at Large, and these are “legal evidence” of the laws, and are accepted as proof of the laws in any court in the United States.<br />
For a full explanation see: http://Thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/publication.html<br />
The statutes are then codified by the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives. The codes become “prima facie” evidence of the law, and they stand as law, unless rebutted or challenged. However, the codes are not law, but simply prima facie (on its face) evidence of the law. This kind of evidence should be rebutted or challenged, especially when dealing with any alleged internal revenue code.<br />
However, when communicating with the Internal Revenue Service, literally thousands upon thousands of people have been asking the simple question, “Show me the law”, and have been stonewalled by that agency without any apparent recourse. People have been thrown in prison for violating a “law” that hasn’t been disclosed when demanded.<br />
Why does this happen? It would seem to be obvious, that the Government would put forth the law when requested. Why don’t they do it? I submit that the reason is these laws simply do not exist because they were repealed in 1939. Yes, that is correct; the internal revenue laws were repealed in that year.<br />
Internal Revenue Laws Were Repealed 1 / 12<br />
It Happened February 10th, 1939.<br />
Look at Exhibit A, it is a copy of the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE February 10th, 1939 [H. R. 2762] [Public, No 1] Chapter 2 at Section 4. it says the following: “…all such laws and parts of laws codified herein, to the extent they relate exclusively to internal revenue, are repealed, effective, except as provided in Sec. 5.”<br />
Section 5 “Continuance of Existing Law Any provision of law in force on the 2nd day of January 1939 corresponding to a provision contained in the Internal Revenue Title shall remain in force until the corresponding provision under such Title takes effect.”<br />
What just happened? It appears that indeed, the internal revenue laws were repealed and saved in the Internal Revenue Title for use to preserve the rights and liabilities that occurred when these internal revenue laws were in effect. But since they were repealed, they no longer applied, after the date of enactment, to anyone unless the liability occurred before the enactment of this statute. In other words, they were moved to the Internal Revenue Title for savings or archive purposes, and that they only applied to those who incurred a liability before the date of enactment. The Internal Revenue Title thus contained repealed law.<br />
Now look at Exhibit B, which is Public Law 591-Chapter 736, approved August 16th, 1954, H.R. 8300 which is called Internal Revenue Code of 1954. On the eleventh line down it states, “To revise the internal revenue laws of the United States.” What laws? The laws in the Internal Revenue Title were repealed laws. So what did they revise? They revised nothing. They did indeed give the perception that these laws were being enacted, however, it would be a legislative impossibility given the normal procedures Congress uses to enact laws. Remember, Congress enacts laws, they do not enact Codes. Codes are written by codifiers, and they are an index to make it easier and more orderly to find the law.<br />
As I understand this, Congress can only revise codes, but they amend statutes and statutes are the publication of the laws. So it appears to be what some call a “legislative orphan.” It didn’t follow the normal process Congress uses to enact laws. We can only surmise that Congress pulled a fast one and made it appear that the internal revenue laws were “revised”, when the truth of the matter is that they attempted to “enact” a statute based upon repealed law. The lawmaking process does not work that way. Congress cannot amend repealed laws; they would have to enact new ones.<br />
If the internal revenue laws were repealed, and that appears to be the fact, what does this mean? Did Congress do this on purpose? Or did it happen over a period of time between 1939 and 1954. What did they know, and when did they know it? We may never be able to answer that question, but we do know that they did it, and the law still stands today.<br />
Many in the “tax honesty” movement have been saying over and over again, “Show me the law…” and the government remains silent. The more complete question is: Show me the law that makes me liable for the tax. And again, the government remains silent. It is because there is no law, and the government knows it. If they actually pointed to a purported liability, it would be a gross error, or worse, a complete lie.<br />
I’ve had two occasions myself and I asked the question to IRS officials, “Please tell me what statute, code, or regulation that makes me liable for the tax, and I got nothing but silence. One IRS appeals officer told me, “I don’t have to answer that, that’s compelled testimony.”<br />
Internal Revenue Laws Were Repealed 2 / 12<br />
Therefore, since the internal revenue laws were repealed, what is the purpose in studying the codes? Nothing. Why study codes that are not supported by law? It doesn’t make any sense. It appears that the process of studying codes occurs because people think that they are law, but the reality is that they may or may not be an accurate representation of law. One should always demand the underlying statute before answering any complaint or charge. Remember, the “slip laws” are competent evidence, the statutes are legal evidence, and the codes are prima facie evidence of the law. If someone is dealing with an IRS issue, I would most certainly demand to see the slip laws along with the statutes.<br />
In fact, the Department of Justice states the following: “The text of all statutes alleged to have been violated, including the penalty provision, and the pertinent statute of limitations should be typed out in full either in the body of the prosecutor's affidavit or as exhibits to the prosecutor's affidavit. If attached as an exhibit, each statute should be typed on a separate page. If the text of the pertinent statute is unusually long or convoluted, contact the Office of International Affairs regarding the possibility of reduction. It is usually not necessary to also include the applicable provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines.”<br />
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00607.htm<br />
In almost every instance I have seen in income or employment tax cases, there is no lawful affidavit sworn by a competent witness and there is no statute included in any charge/claim. Many people have been put in jail, based upon unsworn charges with no statutes.<br />
Therefore, it is essential that the statutes be included in any kind of charge, and this is something that overlooked in the cases I’ve seen. Why? In the case of the internal revenue laws, it appears they were repealed in 1939 and no new internal revenue laws were enacted. The government attorneys simply move their process forward because we don’t challenge their presentments,<br />
Any charges from the federal government that does not include lawfully enacted statutes are nothing more than merit less, frivolous, charges that are meant to embarrass, oppress, harass, and intimidate the people.<br />
How was this fact pasted over by so many researchers? The power of breaking a belief that one has held most of their life is quite difficult to break.<br />
About two years ago, at a research meeting in Oklahoma, Jack Cohen, from Washington state, pointed out this fact of the 1939 internal revenue laws were repealed. Yes, we’ve been sitting on this for two years, but we just didn’t realize the implications. Jack held up the book to all the researchers. They all looked at it, but then they completely forgot about it and carried on with little discussion. I was there, and since the other researchers didn’t have much of an interest, I thought maybe there was not much merit to Jack’s statement. But I kept thinking that if what Jack said was true, then we don’t have to go through all this other material, if the internal revenue laws were repealed. Why are we studying codes if there is no law? Even now, with the evidence in my hands, it is still hard to believe, but the statutes speak for themselves. It is our knowledge and understanding that seems to be subject to our old ways of thinking.<br />
Therefore, unless we’re missing something, it appears that indeed the internal revenue laws were repealed and that may be one of the reasons that the government refuses to “show me the law”. There isn’t one.<br />
Copyright by Al Thompson under the Common Law December 11th, 2003<br />
This article may be freely distributed in its entirety.<br />
Internal Revenue Laws Were Repealed 3 / 12<br />
MORE INTERNAL REVENUE INFO<br />
The last action arising under the laws codified in the Code of 1939 was finalized some time after 1960 and before 1966. West's Code Annotated included the 1939 Code in its 1955 edition, and provided Pocket Parts until 1960. The 1939 Code was not included in the 1966 edition. Congress has never enacted any new internal revenue laws since 1939. So the alleged Code of 1954 is not a "code of laws". Its provisions have no statutory foundation. It is, at best, a code of municipal ordinances.<br />
Also note:<br />
Treasury Order (TO) 150-01 created 33 Districts and 4 Regional offices under the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. TO 150-02, which cancelled 150-01, legally closed all 37 offices created by TO 150-01<br />
Therefore, The Commissioner is not authorized to collect taxes, but if he were, it would only be in the District of Columbia.<br />
4 USC 72 says that all offices attached to the seat of the government are to be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as expressly provided by law. The Secretary's office is attached to the seat of the government, and so is the Commissioner's. No law provides authority for the Commissioner to operate outside the District, so his activities and functions are limited to that area. No Delegation Order authorizes him to collect taxes, so anyone under his supervision is likewise limited.<br />
The Secretary has not delegated the "authority to levy" to the Commissioner, or the "authority to file lien claims." The Secretary has delegated all authority to "enforce" the "internal revenue laws" to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.<br />
Also, keep in mind that the word "Internal" is used for a purpose. The word having the opposite meaning is "external." We know the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE and the Internal Revenue Laws were not created for those who are external, or outside government. Therefore, we can conclude that it was created for "internal" purposes, to collect from those who receive a benefit from within the government structure. It is a tax to be collected from those who are employed by it, who are now re-"venued". Their venue has changed from state to federal. Working within government is a benefit and or privilege that can be or is taxable. Something like a kickback.<br />
Internal Revenue Laws Were Repealed 4 / 12<br />
Exhibit A<br />
Internal Revenue Laws Were Repealed 5 / 12<br />
Internal Revenue Laws Were Repealed 6 / 12<br />
Internal Revenue Laws Were Repealed 7 / 12<br />
Exhibit B<br />
PUBLIC LAW 591 - CHAPTER 736<br />
APPROVED AUGUST 16, 1954, 9:45 a. m., E. D. T.<br />
H. R. 8300<br />
Internal Revenue Code of 1954<br />
ENACTED DURING THE<br />
SECOND SESSION OF THE EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS<br />
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA<br />
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, January 6, 1954.<br />
An Act<br />
To revise the internal revenue laws of the United States.<br />
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) CITATION.—<br />
(1) The provisions of this Act set forth under the heading "Internal Revenue Title" may be cited as the "Internal Revenue Code of 1954".<br />
(2) The Internal Revenue Code enacted on February 10, 1939, as amended, may be cited as the "Internal Revenue Code of 1939".<br />
(b) PUBLICATION.—This Act shall be published as volume 68A of the United States Statutes at Large, with a comprehensive table of contents and an appendix ; but without an index or marginal references. The date of enactment, bill number, public law number, and chapter number, shall be printed as a headnote.<br />
(c) CROSS REFERENCE.—For saving provisions, effective date provisions, and other related provisions, see chapter 80 (sec. 7801 and following) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.<br />
(d) ENACTMENT OF INTERNAL REVENUE TITLE INTO LAW.—The Internal Revenue Title referred to in subsection (a)(1) is as follows:<br />
CH. 1—NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES 275<br />
Subchapter N—Tax Based on Income From Sources Within or Without the United States<br />
Part I. Determination of sources of income.<br />
Part II. Nonresident aliens and foreign corporations.<br />
Part III. Income from sources without the United States.<br />
Internal Revenue Laws Were Repealed 8 / 12<br />
PART I—DETERMINATION OF SOURCES OF INCOME<br />
Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States.<br />
Sec. 862. Income from sources without the United States.<br />
Sec. 863. Items not specified in section 861 or 862.<br />
Sec. 864. Definitions.<br />
SEC. 861. INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.<br />
(a) GROSS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN UNITED STATES.—The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States:<br />
(1) INTEREST.—Interest from the United States, any Territory, any political subdivision of a Territory, or the District of Columbia, and interest on bonds, notes, or other interest-bearing obligations of residents, corporate or otherwise, not including—<br />
(A) interest on deposits with persons carrying on the banking business paid to persons not engaged in business within the United States,<br />
(B) interest received from a resident alien individual, a resi- dent foreign corporation, or a domestic corporation, when it is shown to the satisfaction of the Secretary or his delegate that less than 20 percent of the gross income of such resident payor or domestic corporation has been derived from sources within the United States, as determined under the provisions of this part, for the 3-year period ending with the close of the taxable year of such payor preceding the payment of such interest, or for such part of such period as may be applicable, and<br />
(C) income derived by a foreign central bank of issue from bankers' acceptances.<br />
(2) DIVIDENDS.—The amount received as dividends—<br />
(A) from a domestic corporation other than a corporation entitled to the benefits of section 931, and other than a corporation less than 20 percent of whose gross income is shown to the satisfaction of the Secretary or his delegate to have been derived from sources within the United States, as determined under the provisions of this part, for the 3-year period ending with the close of the taxable year of such corporation preceding the declaration of such dividends (or for such part of such period as the corporation has been in existence), or<br />
(B) from a foreign corporation unless less than 50 percent of the gross income of such foreign corporation for the 3-year period ending with the close of its taxable year preceding the declaration of such dividends (or for such part of such period as the corporation has been in existence) was derived from sources<br />
§861(a)(2)(B)<br />
Internal Revenue Laws Were Repealed 9 / 12<br />
276 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1954<br />
within the United States as determined under the provisions of this part; but only in an amount which bears the same ratio to such dividends as the gross income of the corporation for such period derived from sources within the United States bears to its gross income from all sources; but dividends from a foreign corporation shall, for purposes of subpart A of part III (relating to foreign tax credit), be treated as income from sources without the United States to the extent exceeding the amount of the deduction allowable under section 245 in respect of such dividends.<br />
(3) PERSONAL SERVICES.—Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States; except that compensation for labor or services performed in the United States shall not be deemed to be income from sources within the United States if—<br />
(A) the labor or services are performed by a nonresident alien individual temporarily present in the United States for a period or periods not exceeding a total of 90 days during the taxable year,<br />
(B) such compensation does not exceed $3,000 in the aggregate, and<br />
(C) the compensation is for labor or services performed as an employee of or under a contract with—<br />
(i) a nonresident alien, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States, or<br />
(ii) a domestic corporation, if such labor or services are per- formed for an office or place of business maintained in a foreign country or in a possession of the United States by such corporation.<br />
(4) RENTALS AND ROYALTIES.—Rentals or royalties from property located in the United States or from any interest in such property, including rentals or royalties for the use of or for the privilege of using in the United States patents, copyrights, secret processes and formulas, good will, trade-marks, trade brands, franchises, and other like property.<br />
(5) SALE OF REAL PROPERTY.—Gains, profits, and income from the sale of real property located in the United States.<br />
(6) SALE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY.—Gains, profits, and income derived from the purchase of personal property without the United States (other than within a possession of the United States) and its sale within the United States.<br />
(b) TAXABLE INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN UNITED STATES.— From the items of gross income specified in subsection (a) as being income from sources within the United States there shall be deducted the expenses, losses, and other deductions properly apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of any expenses, losses, or other deductions which cannot definitely be allocated to some item or class of gross income. The remainder, if any, shall be included in full as taxable income from sources within the United States.<br />
Internal Revenue Laws Were Repealed 10 / 12<br />
SEC. 862. INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES.<br />
(a) GROSS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHOUT UNITED STATES.—The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources without the United States:<br />
(1) interest other than that derived from sources within the United States as provided in section 861 (a) (1);<br />
§861(a)(2)(B)<br />
CH. 1—NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES 277<br />
(2) dividends other than those derived from sources within the United States as provided in section 861 (a) (2);<br />
(3) compensation for labor or personal services performed with- out the United States;<br />
(4) rentals or royalties from property located without the United States or from any interest in such property, including rentals or royalties for the use of or for the privilege of using with- out the United States patents, copyrights, secret processes and formulas, good will, trade-marks, trade brands, franchises, and other like properties;<br />
(5) gains, profits, and income from the sale of real property located without the United States; and<br />
(6) gains, profits, and income derived from the purchase of personal property within the United States and its sale without the United States.<br />
(b) TAXABLE INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHOUT UNITED STATES.— From the items of gross income specified in subsection (a) there shall be deducted the expenses, losses, and other deductions properly appor- tioned or allocated thereto, and a ratable part of any expenses, losses, or other deductions which cannot definitely be allocated to some item or class of gross income. The remainder, if any, shall be treated in full as taxable income from sources without the United States.<br />
SEC. 863. ITEMS NOT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 861 OR 862.<br />
(a) ALLOCATION UNDER REGULATIONS.—Items of gross income, expenses, losses, and deductions, other than those specified in sections 861 (a) and 862 (a), shall be allocated or apportioned to sources within or without the United States, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate. Where items of gross income are separately allocated to sources within the United States, there shall be deducted (for the purpose of computing the taxable income therefrom) the expenses, losses, and other deductions properly apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of other expenses, losses, or other deductions which cannot definitely be allocated to some item or class of gross income. The remainder, if any, shall be included in full as taxable income from sources within the United States.<br />
(b) INCOME PARTLY FROM WITHIN AND PARTLY FROM WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES.—In the case of gross income derived from sources partly within and partly without the United States, the taxable in- come may first be computed by deducting the expenses, losses, or other deductions apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of any expenses, losses, or other deductions which cannot definitely be allocated to some item or class of gross income; and<br />
Internal Revenue Laws Were Repealed 11 / 12<br />
the portion of such taxable income attributable to sources within the United States may be determined by processes or formulas of general apportionment prescribed by the Secretary or his delegate. Gains, profits, and income—<br />
(1) from transportation or other services rendered partly within and partly without the United States,<br />
(2) from the sale of personal property produced (in whole or in part) by the taxpayer within and sold without the United States, or produced (in whole or in part) by the taxpayer without and sold within the United States, or<br />
§863 (b)(2)<br />
278 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1954<br />
(3) derived from the purchase of personal property within a possession of the United States and its sale within the United States,<br />
shall be treated as derived partly from sources within and partly from sources without the United States.<br />
SEC. 864. DEFINITIONS.<br />
For purposes of this part, the word "sale" includes "exchange"; the word "sold" includes "exchanged"; and the word "produced" includes "created", "fabricated", "manufactured", "extracted", "processed", "cured", or "aged".<br />
Internal Revenue Laws Were Repealed 12 / 12Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-80296113700409032732010-08-03T09:48:00.002-04:002010-08-03T09:48:48.608-04:00Memorandum Of Law - Bank FraudMEMORANDUM OF LAW – BANK FRAUD<br />
I have, through research, learned the following to be true and most likely applies to me, which is the reason I have requested and demanded “the bank” to validate their claims and produce pursuant to applicable law. This MEMORANDUM serves to support my suspicions and identify criminal facts. The “bank” allegedly “loaned me their money” when in reality they deposited (credited) my promissory note and used that deposit to “pay my seller”. Source and reasoning after reviewing the original file clearly shows this fact, which is the reason for the “bank” refusing and failing to validate and to produce as stipulated by law. However, the truth is out and there is plenty of law backing up the fact that the bank is criminal.<br />
FORECLOSURE ACTIONS AND CASES LAWFULLY DISMISSED (NOT LETTING BANK FORECLOSE WITHOUT LAWFUL VALIDATION AND PRODUCTION) BY THE COURTS DUE TO BANK'S FAILURE TO VALIDATE & PRODUCE AS STIPULATED BY LAW AND COMMITTED “BANK FRAUD” AGAINST THE BORROWER<br />
FROM THE BAR ASSOCIATION'S OFFICIAL WEB SITE :... ”this Court has the responsibility to assure itself that the foreclosure plaintiffs have standing and that subject matter jurisdiction requirements are met at the time the complaint is filed. Even without the concerns raised by the documents the plaintiffs have filed, there is reason to question the existence of standing and the jurisdictional amount”. Over 30 cases are covered by the BAR at: http://www.abanet.org/rpte/publications/ereport/2008/3/Ohioforeclosures.pdf<br />
1.<br />
“A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or corporation . . . Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 F 925 36 CCA 553, certiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US 682, 44 LED 637.<br />
2.<br />
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Taylor - Mayer, J., Supreme Court, Suffolk County / 9/07<br />
3.<br />
American Brokers Conduit v. ZAMALLOA - Judge SCHACK 28Jan2008<br />
Aurora Loan Services v. MACPHERSON - Judge FARNETI 1 1Mar2008<br />
4.<br />
“A bank may not lend its credit to another even though such a transaction turns out to have been of benefit to the bank, and in support of this a list of cases might be cited, which-would look like a catalog of ships.” [Emphasis added] Norton Grocery Co. v. Peoples Nat. Bank, 144 SE 505. 151 Va 195.<br />
5.<br />
“In the federal courts, it is well established that a national bank has not power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, indorser, or guarantor for him.”' Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat 'l Bank, 11 F 2d 83, 271 U.S. 669.<br />
6.<br />
Bank of New York v. SINGH - Judge KURTZ 14Dec2007<br />
7.<br />
Bank of New York v. TORRES - Judge COSTELLO 11Mar2008<br />
8.<br />
Bank of New York v. OROSCO - Judge SCHACK 19Nov2007<br />
Citi Mortgage Inc. v. BROWN - Judge FARNETI 13Mar2008<br />
9.<br />
“The doctrine of ultra vires is a most powerful weapon to keep private corporations within their legitimate spheres and to punish them for violations of their corporate charters, and it probably is not invoked too often…. Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First National Bank, 103 Wis 125, 79 NW 229. American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 430.<br />
"It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal Law being limited in its powers and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debts of another. All such contracts entered into by its officers are ultra vires . . ." Howard & Foster Co. v. Citizens Nat'l Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE 759(1926).<br />
10.<br />
“. . . checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the United States ...” State v. Neilon, 73 Pac 324, 43 Ore 168.<br />
11.<br />
American Brokers Conduit v. ZAMALLOA - Judge SCHACK 11 Sep2007<br />
Countrywide Mortgage v. BERLIUK - Judge COSTELLO 1 3Mar2008<br />
12.<br />
Deutsche Bank v. Barnes-Judgment Entry<br />
13.<br />
Deutsche Bank v. Barnes-Withdrawal of Objections and Motion to Dismiss<br />
Deutsche Bank v. ALEMANY Judge COSTELLO 07Jan2008<br />
Deutsche Bank v. Benjamin CRUZ – Judge KURTZ 21May2008<br />
Deutsche Bank v. Yobanna CRUZ - Judge KURTZ 21May2008<br />
Deutsche Bank v. CABAROY - Judge COSTELLO 02Apr2008<br />
Deutsche Bank v. CASTELLANOS / 2007NYSlipOp50978U/- Judge SCHACK 11May2007<br />
14.<br />
Deutsche Bank v. CASTELLANOS/ 2008NYSlipOp50033U/ - Judge SCHACK 14Jan 2008<br />
15.<br />
HSBC v. Valentin - Judge SCHACK calls them liars and dismisses WITH prejudice **<br />
16.<br />
Deutsche Bank v. CLOUDEN / 2007NYSlipOp5 1 767U/ Judge SCHACK 1 8Sep2007<br />
17.<br />
Deutsche Bank v. EZAGUI - Judge SCHACK 21Dec2007<br />
Deutsche Bank v. GRANT - Judge SCHACK 25Apr2008<br />
Deutsche Bank v. HARRIS - Judge SCHACK 05Feb2008<br />
18.<br />
Deutsche Bank v. LaCrosse, Cede, DTC Complaint<br />
19.<br />
Deutsche Bank v. NICHOLLS - Judge KURTZ 21May2008<br />
Deutsche Bank v. RYAN - Judge KURTZ 29Jan2008<br />
Deutsche Bank v. SAMPSON - Judge KURTZ 16Jan2008<br />
20.<br />
Deutsche v. Marche - Order to Show Cause to VACATE Judgment of Foreclosure – 11 June2009<br />
21.<br />
GMAC Mortgage LLC v. MATTHEWS - Judge KURTZ 10Jan2008<br />
GMAC Mortgage LLC v. SERAFINE - Judge COSTELLO 08Jan2008<br />
HSBC Bank USA NA v. CIPRIANI Judge COSTELLO 08Jan2008<br />
HSBC Bank USA NA v. JACK - Judge COSTELLO 02Apr2008<br />
IndyMac Bank FSB v. RODNEY-ROSS - Judge KURTZ 15Jan2008<br />
LaSalleBank NA v. CHARLEUS - Judge KURTZ 03Jan2008<br />
LaSalleBank NA v. SMALLS - Judge KURTZ 03Jan2008<br />
PHH Mortgage Corp v. BARBER - Judge KURTZ 15Jan2008<br />
Property Asset Management v. HUAYTA 05Dec2007<br />
22.<br />
Rivera, In Re Services LLC v. SATTAR / 2007NYSlipOp5 1 895U/ - Judge SCHACK 09Oct2007<br />
23.<br />
USBank NA v. AUGUSTE - Judge KURTZ 27Nov2007<br />
USBank NA v. GRANT - Judge KURTZ 14Dec2007<br />
USBank NA v. ROUNDTREE - Judge BURKE 11Oct2007<br />
USBank NA v. VILLARUEL - Judge KURTZ 01Feb2008<br />
24.<br />
Wells Fargo Bank NA v. HAMPTON - Judge KURTZ 03 Jan2008<br />
25.<br />
Wells Fargo, Litton Loan v. Farmer WITH PREJUDICE Judge Schack June2008<br />
26.<br />
Wells Fargo v. Reyes WITH PREJUDICE, Fraud on Court & Sanctions Judge Schack June2008<br />
27.<br />
Deutsche Bank v. Peabody Judge Nolan (Regulation Z)<br />
Indymac Bank,FSB v. Boyd - Schack J. January 2009<br />
28.<br />
Indymac Bank, FSB v. Bethley - Schack, J. February 2009 ( The tale of many hats)<br />
29.<br />
LaSalle Bank Natl. Assn. v Ahearn - Appellate Division, Third Department (Pro Se)<br />
30.<br />
NEW JERSEY COURT DISMISSES FORECLOSURE FILED BY DEUTSCHE BANK FOR FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE NOTE<br />
31. Whittiker v. Deutsche (MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS) Whittiker (PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION) Whittiker (DEFENDANT WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION) Whittiker (RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEARSON’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT ITS MOTION TO DISMISS)<br />
32. Novastar v. Snyder * (lack of standing) Snyder (motion to amend w/prejudice) Snyder (response to amend)<br />
33.<br />
Washington Mutual v. City of Cleveland (WAMU's motion to dismiss)<br />
34. 2008-Ohio-1177; DLJ Mtge. Capital, Inc. v. Parsons (SJ Reversed for lack of standing)<br />
35.<br />
Everhome v. Rowland<br />
36.<br />
Deutsche - Class Action (RICO) Bank of New York v. TORRES - Judge<br />
COSTELLO 1 1Mar2008<br />
37.<br />
Deutsche Bank Answer Whittiker<br />
38.<br />
Manley Answer Whittiker<br />
39.<br />
Justice Arthur M. Schack<br />
40.<br />
Judge Holschuh- Show cause<br />
41.<br />
Judge Holschuh- Dismissals<br />
42.<br />
Judge Boyko's Deutsche Bank Foreclosures<br />
43.<br />
Rose Complaint for Foreclosure | Rose Dismissals<br />
44.<br />
O'Malley Dismissals<br />
45.<br />
City Of Cleveland v. Banks<br />
46.<br />
Dowd Dismissal<br />
47.<br />
EMC can't find the note<br />
48.<br />
Ocwen can't find the note<br />
49.<br />
US Bank can't find the Note<br />
50.<br />
US Bank - No Note<br />
51.<br />
Key Bank - No Note<br />
52.<br />
Wells Fargo - Defective pleading<br />
53.<br />
Complaint in Jack v. MERS, Citi, Deutsche<br />
54.<br />
GMAC v. Marsh<br />
55.<br />
Massachusetts : Robin Hayes v. Deutsche Bank<br />
56.<br />
Florida: Deutsche Bank's Summary Judgment Denied<br />
57.<br />
Texas: MERS v. Young / 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals - PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and MCCOY, JJ.<br />
58.<br />
Nevada: MERS crushed: In re Mitchell<br />
59.<br />
"Neither, as included in its powers not incidental to them, is it a part of a bank's business to lend its credit. If a bank could lend its credit as well as its money, it might, if it received compensation and was careful to put its name only to solid paper, make a great deal more than any lawful interest on its money would amount to. If not careful, the power would be the mother of panics, . . . Indeed, lending credit is the exact opposite of lending money, which is the real business of a bank, for while the latter creates a liability in favor of the bank, the former gives rise to a liability of the bank to another. I Morse. Banks and Banking 5th Ed. Sec 65; Magee, Banks and Banking, 3rd Ed. Sec 248." American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 429.<br />
60.<br />
"It is not within those statutory powers for a national bank, even though solvent, to lend its credit to another in any of the various ways in which that might be done." Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v. L 'Herrison, 33 F 2d 841, 842 (1929).<br />
61.<br />
"There is no doubt but what the law is that a national bank cannot lend its credit or become an accommodation endorser." National Bank of Commerce v. Atkinson, 55 E 471.<br />
62.<br />
"A bank can lend its money, but not its credit." First Nat'l Bank of Tallapoosa v. Monroe . 135 Ga 614, 69 SE 1124, 32 LRA (NS) 550.<br />
63.<br />
".. . the bank is allowed to hold money upon personal security; but it must be money that it loans, not its credit." Seligman v. Charlottesville Nat. Bank, 3 Hughes 647, Fed Case No.12, 642, 1039.<br />
64.<br />
"A loan may be defined as the delivery by one party to, and the receipt by another party of, a sum of money upon an agreement, express or implied, to repay the sum with or without interest." Parsons v. Fox 179 Ga 605, 176 SE 644. Also see Kirkland v. Bailey, 155 SE 2d 701 and United States v. Neifert White Co., 247 Fed Supp 878, 879.<br />
65.<br />
"The word 'money' in its usual and ordinary acceptation means gold, silver, or paper money used as a circulating medium of exchange . . ." Lane v. Railey 280 Ky 319, 133 SW 2d 75.<br />
66.<br />
"A promise to pay cannot, by argument, however ingenious, be made the equivalent of actual payment ..." Christensen v. Beebe, 91 P 133, 32 Utah 406.<br />
67.<br />
“A bank is not the holder in due course upon merely crediting the depositors account.” Bankers Trust v. Nagler, 229 NYS 2d 142, 143.<br />
68.<br />
"A check is merely an order on a bank to pay money." Young v. Hembree, 73 P2d 393<br />
69.<br />
"Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes 'fraud,' and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages." Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co. 92 F 26 817.<br />
70.<br />
"Any conduct capable of being turned into a statement of fact is representation. There is no distinction between misrepresentations effected by words and misrepresentations effected by other acts." Leonard v. Springer 197 Ill 532. 64 NE 301.<br />
71.<br />
“If any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several considerations for an unseverable promise one of which is illegal, the promise, whether written or oral, is wholly void, as it is impossible to say what part or which one of the considerations induced the promise.” Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies L & C Co.,147 Wis 559-572; 132 NW 1122.<br />
72.<br />
“The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the promise single or entire.” Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. Savings Bank, 227 Wis 550, 279 NW 83.<br />
73.<br />
“It is not necessary for recision of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations.” Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166.<br />
74.<br />
"Each Federal Reserve bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region ..." Lewis v. United States, 680 F 20 1239 (1982).<br />
HOW AND WHY THE BANKS SECRETLY AND QUICKLY<br />
“SWITCH CURRENCY”<br />
NOT FULFILL THE “LOAN AGREEMENT “(THE CONTRACT)<br />
OBTAIN YOUR MORTGAGE NOTE WITHOUT INVESTING ONE CENT<br />
TO FORCE YOU TO LABOR TO PAY INTEREST ON “THE CONTRACT “<br />
TO REFUSE TO FULFILL “THE CONTRACT “<br />
TO MAKE YOU A DEPOSITOR (NOT A BORROWER)<br />
The oldest scheme throughout History is the changing of currency. Remember the moneychangers in the temple (BIBLE)? "If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, you are not to act as a creditor to him; you shall not charge him interest” Exodus 22:25. They changed currency as a business. You would have to convert to Temple currency in order to buy an animal for sacrifice. The Temple Merchants made money by the exchange. The Bible calls it unjust weights and measures, and judges it to be an abomination. Jesus cleared the Temple of these abominations. Our Christian Founding Fathers did the same. Ben Franklin said in his autobiography, "... the inability of the colonists to get the power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of King George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the revolutionary war.” The year 1913 was the third attempt by the European bankers to get their system back in place within the United States of America. President Andrew Jackson ended the second attempt in 1836. What they could not win militarily in the Revolutionary War they attempted to accomplish by a banking money scheme which allowed the European Banks to own the mortgages on nearly every home, car, farm, ranch, and business at no cost to the bank. Requiring “We the People” to pay interest on the equity we lost and the bank got free.<br />
Today people believe that cash and coins back up the all checks. If you deposit $100 of cash, the bank records the cash as a bank asset (debit) and credits a Demand Deposit<br />
Account (DDA), saying that the bank owes you $100. For the $100 liability the bank owes you, you may receive cash or write a check. If you write a $100 check, the $100 liability your bank owes you is transferred to another bank and that bank owes $100 to the person you wrote the check to. That person can write a $100 check or receive cash. So far there is no problem.<br />
Remember one thing however, for the check to be valid there must first be a deposit of money to the banks ASSETS, to make the check (liability) good. The liability is like a HOLDING ACCOUNT claiming that money was deposited to make the check good.<br />
Here then, is how the switch in currency takes place<br />
The bank advertises it loans’ money. The bank says, "sign here". However the bank never signs because they know they are not going to lend you theirs, or other depositor's money. Under the law of bankruptcy of a nation, the mortgage note acts like money. The bank makes it look like a loan but it is not. It is an exchange.<br />
The bank receives the equity in the home you are buying, for free, in exchange for an unpaid bank liability that the bank cannot pay, without returning the mortgage note. If the bank had fulfilled its end of the contract, the bank could not have received the equity in your home for free.<br />
The bank receives your mortgage note without investing or risking one-cent.<br />
The bank sells the mortgage note, receives cash or an asset that can then be converted to cash and still refuses to loan you their or other depositors' money or pay the liability it owes you. On a $100,000 loan the bank does not give up $100,000. The bank receives $100,000 in cash or an asset and issues a $100,000 liability (check) the bank has no intention of paying. The $100,000 the bank received in the alleged loan is the equity (lien on property) the bank received without investment, and it is the $100,000 the individual lost in equity to the bank. The $100,000 equity the individual lost to the bank, which demands he/she repay plus interest.<br />
The loan agreement the bank told you to sign said LOAN. The bank broke that agreement. The bank now owns the mortgage note without loaning anything. The bank then deposited the mortgage note in an account they opened under your name without your authorization or knowledge. The bank withdrew the money without your authorization or knowledge using a forged signature. The bank then claimed the money was the banks’ property, which is a fraudulent conversion.<br />
The mortgage note was deposited or debited (asset) and credited to a Direct Deposit Account, (DDA) (liability). The credit to Direct Deposit Account (liability) was used from which to issue the check. The bank just switched the currency. The bank demands that you cannot use the same currency, which the bank deposited (promissory notes or<br />
mortgage notes) to discharge your mortgage note. The bank refuses to loan you other depositors' money, or pay the liability it owes you for having deposited your mortgage note.<br />
To pay this liability the bank must return the mortgage note to you. However instead of the bank paying the liability it owes you, the bank demands you use these unpaid bank liabilities, created in the alleged loan process, as the new currency. Now you must labor to earn the bank currency (unpaid liabilities created in the alleged loan process) to pay back the bank. What the bank received for free, the individual lost in equity.<br />
If you tried to repay the bank in like kind currency, (which the bank deposited without your authorization to create the check they issued you), then the bank claims the promissory note is not money. They want payment to be in legal tender (check book money).<br />
The mortgage note is the money the bank uses to buy your property in the foreclosure. They get your real property at no cost. If they accept your promissory note to discharge the mortgage note, the bank can use the promissory note to buy your home if you sell it. Their problem is, the promissory note stops the interest and there is no lien on the property. If you sell the home before the bank can find out and use the promissory note to buy the home, the bank lost. The bank claims they have not bought the home at no cost. Question is, what right does the bank have to receive the mortgage note at no cost in direct violation of the contract they wrote and refused to sign or fulfill.<br />
By demanding that the bank fulfill the contract and not change the currency, the bank must deposit your second promissory note to create check book money to end the fraud, putting everyone back in the same position they where, prior to the fraud, in the first place. Then all the homes, farms, ranches, cars and businesses in this country would be redeemed and the equity returned to the rightful owners (the people). If not, every time the homes are refinanced the banks get the equity for free. You and I must labor 20 to 30 years full time as the bankers sit behind their desks, laughing at us because we are too stupid to figure it out or to force them to fulfill their contract.<br />
The $100,000 created inflation and this increases the equity value of the homes. On an average homes are refinanced every 7 1/2 years. When the home is refinanced the bank again receives the equity for free. What the bank receives for free the alleged borrower loses to the bank.<br />
According to the Federal Reserve Banks’ own book of Richmond, Va. titled “YOUR MONEY” page seven, “...demand deposit accounts are not legal tender...” If a promissory note is legal tender, the bank must accept it to discharge the mortgage note. The bank changed the currency from the money deposited, (mortgage note) to check book money (liability the bank owes for the mortgage note deposited) forcing us to labor to pay interest on the equity, in real property (real estate) the bank received for free. This cost was not disclosed in NOTICE TO CUSTOMER REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW, Federal Reserve Regulation Z.<br />
When a bank says they gave you credit, they mean they credited your transaction account, leaving you with the presumption that they deposited other depositors money in the account. The fact is they deposited your money (mortgage note). The bank cannot<br />
claim they own the mortgage note until they loan you their money. If bank deposits your money, they are to credit a Demand Deposit Account under your name, so you can write checks and spend your money. In this case they claim your money is their money. Ask a criminal attorney what happens in a fraudulent conversion of your funds to the bank's use and benefit, without your signature or authorization.<br />
What the banks could not win voluntarily, through deception they received for free. Several presidents, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln believed that banker capitalism was more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. U.S. President James A. Garfield said, “Whoever controls the money in any country is absolute master of industry and commerce."<br />
The Chicago Federal Reserve Bank's book,”Modern Money Mechanics”, explains exactly how the banks expand and contract the checkbook money supply forcing people into foreclosure. This could never happen if contracts were not violated and if we received equal protection under the law of Contract.<br />
HOW THE BANK SWITCHES THE CURRENCY This is a repeat worded differently to be sure you understand it. You must understand the currency switch.<br />
The bank does not loan money. The bank merely switches the currency. The alleged borrower created money or currency by simply signing the mortgage note. The bank does not sign the mortgage note because they know they will not loan you their money. The mortgage note acts like money. To make it look like the bank loaned you money the bank deposits your mortgage note (lien on property) as money from which to issue a check. No money was loaned to legally fulfill the contract for the bank to own the mortgage note. By doing this, the bank received the lien on the property without risking or using one cent. The people lost the equity in their homes and farms to the bank and now they must labor to pay interest on the property, which the bank got for free and they lost.<br />
The check is not money, the check merely transfers money and by transferring money the check acts LIKE money. The money deposited is the mortgage note. If the bank never fulfills the contract to loan money, then the bank does not own the mortgage note. The deposited mortgage note is still your money and the checking account they set up in your name, which they credited, from which to issue the check, is still your money. They only returned your money in the form of a check. Why do you have to fulfill your end of the agreement if the bank refuses to fulfill their end of the agreement? If the bank does not loan you their money they have not fulfilled the agreement, the contract is void.<br />
You created currency by simply signing the mortgage note. The mortgage note has value because of the lien on the property and because of the fact that you are to repay the loan. The bank deposits the mortgage note (currency) to create a check (currency, bank money). Both currencies cost nothing to create. By law the bank cannot create currency (bank money, a check) without first depositing currency, (mortgage note) or legal tender.<br />
For the check to be valid there must be mortgage note or bank money as legal tender, but the bank accepted currency (mortgage note) as a deposit without telling you and without your authorization.<br />
The bank withdrew your money, which they deposited without telling you and withdrew it without your signature, in a fraudulent conversion scheme, which can land the bankers in jail but is played out in every City and Town in this nation on a daily basis. Without loaning you money, the bank deposits your money (mortgage note), withdraws it and claims it is the bank's money and that it is their money they loaned you.<br />
It is not a loan, it is merely an exchange of one currency for another, they'll owe you the money, which they claimed they were to loan you. If they do not loan the money and merely exchange one currency for another, the bank receives the lien on your property for free. What they get for free you lost and must labor to pay back at interest.<br />
If the banks loaned you legal tender, they could not receive the liens on nearly every home, car, farm, and business for free. The people would still own the value of their homes. The bank must sell your currency (mortgage note) for legal tender so if you use the bank's currency (bank money), and want to convert currency (bank money) to legal tender they will be able to make it appear that the currency (bank money) is backed by legal tender. The bank's currency (bank money) has no value without your currency (mortgage note). The bank cannot sell your currency (mortgage note) without fulfilling the contract by loaning you their money. They never loaned money, they merely exchanged one currency for another. The bank received your currency for free, without making any loan or fulfilling the contract, changing the cost and the risk of the contract wherein they refused to sign, knowing that it is a change of currency and not a loan.<br />
If you use currency (mortgage note), the same currency the bank deposited to create currency (bank money), to pay the loan, the bank rejects it and says you must use currency (bank money) or legal tender. The bank received your currency (mortgage note) and the bank's currency (bank money) for free without using legal tender and without loaning money thereby refusing to fulfill the contract. Now the bank switches the currency without loaning money and demands to receive your labor to pay what was not loaned or the bank will use your currency (mortgage note) to buy your home in foreclosure, The Revolutionary war was fought to stop these bank schemes. The bank has a written policy to expand and contract the currency (bank money), creating recessions, forcing people out of work, allowing the banks to obtain your property for free.<br />
If the banks loaned legal tender, this would never happen and the home would cost much less. If you allow someone to obtain liens for free and create a new currency, which is not legal tender and you must use legal tender to repay. This changes the cost and the risk.<br />
Under this bank scheme, even if everyone in the nation owned their homes and farms debt free, the banks would soon receive the liens on the property in the loan process. The liens the banks receive for free, are what the people lost in property, and now must labor to pay interest on. The interest would not be paid if the banks fulfilled the contract they wrote. If there is equal protection under the law and contract, you could get the mortgage note back without further labor. Why should the bank get your mortgage note and your<br />
labor for free when they refuse to fulfill the contract they wrote and told you to sign?<br />
Sorry for the redundancy, but it is important for you to know by heart their “shell game”, I will continue in that redundancy as it is imperative that you understand the principle. The following material is case law on the subject and other related legal issues as well as a summary.<br />
LOGIC AS EVIDENCE<br />
The check was written without deducting funds from Savings Account or Certificate of Deposit allowing the mortgage note to become the new pool of money owed to Demand Deposit Account, Savings Account, Certificate of Deposit with Demand Deposit, Savings Account, and/or Certificate of Deposit increasing by the amount of the mortgage note. In this case the bankers sell the mortgage note for Federal Reserve Bank Notes or other assets while still owing the liability for the mortgage note sold and without the bank giving up any- Federal Reserve Bank Notes.<br />
If the bank had to part with Federal Reserve Bank Notes, and without the benefit of checks to hide the fraudulent conversion of the mortgage note from which it issues the check, the bank fraud would be exposed.<br />
Federal Reserve Bank Notes are the only money called legal tender. If only Federal Reserve Bank Notes are deposited for the credit to Demand Deposit Account- Savings Account, Certificate of Deposit, and if the bank wrote a check for the mortgage note, the check then transfers Federal Reserve Bank Notes and the bank gives the borrower a bank asset. There is no increase in the check book money supply that exists in the loan process.<br />
The bank policy is to increase bank liabilities; Demand Deposit Account, Savings Account, Certificate of Deposit, by the mortgage note. If the mortgage note is money, then the bank never gave up a bank asset. The bank simply used fraudulent conversion of ownership of the mortgage note. The bank cannot own the mortgage note until the bank fulfills the contract.<br />
The check is not the money; the money is the deposit that makes the check good. In this case, the mortgage note is the money from which the check is issued. Who owns the mortgage note when the mortgage note is deposited? The borrower owns the mortgage note because the bank never paid money for the mortgage note and never loaned money (bank asset). The bank simply claimed the bank owned the mortgage note without paying for it and deposited the mortgage note from which the check was issued. This is fraudulent conversion. The bank risked nothing! Not even one penny was invested. They never took money out of any account, in order to own the mortgage note, as proven by the bookkeeping entries, financial ratios, the balance sheet, and of course the bank's literature. The bank simply never complied with the contract.<br />
If the mortgage note is not money, then the check is check kiting and the bank is insolvent and the bank still never paid. If the mortgage note is money, the bank took our money without showing the deposit, and without paying for it, which is fraudulent conversion. The bank claimed it owned the mortgage note without paying for it, then sold<br />
the mortgage note, took the cash and never used the cash to pay the liability it owed for the check the bank issued. The liability means that the bank still owes the money. The bank must return the mortgage note or the cash it received in the sale, in order to pay the liability. Even if the bank did this, the bank still never loaned us the bank's money, which is what 'loan' means. The check is not money but merely an order to pay money. If the mortgage note is money then the bank must pay the check by returning the mortgage note.<br />
The only way the bank can pay Federal Reserve Bank Notes for the check issued is to sell the mortgage note for Federal Reserve Bank Notes. Federal Reserve Bank Notes are non-redeemable in violation of the UCC. The bank forces us to trade in non-redeemable private bank notes of which the bank refuses to pay the liability owed. When we present the Federal Reserve Bank Notes for payment the bank just gives us back another Federal Reserve Bank Note which the bank paid 2 1/2 cents for per bill regardless of denomination.<br />
What a profit for the bank!<br />
The check issued can only be redeemed in Federal Reserve Bank Notes, which the bank obtained by selling the mortgage note that they paid nothing for.<br />
The bank forces us to trade in bank liabilities, which they never redeem in an asset. We the people are forced to give up our assets to the bank for free, and without cost to the bank. This is fraudulent conversion making the contract, which the bank created with their policy of bookkeeping entries, illegal and the alleged contract null and void.<br />
The bank has no right to the mortgage note or to a lien on the property, until the bank performs under the contract. The bank had less than ten percent of Federal Reserve Bank Notes to back up the bank liabilities in Demand Deposit Account, Savings Account, or Certificate of Deposit's. A bank liability to pay money is not money. When we try and repay the bank in like funds (such as is the banks policy to deposit from which to issue checks) they claim it is not money. The bank's confusing and deceptive trade practices and their alleged contracts are unconscionable.<br />
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES<br />
The bank made the alleged borrower a depositor by depositing a $100,000 negotiable instrument, which the bank sold or had available to sell for approximately $100,000 in legal tender. The bank did not credit the borrower's transaction account showing that the bank owed the borrower the $100,000. Rather the bank claimed that the alleged borrower owed the bank the $100,000, then placed a lien on the borrower's real property for $100,000 and demanded loan payments or the bank would foreclose.<br />
The bank deposited a non-legal tender negotiable instrument and exchanged it for another non legal tender check, which traded like money, using the deposited negotiable instrument as the money deposited. The bank changed the currency without the borrower's authorization. First by depositing non legal tender from which to issue a check (which is non-legal tender) and using the negotiable instrument (your mortgage note), to exchange for legal tender, the bank needed to make the check appear to be backed by<br />
legal tender. No loan ever took place. Which shell hides the little pea?<br />
The transaction that took place was merely a change of currency (without authorization), a negotiable instrument for a check. The negotiable instrument is the money, which can be exchanged for legal tender to make the check good. An exchange is not a loan. The bank exchanged $100,000 for $100,000. There was no need to go to the bank for any money. The customer (alleged borrower) did not receive a loan, the alleged borrower lost $100,000 in value to the bank, which the bank kept and recorded as a bank asset and never loaned any of the bank's money.<br />
In this example, the damages are $100,000 plus interest payments, which the bank demanded by mail. The bank illegally placed a lien on the property and then threatened to foreclose, further damaging the alleged borrower, if the payments were not made. A depositor is owed money for the deposit and the alleged borrower is owed money for the loan the bank never made and yet placed a lien on the real property demanding payment.<br />
Damages exist in that the bank refuses to loan their money. The bank denies the alleged borrower equal protection under the law and contract, by merely exchanging one currency for another and refusing repayment in the same type of currency deposited. The bank refused to fulfill the contract by not loaning the money, and by the bank refusing to be repaid in the same currency, which they deposited as an exchange for another currency. A debt tender offered and refused is a debt paid to the extent of the offer. The bank has no authorization to alter the alleged contract and to refuse to perform by not loaning money, by changing the currency and then refusing repayment in what the bank has a written policy to deposit.<br />
The seller of the home received a check. The money deposited for the check issued came from the borrower not the bank. The bank has no right to the mortgage note until the bank performs by loaning the money.<br />
In the transaction the bank was to loan legal tender to the borrower, in order for the bank to secure a lien. The bank never made the loan, but kept the mortgage note the alleged borrower signed. This allowed the bank to obtain the equity in the property (by a lien) and transfer the wealth of the property to the bank without the bank's investment, loan, or risk of money. Then the bank receives the alleged borrower's labor to pay principal and Usury interest. What the people owned or should have owned debt free, the bank obtained ownership in, and for free, in exchange for the people receiving a debt, paying interest to the bank, all because the bank refused to loan money and merely exchanged one currency for another. This places you in perpetual slavery to the bank because the bank refuses to perform under the contract. The lien forces payment by threat of foreclosure. The mail is used to extort payment on a contract the bank never fulfilled.<br />
If the bank refuses to perform, then they must return the mortgage note. If the bank wishes to perform, then they must make the loan. The past payments must be returned because the bank had no right to lien the property and extort interest payments. The bank has no right to sell a mortgage note for two reasons. The mortgage note was deposited and the money withdrawn without authorization by using a forged signature and; two, the contract was never fulfilled. The bank acted without authorization and is involved in a<br />
fraud thereby damaging the alleged borrower.<br />
Excerpts From “Modem Money Mechanics” Pages 3 & 6<br />
What Makes Money Valuable? In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper, deposits merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but generally far less than face value.<br />
Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving their promises to pay, or bank notes, to borrowers, in this way, banks began to create money. More notes could be issued than the gold and coin on hand because only a portion of the notes outstanding would be presented for payment at any one time. Enough metallic money had to be kept on hand, of course, to redeem whatever volume of notes was presented for payment.<br />
Transaction deposits are the modem counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the borrowers in turn could "spend" by writing checks, thereby "printing" their own money.<br />
Notes, exchange just like checks.<br />
How do open market purchases add to bank reserves and deposits? Suppose the Federal Reserve System, through its trading desk at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, buys $10,000 of Treasury bills from a dealer in U.S. government securities. In today's world of Computer financial transactions, the Federal Reserve Bank pays for the securities with an "electronic" check drawn on itself. Via its "Fedwire" transfer network, the Federal Reserve notifies the dealer's designated bank (Bank A) that payment for the securities should be credited to (deposited in) the dealer's account at Bank A. At the same time, Bank A's reserve account at the Federal Reserve is credited for the amount of the securities purchased. The Federal Reserve System has added $10,000 of securities to its assets, which it has paid for, in effect, by creating a liability on itself in the form of bank reserve balances. These reserves on Bank A's books are matched by $10,000 of the dealer's deposits that did not exist before.<br />
If business is active, the banks with excess reserves probably will have opportunities to loan the $9,000. Of course, they do not really pay out loans from money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to tile borrower's transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by $9,000. Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions. But the deposit credits constitute new additions to the total deposits of the banking system.<br />
PROOF BANKS DEPOSIT NOTES AND ISSUE BANK CHECKS. THE CHECKS ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS THE PROMISSORY NOTE. NEARLY ALL BANK CHECKS ARE CREATED FROM PRIVATE NOTES. FEDERAL RESERVE BANK NOTES ARE A PRIVATE CORPORATE NOTE (Chapter 48, 48 Stat 112) WE USE NOTES TO DISCHARGE NOTES.<br />
Excerpt from booklet Your Money, page 7: Other M1 Money<br />
While demand deposits, traveler’s checks, and interest-bearing accounts with unlimited checking authority are not legal tender, they are usually acceptable in payment for purchases of goods and services.<br />
The booklet, “Your Money”, is distributed free of charge. Additional copies may be obtained by writing to: Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond Public Services Department P.O. Box 27622 Richmond, Virginia 23261<br />
CREDIT LOANS AND VOID CONTRACTS: CASE LAW<br />
75.<br />
“In the federal courts, it is well established that a national bank has not power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, indorser, or guarantor for him.”' Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat 'l Bank, 11 F 2d 83, 271 U.S. 669.<br />
76.<br />
"A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or corporation . . . Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 F 925 36 CCA 553, certiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US 682, 44 LED 637.<br />
77.<br />
“The doctrine of ultra vires is a most powerful weapon to keep private corporations within their legitimate spheres and to punish them for violations of their corporate charters, and it probably is not invoked too often .. .” Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First National Bank, 103 Wis 125, 79 NW 229. American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 430.<br />
78.<br />
“A bank may not lend its credit to another even though such a transaction turns out to have been of benefit to the bank, and in support of this a list of cases might be cited, which-would look like a catalog of ships.” [Emphasis added] Norton Grocery Co. v. Peoples Nat. Bank, 144 SE 505. 151 Va 195.<br />
79.<br />
"It has been settled beyond controversy that a national bank, under federal Law being limited in its powers and capacity, cannot lend its credit by guaranteeing the debts of another. All such contracts entered into by its officers are ultra vires . . ." Howard & Foster Co. v. Citizens Nat'l Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE 759(1926).<br />
80.<br />
“. . . checks, drafts, money orders, and bank notes are not lawful money of the United States ...” State v. Neilon, 73 Pac 324, 43 Ore 168.<br />
81.<br />
"Neither, as included in its powers not incidental to them, is it a part of a bank's business to lend its credit. If a bank could lend its credit as well as its money, it might, if it received compensation and was careful to put its name only to solid paper, make a great deal more than any lawful interest on its money would amount to. If not careful, the power would be the mother of panics . . . Indeed, lending credit is the exact opposite of lending money, which is the real business of a bank, for while the latter creates a liability in favor of the bank, the former gives rise to a liability of the bank to another. I Morse. Banks and Banking 5th Ed. Sec 65; Magee,<br />
Banks and Banking, 3rd Ed. Sec 248." American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 429.<br />
82.<br />
"It is not within those statutory powers for a national bank, even though solvent, to lend its credit to another in any of the various ways in which that might be done." Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v. L 'Herrison, 33 F 2d 841, 842 (1929).<br />
83.<br />
"There is no doubt but what the law is that a national bank cannot lend its credit or become an accommodation endorser." National Bank of Commerce v. Atkinson, 55 E 471.<br />
84.<br />
"A bank can lend its money, but not its credit." First Nat'l Bank of Tallapoosa v. Monroe . 135 Ga 614, 69 SE 1124, 32 LRA (NS) 550.<br />
85.<br />
".. . the bank is allowed to hold money upon personal security; but it must be money that it loans, not its credit." Seligman v. Charlottesville Nat. Bank, 3 Hughes 647, Fed Case No.12, 642, 1039.<br />
86.<br />
"A loan may be defined as the delivery by one party to, and the receipt by another party of, a sum of money upon an agreement, express or implied, to repay the sum with or without interest." Parsons v. Fox 179 Ga 605, 176 SE 644. Also see Kirkland v. Bailey, 155 SE 2d 701 and United States v. Neifert White Co., 247 Fed Supp 878, 879.<br />
87.<br />
"The word 'money' in its usual and ordinary acceptation means gold, silver, or paper money used as a circulating medium of exchange . . ." Lane v. Railey 280 Ky 319, 133 SW 2d 75.<br />
88.<br />
"A promise to pay cannot, by argument, however ingenious, be made the equivalent of actual payment ..." Christensen v. Beebe, 91 P 133, 32 Utah 406.<br />
89.<br />
“A bank is not the holder in due course upon merely crediting the depositors account.” Bankers Trust v. Nagler, 229 NYS 2d 142, 143.<br />
90.<br />
"A check is merely an order on a bank to pay money." Young v. Hembree, 73 P2d 393.<br />
91.<br />
"Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes 'fraud,' and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages." Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co.. 92 F 26 817.<br />
92.<br />
"Any conduct capable of being turned into a statement of fact is representation. There is no distinction between misrepresentations effected by words and misrepresentations effected by other acts." Leonard v. Springer 197 Ill 532. 64 NE 301.<br />
93.<br />
“If any part of the consideration for a promise be illegal, or if there are several considerations for an unseverable promise one of which is illegal, the promise, whether written or oral, is wholly void, as it is impossible to say what part or which<br />
one of the considerations induced the promise.” Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies L & C Co., 147 Wis 559. 572; 132 NW 1122.<br />
94.<br />
“The contract is void if it is only in part connected with the illegal transaction and the promise single or entire.” Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mut. Savings Bank, 227 Wis 550, 279 NW 83.<br />
95.<br />
“It is not necessary for rescission of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations.” Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166.<br />
96.<br />
"Each Federal Reserve bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region ..." Lewis v. United States, 680 F 20 1239 (1982).<br />
97.<br />
In a Debtor's RICO action against its creditor, alleging that the creditor had collected an unlawful debt, an interest rate (where all loan charges were added together) that exceeded, in the language of the RICO Statute, "twice the enforceable rate." The Court found no reason to impose a requirement that the Plaintiff show that the Defendant had been convicted of collecting an unlawful debt, running a "loan sharking" operation. The debt included the fact that exaction of a usurious interest rate rendered the debt unlawful and that is all that is necessary to support the Civil RICO action. Durante Bros. & Sons, Inc. v. Flushing Nat 'l Bank. 755 F2d 239, Cert. denied, 473 US 906 (1985).<br />
98.<br />
The Supreme Court found that the Plaintiff in a civil RICO action need establish only a criminal "violation" and not a criminal conviction. Further, the Court held that the Defendant need only have caused harm to the Plaintiff by the commission of a predicate offense in such a way as to constitute a "pattern of Racketeering activity." That is, the Plaintiff need not demonstrate that the Defendant is an organized crime figure, a mobster in the popular sense, or that the Plaintiff has suffered some type of special Racketeering injury; all that the Plaintiff must show is what the Statute specifically requires. The RICO Statute and the civil remedies for its violation are to be liberally construed to effect the congressional purpose as broadly formulated in the Statute. Sedima, SPRL v. Imrex Co., 473 US 479 (1985).<br />
DEFINITIONS TO KNOW WHEN EXAMINING A BANK CONTRACT<br />
BANK ACCOUNT: A sum of money placed with a bank or banker, on deposit, by a customer, and subject to be drawn out on the latter's check.<br />
BANK: whose business it is to receive money on deposit, cash checks or drafts, discount commercial paper, make loans and issue promissory notes payable to bearer, known as bank notes.<br />
BANK CREDIT: A credit with a bank by which, on proper credit rating or proper security given to the bank, a person receives liberty to draw to a certain extent agreed upon.<br />
BANK DEPOSIT: Cash, checks or drafts placed with the bank for credit to depositor's account. Placement of money in bank, thereby, creating contract between bank and depositors.<br />
DEMAND DEPOSIT: The right to withdraw deposit at any time.<br />
BANK DEPOSITOR: One who delivers to, or leaves with a bank a sum of money subject to his order.<br />
BANK DRAFT: A check, draft or other form of payment.<br />
ANK OF ISSUE: Bank with the authority to issue notes which are intended to circulate as currency.<br />
LOAN: Delivery by one party to, and receipt by another party, a sum of money upon agreement, express or implied, to repay it with or without interest.<br />
CONSIDERATION: The inducement to a contract. The cause, motive, price or impelling influences, which induces a contracting, party to enter into a contract. The reason, or material cause of a contract.<br />
CHECK: A draft drawn upon a bank and payable on demand, signed by the maker or drawer, containing an unconditional promise to pay a certain sum in money to the order of the payee. The Federal Reserve Board defines a check as, "...a draft or order upon a bank or banking house purporting to be drawn upon a deposit of funds for the payment at all events of, a certain sum of money to a certain person therein named, or to him or his order, or to bearer and payable instantly on demand of."<br />
QUESTIONS ONE MIGHT ASK THE BANK IN AN INTERROGATORY<br />
Did the bank loan gold or silver to the alleged borrower?<br />
Did the bank loan credit to the alleged borrower?<br />
Did the borrower sign any agreement with the bank, which prevents the borrower from repaying the bank in credit?<br />
Is it true that your bank creates check book money when the bank grants loans, simply by adding deposit dollars to accounts on the bank's books, in exchange, for the borrower's mortgage note?<br />
Has your bank, at any time, used the borrower's mortgage note, "promise to pay", as a deposit on the bank's books from which to issue bank checks to the borrower?<br />
At the time of the loan to the alleged borrower, was there one dollar of Federal Reserve Bank Notes in the bank's possession for every dollar owed in Savings Accounts, Certificates of Deposits and check Accounts (Demand Deposit Accounts) for every dollar of the loan?<br />
According to the bank's policy, is a promise to pay money the equivalent of money?<br />
Does the bank have a policy to prevent the borrower from discharging the mortgage note in "like kind funds" which the bank deposited from which to issue the check?<br />
Does the bank have a policy of violating the Deceptive Trade Practices Act?<br />
When the bank loan officer talks to the borrower, does the bank inform the borrower that the bank uses the borrowers mortgage note to create the very money the bank loans out to the borrower?<br />
Does the bank have a policy to show the same money in two separate places at the same time?<br />
Does the bank claim to loan out money or credit from savings and certificates of deposits while never reducing the amount of money or credit from savings accounts or certificates of deposits, which customers can withdraw from?<br />
Using the banking practice in place at the time the loan was made, is it theoretically possible for the bank to have loaned out a percentage of the Savings Accounts and Certificates of Deposits?<br />
If the answer is "no" to question #13, explain why the answer is no.<br />
In regards to question #13, at the time the loan was made, were there enough Federal Reserve Bank Notes on hand at the bank to match the figures represented by every Savings Account and Certificate of Deposit and checking Account (Demand Deposit Account)?<br />
Does the bank have to obey, the laws concerning, Commercial Paper; Commercial Transactions, Commercial Instruments, and Negotiable Instruments?<br />
Did the bank lend the borrower the bank's assets, or the bank's liabilities?<br />
What is the complete name of the banking entity, which employs you, and in what jurisdiction is the bank chartered?<br />
What is the bank's definition of "Loan Credit"?<br />
Did the bank use the borrowers assumed mortgage note to create new bank money, which<br />
did not exist before the assumed mortgage note was signed?<br />
Did the bank take money from any Demand Deposit Account (DDA), Savings Account (SA), or a Certificate of Deposit (CD), or any combination of any Demand Deposit Account, Savings Account or Certificate of Deposit, and loan this money to the borrower?<br />
Did the bank replace the money or credit, which it loaned to the borrower with the borrower's assumed mortgage note?<br />
Did the bank take a bank asset called money, or the credit used as collateral for customers' bank deposits, to loan this money to the borrower, and/or did the bank use the borrower's note to replace the asset it loaned to the borrower?<br />
Did the money or credit, which the bank claims to have loaned to the borrower, come from deposits of money or credit made by the bank's customers, excluding the borrower's assumed mortgage note?<br />
Considering the balance sheet entries of the bank's loan of money or credit to the borrower, did the bank directly decrease the customer deposit accounts (i.e. Demand Deposit Account, Savings Account, and Certificate of Deposit) for the amount of the loan?<br />
Describe the bookkeeping entries referred to in question #13.<br />
Did the bank's bookkeeping entries to record the loan and the borrower's assumed mortgage note ever, at any time, directly decrease the amount of money or credit from any specific bank customer's deposit account?<br />
Does the bank have a policy or practice to work in cooperation with other banks or financial institutions use borrower's mortgage note as collateral to create an offsetting amount of new bank money or credit or check book money or Demand Deposit Account generally to equal the amount of the alleged loan?<br />
Regarding the borrowers assumed mortgage loan, give the name of the account which was debited to record the mortgage.<br />
Regarding the bookkeeping entry referred to in Interrogatory #17, state the name and purpose of the account, which was credited.<br />
When the borrower's assumed mortgage note was debited as a bookkeeping entry, was the offsetting entry a credit account?<br />
Regarding the initial bookkeeping entry to record the borrower's assumed mortgage note and the assumed loan to the borrower, was the bookkeeping entry credited for the money loaned to the borrower, and was this credit offset by a debit to record the borrower's assumed mortgage note?<br />
Does the bank currently or has it ever at anytime used the borrower's assumed mortgage note as money to cover the bank's liabilities referred to above, i.e. Demand Deposit Account, Savings Account and Certificate of Deposit?<br />
When the assumed loan was made to the borrower, did the bank have every Demand Deposit Account, Savings Account, and Certificate of Deposit backed up by Federal Reserve Bank Notes on hand at the bank?<br />
Does the bank have an established policy and practice to emit bills of credit which it creates upon its books at the time of making a loan agreement and issuing money or so-called money of credit, to its borrowers?<br />
SUMMARY<br />
The bank advertised it would loan money, which is backed by legal tender. Is not that what the symbol $ means? Is that not what the contract said? Do you not know there is no agreement or contract in the absence of mutual consent? The bank may say that they gave you a check, you owe the bank money. This information shows you that the check came from the money the alleged borrower provided and the bank never loaned any money from other depositors.<br />
I’ve shown you the law and the bank’s own literature to prove my case. All the bank did was trick you. They get your mortgage note without investing one cent, by making you a depositor and not a borrower. The key to the puzzle is, the bank did not sign the contract. If they did they must loan you the money. If they did not sign it, chances are, they deposited the mortgage note in a checking account and used it to issue a check without ever loaning you money or the bank investing one cent.<br />
Our Nation, along with every State of the Union, entered into Bankruptcy, in 1933. This changes the law from "gold and silver” legal money and “common law” to the law of bankruptcy. Under Bankruptcy law the mortgage note acts like money. Once you sign the mortgage note it acts like money. The bankers now trick you into thinking they loaned you legal tender, when they never loaned you any of their money.<br />
The trick is they made you a depositor instead of a borrower. They deposited your mortgage note and issued a bank check. Neither the mortgage note nor the check is legal tender. The mortgage note and the check are now money created that never existed, prior. The bank got your mortgage note for free without loaning you money, and sold the mortgage note to make the bank check appear legal. The borrower provided the legal tender, which the bank gave back in the form of a check. If the bank loaned legal tender, as the contract says, for the bank to legally own the mortgage note, then the people would still own the homes, farms, businesses and cars, nearly debt free and pay little, if any interest. By the banks not fulfilling the contract by loaning legal tender, they make the alleged borrower, a depositor. This is a fraudulent conversion of the mortgage note. A Fraud is a felony.<br />
The bank had no intent to loan, making it promissory fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and a list of other crimes a mile long. How can they make a felony, legal? They cannot! Fraud<br />
is fraud!<br />
The banks deposit your mortgage note in a checking account. The deposit becomes the bank’s property. They withdraw money without your signature, and call the money, the banks money that they loaned to you. The bank forgot one thing. If the bank deposits your mortgage note, then the bank must credit your checking account claiming the bank owes you $100,000 for the $100,000 mortgage note deposited. The credit of $100,000 the bank owes you for the deposit allows you to write a check or receive cash. They did not tell you they deposited the money, and they forget to tell you that the $100,000 is money the banks owe you, not what you owe the bank. You lost $100,000 and the bank gained $100,000. For the $100,000 the bank gained, the bank received government bonds or cash of $100,000 by selling the mortgage note. For the loan, the bank received $100,000 cash, the bank did not give up $100,000.<br />
Anytime the bank receives a deposit, the bank owes you the money. You do not owe the bank the money.<br />
If you or I deposit anyone's negotiable instrument without a contract authorizing it, and withdraw the money claiming it is our money, we would go to jail. If it was our policy to violate a contract, we could go to jail for a very long time. You agreed to receive a loan, not to be a depositor and have the bank receive the deposit for free. What the bank got for free (lien on real property) you lost and now must pay with interest.<br />
If the bank loaned us legal tender (other depositors’ money) to obtain the mortgage note the bank could never obtain the lien on the property for free. By not loaning their money, but instead depositing the mortgage note the bank creates inflation, which costs the consumer money. Plus the economic loss of the asset, which the bank received for free, in direct violation of any signed agreement.<br />
We want equal protection under the law and contract, and to have the bank fulfill the contract or return the mortgage note. We want the judges, sheriffs, and lawmakers to uphold their oath of office and to honor and uphold the founding fathers U.S. Constitution. Is this too much to ask?<br />
What is the mortgage note? The mortgage note represents your future loan payments. A promise to pay the money the bank loaned you. What is a lien? The lien is a security on the property for the money loaned.<br />
How can the bank promise to pay money and then not pay? How can they take a promise to pay and call it money and then use it as money to purchase the future payments of money at interest. Interest is the compensation allowed by law or fixed by the parties for the use or forbearance of borrowed money. The bank never invested any money to receive your mortgage note. What is it they are charging interest on?<br />
The bank received an asset. They never gave up an asset. Did they pay interest on the money they received as a deposit? A check issued on a deposit received from the borrower cost the bank nothing? Where did the money come from that the bank invested to charge interest on?<br />
The bank may say we received a benefit. What benefit? Without their benefit we would receive equal protection under the law, which would mean we did not need to give up an asset or pay interest on our own money! Without their benefit we would be free and not enslaved. We would have little debt and interest instead of being enslaved in debt and interest. The banks broke the contract, which they never intended to fulfill in the first place. We got a check and a house, while they received a lien and interest for free, through a broken contract, while we got a debt and lost our assets and our country. The benefit is the banks, who have placed liens on nearly every asset in the nation, without costing the bank one cent. Inflation and working to pay the bank interest on our own money is the benefit. Some benefit!<br />
What a Shell Game. The Following case was an actual trial concerning the issues we have covered. The Judge was extraordinary in-that he had a grasp of the Constitution that I haven’t seen often enough in our courts. This is the real thing, absolutely true. This case was reviewed by the Minnesota Supreme Court on their own motion. The last thing in the world that the Bankers and the Judges wanted was case law against the Bankers. However, this case law is real.<br />
_______________________________________________________________________<br />
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN JUSTICE COURT COUNTY OF SCOTT TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER<br />
)MARTIN V. MAHONEY, JUSTICE<br />
FIRST BANK OF MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff, ) CASE NO: 19144<br />
Vs. ) JUDGMENT AND DECREE<br />
Jerome Daly, Defendant. )<br />
The above entitled action came on before the court and a jury of 12 on December 7, 1968 at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff appeared by its President Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel Theodore R. Mellby, Defendant appeared on his own behalf.<br />
A jury of Talesmen were called, impaneled and sworn to try the issues in this case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for plaintiff and defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf.<br />
Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minn. Plaintiff claimed titled to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8, 1964 which plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started. Defendant appeared and answered that the plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry as the legal failure of consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff’s sale passed no title to plaintiff. The issues tried to the jury were<br />
whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the note for almost 3 years. Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was used as a consideration was created upon their books that this was standard banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private bank, further that he knew of no United States Statute of Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintiff further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying on the Note and Mortgage waived any right to complain about the consideration and that Defendant was estopped from doing so. At 12:15 on December 7, 1968 the Jury returned a unanimous verdict for the Defendant. Now therefore by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State Minnesota not inconsistent therewith.<br />
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED<br />
That Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office. That because of failure of a lawful consideration the note and Mortgage dated May 8, 1964 are null and void.<br />
That the Sheriffs sale of the above described premises held on June 26, 1967 is null and void, of no effect.<br />
That Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in said premises or lien thereon, as is above described.<br />
That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and any Minnesota Statute limiting the<br />
Jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the Bill of Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has Jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this cause.<br />
That Defendant is awarded costs in the sum of $75.00 and execution is hereby issued therefore.<br />
A 10 day stay is granted.<br />
The following memorandum and any supplemental memorandum made and filed by this Court in support of this judgment is hereby made a part hereof by reference.<br />
BY THE COURT<br />
Dated December 9, 1969<br />
MARTIN V. MAHONEY<br />
Justice of the Peace Credit River Township Scott County, Minnesota<br />
MEMORANDUM<br />
The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute on the facts for the jury to resolve. Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes because of their interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The Money and credit first came into existence when they credited it.<br />
Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law of Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the note. (See Anheuser Busch Brewing Co. v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. 46 NW 558.) The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree Only God can create something of value out of nothing. Even if defendant could be charged with waiver or estoppel as a matter of law this is no defense to the plaintiff. The law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. (See sections 50, 5 1, and 52 of Am Jur 2d "Actions" on page 584.") No action will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which plaintiff was a party. Plaintiffs act of creating is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not lawful consideration in the eyes of the law to support any thing or upon which any lawful rights can be built. Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original jurisdiction with right of trial by jury guaranteed.<br />
This is a Common Law Action. Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render complete justice between the parties. Any provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and void. No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by either party at the trial. Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts and law to the jury, at least in so far as they saw it. No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not receive a fair trial. From the admissions made by Mr. Morgan the path of duty was made direct and clear for the jury. Their verdict could not reasonably have been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without purchase, conformable to the law in this Court on December 7, 1968.<br />
BY THE COURT<br />
MARTIN V. MAHONEY<br />
Justice of the Peace Credit River Township Scott County, Minnesota<br />
Note: It has never been doubted that a note given on a consideration, which is prohibited by law is void. It has been determined independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal. The emission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations for the purposes of private gain is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful. See Craig v. @ 4 peters reports 912, This Court can tread only that path which is marked out by duty. M.V.M.<br />
JUDGE MARTIN MAHONEY DECISION AS FOLLOWS<br />
"For the Justice's fees, the First National Bank deposited @ the Clerk of the District Court the two Federal Reserve Bank Notes. The Clerk tendered the Notes to me (the Judge). As Judge my sworn duty compelled me to refuse the tender. This is contrary to the Constitution of the United States. The States have no power to make bank notes a legal tender. Only gold and silver coin is a lawful tender." (See American Jurist on Money 36 sec.13.)<br />
“Bank Notes are a good tender as money unless specifically objected to. Their consent and usage is based upon the convertibility of such notes to coin at the pleasure of the holder upon presentation to the bank for redemption. When the inability of a bank to redeem its notes is openly avowed they instantly lose their character as money and their circulation as currency ceases." (See American Jurist 36-section 9). "There is no lawful consideration for these Federal Reserve Bank Notes to circulate as money. The banks actually obtained these notes for cost of printing - A lawful consideration must exist for a Note. As a matter of fact, the "Notes" are not Notes at all, as they contain no promise to pay." (See 17 American Jurist section 85, 215) "The activity of the Federal Reserve Banks of Minnesota, San Francisco and the First National Bank of Montgomery is contrary to public policy and contrary to the Constitution of the United States, and constitutes an unlawful creation of money, credit and the obtaining of money and credit for no valuable consideration.<br />
Activity of said banks in creating money and credit is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States." "The Federal Reserve Banks and National Banks exercise an exclusive monopoly and privilege of creating credit and issuing Notes at the expense of the public which does not receive a fair equivalent. This scheme is obliquely designed for the benefit of an idle monopoly to rob, blackmail, and oppress the producers of wealth. "The Federal Reserve Act and the National Bank Act are, in their operation and effect, contrary to the whole letter and spirit of the Constitution of the United States, for they confer an unlawful and unnecessary power on private parties; they hold all of our fellow citizens in dependence; they are subversive to the rights and liberation of the people.” "These Acts have defiled the lawfully constituted Government of the United States. The Federal Reserve Act and the National Banking Act are not necessary and proper for carrying into execution the legislative powers granted to Congress or any other powers vested in the Government of the United States, but on the contrary, are subversive to the rights of the People in their rights to life, liberty, and property." (See Section 462 of Title 31 U. S. Code).<br />
"The meaning of the Constitutional provision, 'NO STATE SHALL make anything but Gold and Silver Coin a legal tender ' payment of debts' is direct, clear, unambiguous and without any qualification. This Court is without authority to interpolate any exception. My duty is simply to execute it, as and to pronounce the legal result. From an examination of the case of Edwards v. Kearsey, Federal Reserve Bank Notes (fiat money) which are attempted to be made a legal tender, are exactly what the authors of the<br />
Constitution of the United States intend to prohibit. No State can make these Notes a legal tender. Congress is incompetent to authorize a State to make the Notes a legal tender. For the effect of binding Constitution provisions see Cooke v. Iverson. This fraudulent Federal Reserve System and National Banking System has impaired the obligation of Contract promoted disrespect for the Constitution and Law and has shaken society to its foundation." (See 96 U.S. Code 595 and 108 M 388 and 63 M 147)<br />
"Title 31, U.S. Code, Section 432, is in direct conflict with the Constitution insofar, at least, that it attempts to make Federal Reserve Bank Notes a legal tender. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Section 462 of Title 31 is not a law, which is made in pursuance of the Constitution. It is unconstitutional and void, and I so hold. Therefore, the two Federal Reserve Bank Notes are Null and Void for any lawful purpose in so far as this case is concerned and are not a valid deposit of $2.00 with the Clerk of the District Court for the purpose of effecting an Appeal from this Court to the District Court." "However, of these Federal Reserve Bank Notes, previously discussed, and that is that the Notes are invalid, because of a theory that they are based upon a valid, adequate or lawful consideration. At the hearing scheduled for January 22, 1969, at 7:00 P.M., Mr. Morgan appeared at the trial; he appeared as a witness to be candid, open, direct, experienced and truthful. He testified to years of experience with the Bank of America in Los Angeles, the Marquette National Bank of Minnesota and the First National Bank of Minnesota. He seemed to be familiar with the operation of the Federal Reserve System. He freely admitted that his Bank created all of the money and credit upon its books with which it acquired the Note and Mortgage of May 8, 1964. The credit first came into existence when the Bank created it upon its books. Further, he freely admitted that no United States Law gave the Bank the authority to do this. This was obviously no lawful consideration for the Note.<br />
The Bank parted with absolutely nothing except a little ink. In this case, the evidence was on January 22, 1969 that the Federal Reserve Bank obtained the Notes for this seems to be conferred by Title 12 USC Section 420. The cost is about 9/10th of a cent per Note regardless of the amount of the Note. The Federal Reserve Banks create all of the money and credit upon their books by bookkeeping entries by which they acquire United States Securities. The collateral required to obtain the Note is, by section 412 USC, Title 12, a deposit of a like amount of bonds. Bonds which the Banks acquire by creating money and credit by bookkeeping entry."<br />
"No rights can be acquired by fraud. The Federal Reserve Bank Notes are acquired through the use of unconstitutional statutes and fraud." "The Common Law requires a lawful consideration for any contract or Note. These Notes are void for failure at a lawful consideration at Common Law, entirely apart from any Constitutional consideration. Upon this ground, the Notes are ineffectual for any purpose. This seems to be the principal objection to paper fiat money and the cause of its depreciation and failure down through the ages. If allowed to continue, Federal Reserve Bank Notes will meet the same fate. From the evidence introduced on January 22, 1969, this Court finds that as of March 18, 1969, all Gold and Silver backing is removed from Federal Reserve Bank Notes." "The law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. (See I Mer. Jur 2nd on Actions Section 550)."Slavery and all its incidents, including Peonage, thralldom, and debt created by<br />
fraud is universally prohibited in the United States. This case represents but another refined form of Slavery by the Bankers. Their position is not supported by the Constitution of the United States. The People have spoken their will in terms, which cannot be misunderstood. It is indispensable to the preservation of the Union and independence and liberties of the people that this Court, adhere only to the mandate of the Constitution and administer it as it is written. I, therefore, hold these Notes in question void and not effectual for any purpose." (4) January 30, 1969<br />
Judge Martin V. Mahoney<br />
Justice of the Peace Credit River Township<br />
_______________________________________________________________________<br />
CREDIT LOANS AND VOID CONTRACTS PERFECT OBLIGATION AS TO A HUMAN BEING AS TO A BANK<br />
Furthermore, this Memorandum of law is offered in order to advance understanding of the complex legal issues, present and embodied in the Common Law, with authorities, law and cases in support of, which will constitute the following facts:<br />
Privately owned banks are making loans of "credit" with the intended purpose of circulating "credit" as "money". Other financial institutions and individuals may "launder" bank credit that they receive directly or indirectly from privately owned banks. This collective activity is unconstitutional, unlawful, in violation of Common Law, U.S. Code and the principles of equity. Such activity and underlying contracts have long been held void, by State Courts, Federal Courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. This Memorandum will demonstrate through authorities and established common law, that credit "money creation" by privately owned bank corporations is not really "money creation" at all. It is the trade specialty and artful illusion of law merchants, which use old-time trade secrets of the Goldsmiths, to entrap the borrower and unjustly enrich the lender through usury and other unlawful techniques. Issues based on law and the principles of equity, which are within the jurisdiction of this Court, will be addressed.<br />
THE GOLDSMITHS<br />
In his book, Money and Banking (8th Edition, 1984), Professor David R. Kamerschen writes on pages 56 -63: "The first bankers in the modern sense were the goldsmiths, who frequently accepted bullion and coins for storage ... One result was that the goldsmiths temporarily could lend part of the gold left with them . . . These loans of their customers' gold were soon replaced by a revolutionary technique. When people brought in gold, the goldsmiths gave them notes promising to pay that amount of gold on demand. The notes, first made payable to the order of the individual, were later changed to bearer obligations. In the previous form, a note payable to the order of Jebidiah Johnson would be paid to no one else unless Johnson had first endorsed the note ... But notes were soon being used in an unforeseen way. The note holders found that, when they wanted to buy something, they could use the note itself in payment more conveniently and let the other person go after the gold, which the person rarely did . . .The specie, then tended to remain in the goldsmiths' vaults. . . . The goldsmiths began to realize that they might profit handsomely by issuing somewhat more notes than the amount of specie they held. . . These additional<br />
notes would cost the goldsmiths nothing except the negligible cost of printing them, yet the notes provided the goldsmiths with funds to lend at interest . . . .And they were to find that the profitability of their lending operations would exceed the profit from their original trade. The goldsmiths became bankers as their interest in manufacture of gold items to sell was replaced by their concern with credit policies and lending activities . . .<br />
They discovered early that, although an unlimited note issue would be unwise, they could issue notes up to several times the amount of specie they held. The key to the whole operation lay in the public's willingness to leave gold and silver in the bank's vaults and use the bank's notes. This discovery is the basis of modern banking: On page 74, Professor Kamerschen further explains the evolution of the credit system: "Later the goldsmiths learned a more efficient way to put their credit money into circulation. They lent by issuing additional notes, rather than by paying out in gold. In exchange for the interest-bearing note received from their customer (in effect, the loan contract), they gave their own non-interest bearing note. Each was actually borrowing from the other ... The advantage of the later procedure of' lending notes rather than gold was that . . . more notes could be issued if the gold remained in the vaults ... Thus, through the principle of bank note issuance, banks learned to create money in the form of their own liability." [Emphasis Added]<br />
MODERN MONEY MECHANICS<br />
Another publication which explains modern banking as learned from the Goldsmiths is Modern Money Mechanics (5th edition 1992), published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago which states beginning on page 3: "It started with the goldsmiths ..." At one time, bankers were merely middlemen. They made a profit by accepting gold and coins brought to them for safekeeping and lending the gold and coins to borrowers. But the goldsmiths soon found that the receipts they issued to depositors were being used as a means of payment. 'Then, bankers discovered that they could make loans merely by giving borrowers their promises to pay, or bank notes... In this way, banks began to create money ... Demand deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes . . . It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries to the credit of borrowers which the borrowers, in turn, could 'spend' by writing checks, thereby printing their own money." [Emphasis added]<br />
HOW BANKS CREATE MONEY<br />
In the modern sense, banks create money by creating "demand deposits." Demand deposits are merely "book entries" that reflect how much lawful money the bank owes its customers. Thus, all deposits are called demand deposits and are the bank's liabilities. The bank's assets are the vault cash plus all the "IOUs" or promissory notes that the borrower signs when they borrow either money or credit. When a bank lends its cash (legal money), it loans its assets, but when a bank lends its “credit” it lends its liabilities. The lending of credit is, therefore, the exact opposite of the lending of cash (legal money).<br />
At this point, we need to define the meaning of certain words like "lawful money”, “legal<br />
tender”, “other money” and “dollars”. The terms "Money" and "Tender" had their origins in Article 1, Sec. 8 and Article 1, Sec. 10 of the Constitution of the United States. 12 U.S.C. §152 refers to "gold and silver coin as lawful money of the United States" and was unconstitutionally repealed in 1994 in-that Congress can not delegate any portion of their constitutional responsibility without Amendment. The term "legal tender" was originally cited in 31 U.S.C.A. §392 and is now re-codified in 31 U.S.C.A. §5103 which states: "United States coins and currency . . . are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." The common denominator in both "lawful money" and "legal tender money" is that the United States Government issues both.<br />
With Bankers, however, we find that there are two forms of money - one is government-issued, and privately owned banks such as WASHINGTON MUTUAL, and JP MORGAN CHASE, issue the other. As we have already discussed government issued forms of money, we must now scrutinize privately issued forms of money.<br />
All privately issued forms of money today are based upon the liabilities of the issuer. There are three common terms used to describe this privately created money. They are “credit”, “demand deposits” and “checkbook money”. In the Sixth edition of Blacks Law Dictionary, p.367 under the term “Credit” the term “Bank credit” is described as: “Money bank owes or will lend a individual or person”. It is clear from this definition that “Bank credit” which is the “money bank owes” is the bank's liability. The term “checkbook money” is described in the book “I Bet You Thought”, published by the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank of New York, as follows: "Commercial banks create checkbook money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding deposit dollars to accounts on their books to exchange for the borrowers IOU . . . ." The word "deposit" and "demand deposit" both mean the same thing in bank terminology and refer to the bank's liabilities.<br />
For example, the Chicago Federal Reserves publication, “Modern Money Mechanics” states: "Deposits are merely book entries ... Banks can build up deposits by increasing loans ... Demand deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries to the credit of borrowers which the borrowers, in turn, could 'spend' by writing checks. Thus, it is demonstrated in “Modern Money Mechanics” how, under the practice of fractional reserve banking, a deposit of $5,000 in cash could result in a loan of credit/checkbook money/demand deposits of. $100,000 if reserve ratios set by the Federal Reserve are 5% (instead of 10%).<br />
In a practical application, here is how it works. If a bank has ten people who each deposit $5,000 (totaling $50,000) in cash (legal money) and the bank's reserve ratio is 5%, then the bank will lend twenty times this amount, or $1,000,000 in "credit" money. What the bank has actually done, however, is to write a check or loan its credit with the intended purpose of circulating credit as "money." Banks know that if all the people who receive a check or credit loan come to the bank and demand cash, the bank will have to close its doors because it doesn't have the cash to back up its check or loan. The bank's check or loan will, however, pass as money as long as people have confidence in the illusion and don't demand cash. Panics are created when people line up at the bank and demand cash (legal money), causing banks to fold as history records in several time periods, the most recent in this country was the panic of 1933.<br />
THE PROCESS OF PASSING CHECKS OR CREDIT AS MONEY IS DONE QUITE SIMPLY<br />
A deposit of $5,000 in cash by one person results in a loan of $100,000 to another person at 5% reserves. The person receiving the check or loan of credit for $100,000 usually deposits it in the same bank or another bank in the Federal Reserve System. The check or loan is sent to the bookkeeping department of the lending bank where a book entry of $100,000 is credited to the borrower's account. The lending bank's check that created the borrower's loan is then stamped "Paid" when the account of the borrower is credited a "dollar" amount. The borrower may then "spend" these book entries (demand deposits) by writing checks to others, who in turn deposit their checks and have book entries transferred to their account from the borrower's checking account. However, two highly questionable and unlawful acts have now occurred. The first was when the bank wrote the check or made the loan with insufficient funds to back them up. The second is when the bank stamps its own “Not Sufficient Funds” check "paid" or posts a loan by merely crediting the borrower's account with book entries the bank calls "dollars." Ironically, the check or loan seems good and passes as money -- unless an emergency occurs via demands for cash - or a Court challenge -- and the artful, illusion bubble, bursts.<br />
DIFFERENT KINDS OF MONEY<br />
The book, “I Bet You Thought”, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, states: "Money is any generally accepted medium of exchange, not simply coin and currency. Money doesn't have to be intrinsically valuable, be issued by a government or be in any special form." [Emphasis added] Thus we see that privately issued forms of money only require public confidence in order to pass as money. Counterfeit money also passes as money as long as nobody discovers it's counterfeit. Like wise, "bad" checks and "credit" loans pass as money so long as no one finds out they are unlawful. Yet, once the fraud is discovered, the values of such “bank money” like bad check’s ceases to exist. There are, therefore, two kinds of money -- government issued legal money and privately issued unlawful money.<br />
DIFFERENT KINDS OF DOLLARS<br />
The dollar once represented something intrinsically valuable made from gold or silver. For example, in 1792, Congress defined the silver dollar as a silver coin containing 371.25 grains of pure silver. The legal dollar is now known as "United States coins and currency." However, the Banker's dollar has become a unit of measure of a different kind of money. Therefore, with Bankers there is a "dollar" of coins and a dollar of cash (legal money), a "dollar" of debt, a "dollar" of credit, a "dollar" of checkbook money or a "dollar" of checks. When one refers to a dollar spent or a dollar loaned, he should now indicate what kind of "dollar" he is talking about, since Bankers have created so many different kinds.<br />
A dollar of bank "credit money" is the exact opposite of a dollar of "legal money". The former is a liability while the latter is an asset. Thus, it can be seen from the earlier<br />
statement quoted from I Bet You Thought, that money can be privately issued as: "Money doesn't have to ... be issued by a government or be in any special form." It should be carefully noted that banks that issue and lend privately created money demand to be paid with government issued money. However, payment in like kind under natural equity would seem to indicate that a debt created by a loan of privately created money can be paid with other privately created money, without regard for “any special form” as there are no statutory laws to dictate how either private citizens or banks may create money.<br />
BY WHAT AUTHORITY?<br />
By what authority do state and national banks, as privately owned corporations, create money by lending their credit --or more simply put - by writing and passing "bad" checks and "credit" loans as "money"? Nowhere can a law be found that gives banks the authority to create money by lending their liabilities.<br />
Therefore, the next question is, if banks are creating money by passing bad checks and lending their credit, where is their authority to do so? From their literature, banks claim these techniques were learned from the trade secrets of the Goldsmiths. It is evident, however, that money creation by private banks is not the result of powers conferred upon them by government, but rather the artful use of long held "trade secrets." Thus, unlawful money creation is not being done by banks as corporations, but unlawfully by bankers.<br />
Article I, Section 10, para. 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America specifically states that no state shall "... coin money, emit bills of credit, make any thing but gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts, pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligations of Contracts . . "[Emphasis added]<br />
The states, which grant the Charters of state banks also, prohibit the emitting of Bills of credit by not granting such authority in bank charters. It is obvious that "We the people" never delegated to Congress, state government, or agencies of the state, the power to create and issue money in the form of checks, credit, or other "bills of credit." The Federal Government today does not authorize banks to emit, write, create, issue and pass checks and credit as money. But banks do, and get away with it! Banks call their privately created money nice sounding names, like “credit”, “demand deposits”, or “checkbook money”. However, the true nature of "credit money" and "checks" does not change regardless of the poetic terminology used to describe them. Such money in common use by privately owned banks is illegal under Art. 1, Sec.10, para. 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as unlawful under the laws of the United States and of this State.<br />
VOID "ULTRA VIRES" CONTRACTS<br />
The courts have long held that when a corporation executes a contract beyond the scope of its charter or granted corporate powers, the contract is void or "ultra vires".<br />
In Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman, 139 U.S. 60, 11 S. Ct. 478, 35 L. Ed. 55, the court said: "A contract ultra vires being unlawful and void, not because it is in itself immoral, but because the corporation, by the law of its creation, is incapable of making it, the<br />
courts, while refusing to maintain any action upon the unlawful contract, have always striven to do justice between the parties, so far as could be done consistently with adherence to law, by permitting property or money, parted with on the faith of the unlawful contract, to be recovered back, or compensation to be made for it. In such case, however, the action is not maintained upon the unlawful contract, nor according to its terms; but on an implied contract of the defendant to return, or, failing to do that, to make compensation for, property or money which it has no right to retain. To maintain such an action is not to affirm, but to disaffirm, the unlawful contract."<br />
"When a contract is once declared ultra vires, the fact that it is executed · does not validate it, nor can it be ratified, so as to make it the basis of suitor action, nor does the doctrine of estoppel apply." F& PR v. Richmond, 133 SE 898; 151 Va 195.<br />
"A national bank ... cannot lend its credit to another by becoming surety, indorser, or guarantor for him, such an act ; is ultra vires . . ." Merchants' Bank v. Baird 160 F 642.<br />
THE QUESTION OF LAWFUL CONSIDERATION<br />
The issue of whether the lender who writes and passes a "bad" check or makes a "credit" loan has a claim for relief against the borrower is easy to answer, providing the lender can prove that he gave a lawful consideration, based upon lawful acts. But did the lender give a lawful consideration? To give a lawful consideration, the lender must prove that he gave the borrower lawful money such as coins or currency. Failing that, he can have no claim for relief in a court at law against the borrower as the lender's actions were ultra vires or void from the beginning of the transaction.<br />
It can be argued that “bad” checks or “credit” loans that pass as money are valuable; but so are counterfeit coins and currency that pass as money. It seems unconscionable that a bank would ask homeowners to put up a homestead as collateral for a "credit loan" that the bank created out of thin air. Would this court of law or equity allow a counterfeiter to foreclose against a person's home because the borrower was late in payments on an unlawful loan of counterfeit money? Were the court to do so, it would be contrary to all principles of law.<br />
The question of valuable consideration in the case at bar, does not depend on any value imparted by the lender, but the false confidence instilled in the "bad" check or "credit" loan by the lender. In a court at law or equity, the lender has no claim for relief. The argument that because the borrower received property for the lender's "bad" check or "credit" loan gives the lender a claim for relief is not valid, unless the lender can prove that he gave lawful value. The seller in some cases who may be holding the “bad” check or “Credit” loan has a claim for relief against the lender or the borrower or both, but the lender has no such claim.<br />
BORROWER RELIEF<br />
Since we have established that the lender of unlawful or counterfeit money has no claim for relief under a void contract, the last question should be, does the borrower have a claim for relief against the lender? First, if it is established that the borrower has made no payments to the lender, then the borrower has no claim for relief ‘against the lender for<br />
money damages. But the borrower has a claim for relief to void the debt he owes the lender for notes or obligations unlawfully created by an ultra vires contract for lending "credit" money.<br />
The borrower, the Courts have long held, has a claim for relief against the lender to have the note, security agreement, or mortgage note the borrower signed declared null and void.<br />
The borrower may also have claims for relief for breach of contract by the lender for not lending "lawful money" and for “usury” for charging an interest rate several times greater than the amount agreed to in the contract for any lawful money actually risked by the lender. For example, if on a $100,000 loan it can be established that the lender actually risked only $5,000 (5% Federal Reserve ratio) with a contract interest rate of 10%, the lender has then loaned $95,000 of "credit" and $5,000 of "lawful money". However, while charging 10% interest ($10,000) on the entire $100,000. The true interest rate on the $5,000 of "lawful money" actually risked by the lender is 200% which violates Usury laws of this state.<br />
If no "lawful money" was loaned, then the interest rate is an infinite percentage. Such techniques the bankers say were learned from the trade secrets of the Goldsmiths. The Courts have repeatedly ruled that such contracts with borrowers are wholly void from the beginning of the transaction, because banks are not granted powers to enter into such contracts by either state or national charters.<br />
ADDITIONAL BORROWER RELIEF<br />
In Federal District Court the borrower may have additional claims for relief under "Civil RICO" Federal Racketeering laws (18 U.S.C. § 1964). The lender may have established a "pattern of racketeering activity" by using the U.S. Mail more than twice to collect an unlawful debt and the lender may be in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1341, 1343, 1961 and 1962.<br />
The borrower has other claims for relief if he can prove there was or is a conspiracy to deprive him of property without due process of law under. (42 U.S.C. §1983 (Constitutional Injury), 1985 (Conspiracy) and 1986 ("Knowledge" and "Neglect to Prevent" a U.S. Constitutional Wrong), Under 18 U.S.C.A.§ 241 (Conspiracy) violators, "shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten (10) years or both."<br />
In a Debtor's RICO action against its creditor, alleging that the creditor had collected an unlawful debt, an interest rate (where all loan charges were added together) that exceeded, in the language of the RICO Statute, "twice the enforceable rate". The Court found no reason to impose a requirement that the Plaintiff show that the Defendant had been convicted of collecting an unlawful debt, running a "loan sharking" operation. The debt included the fact that exaction of a usurious interest rate rendered the debt unlawful and that is all that is necessary to support the Civil RICO action. Durante Bros. & Sons, Inc. v. Flushing Nat 'l Bank. 755 F2d 239, Cert. denied, 473 US 906 (1985).<br />
The Supreme Court found that the Plaintiff in a civil RICO action, need establish only a<br />
criminal "violation" and not a criminal conviction. Further, the Court held that the Defendant need only have caused harm to the Plaintiff by the commission of a predicate offense in such a way as to constitute a "pattern of Racketeering activity." That is, the Plaintiff need not demonstrate that the Defendant is an organized crime figure, a mobster in the popular sense, or that the Plaintiff has suffered some type of special Racketeering injury; all that the Plaintiff must show is what the Statute specifically requires. The RICO Statute and the civil remedies for its violation are to be liberally construed to effect the congressional purpose as broadly formulated in the Statute. Sedima, SPRL v. Imrex Co., 473 US 479 (1985).<br />
Aside from any legal obligation, there exists a societal and moral obligation enure to both the Plaintiff and the Defendant in that if you were to defuse a Bomb, and you completed the task 99% correct, you are still dead. Grantor believes that his position on the law is sound, but fears grievous repercussions throughout the financial community if he should prevail. The credit for money scheme is endemic throughout our society and could have devastating effects on the national economy.<br />
Grantor believes that another approach may be explored as follows:<br />
PERFECT OBLIGATION AS TO A HUMAN BEING<br />
That which is borrowed is wealth. Labor created that wealth, so it is money notwithstanding its form. Consideration is promised in advance by the Promissor of the Note, in the nature of principal and interest payments for the consideration provided by the lender, which is his personal wealth created by his labor.<br />
A Mortgage Note or Promissory Note secures the position of the lender and if there is default on the promise to pay then the borrower has agreed to accept the strict foreclosure remedy provided by state statutes.<br />
Then the borrower obligated themselves to pay back the principal and pay for the use of it, in the form of interest for the years over which the principal is to be paid back. When payments stop there is a prima facie injury to the lender. When payments stop the lender has strict foreclosure procedure in state court to remedy the pay back of the balance of the principal.<br />
Judgment to foreclose on the property is granted upon the mere proof that payments have ceased as promised. The property is sold to cover the unpaid balance; deficiency judgment may be needed. All is right with the world. Here the lender would be prejudiced if complete and swift remedy were not available. Absent such remedy the government would be party to placing the lender into a condition of involuntary servitude to the borrower.<br />
PERFECT OBLIGATION AS TO A BANK<br />
In years past banks and savings and loans institutions enjoyed the remedy outlined above. The reason was they were lending out money belonging to their depositors and there was prima facie injury to the depositors upon the mere proof that payments had ceased.<br />
Thereby the bank as well as the government would be party to creating a condition of involuntary servitude upon the depositors if strict foreclosure remedy were not available. Today depositors are not in jeopardy of being injured when a person borrows money from a bank. The bank does not lend their money, only their credit in the amount of the loan (paper accounting). Hence no prima facie injury exists to either the depositors or the bank upon the mere proof that payments cease. Injury is based upon the payments made as to the credit line.<br />
PERFECT OR IMPERFECT OBLIGATION<br />
A perfect obligation is one recognized and sanctioned by positive law; one of which the fulfillment can be enforced by the aid of the law. But if the duty created by the obligation operates only on the moral sense, without being enforced by any positive law, it is called an "imperfect obligation," and creates no right of action, nor has it any legal operation. The duty of exercising gratitude, charity, and the other merely moral duties are examples of this kind of obligation. Edwards v. Keaney, 96 U.S. 595, 600, 24 L.Ed. 793.<br />
Government approved the Federal Reserve Bank, Inc., as the Central Banking system for the United States, and it’s policy is reviewed by Congress albeit, in a haphazard manner. The Federal Reserve authorizes its “private money” “Federal Reserve Bank Notes” to be used by lending institutions such as member banks, to operate upon a system of fractionalizing. The nature of which is that they do not lend either their money or the money of the depositors, the money is created out of thin air, by the mere stroke of a pen. When there is no consideration in jeopardy of being returned, then the obligation is to make the bank injury proof, to the extent of the obligation, which would be to make them whole.<br />
The only legal obligation is based upon the moral issue, which under the law is an Imperfect Obligation, to return to them their property, which isn’t wealth, but credit. A Promissory Note is signed under "economic compulsion" when, the "loan" will not be consummated unless and until the borrower signs it. Thus, performing the act of signing a Promissory Note cannot be considered voluntary.<br />
The discharging of the credit is based upon social, economic, and moral standards to make the bank whole, if injury is claimed, in any court action where default on the Promissory Note is on record and where the bank fails to verify an injury, the bank cannot enforce a promise to pay consideration where they provided no consideration. For the bank to be able to force upon the defendant an amount over and above the credit, is to force upon the defendants a debt that goes to the control of their labor against their will. This condition would be Peonage, which has been abolished in this country.<br />
(42 U.S.C. § 1994, and 18 U.S.C. §1581.)<br />
The question then arises as to when is the obligation discharged, to put the bank in a position, where there is no record of injury to it?<br />
THE CASE IS CLEAR<br />
Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District<br />
in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. [18, USC 241]<br />
Deprivation of rights under color of law: Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. [18, USC 242]<br />
Property rights of citizens: All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. [42 USC 1982]<br />
Civil action for deprivation of rights: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. [42 USC 1983]<br />
Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights: Depriving persons of rights or privileges: If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the<br />
constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators. [42 USC 1985(3)]<br />
Action for neglect to prevent: Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefore, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased. But no action under the provisions of this section shall be sustained which is not commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued. [42 USC 1986]<br />
COURT: The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.]<br />
COURT: An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its authority, consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing and determining issues of law and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course of law at times and places previously determined by lawful authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]<br />
COURT OF RECORD: To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may have a fifth. They are:<br />
a.<br />
A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones,<br />
188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689] [Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]<br />
b.<br />
Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689] [Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]<br />
c.<br />
Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]<br />
d.<br />
Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.] [Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]<br />
e.<br />
Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.] [Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]<br />
Taking into consideration all of the documentation contained herein it is abundantly clear that no foreclosure action is warranted, justified or lawful. There is no injury to the purported lender. A court of record should decide what actions should and must be taken as a result of the unlawful actions of the Plaintiff.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-47436047494826771442010-03-04T11:45:00.000-05:002010-03-04T11:45:51.602-05:00THE INSANE STATE OF MAINE, Things you won't learn from the mainstream media about Carol MurphyThe Insane State of Maine......<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Carol Murphy....65 years old....held 130 days now !<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Growing up in Conn......Carol had a mom, dad and one brother.<br />
<br />
Her house was always filled with animals! Pets.....birds....dogs...<br />
<br />
cats.....guinea pigs.....her brothers snakes...Her mom raised puppies.<br />
<br />
Carol..loved her pets..and drawing and reading.and horse back riding.<br />
<br />
She loved her parents, and they loved her !<br />
<br />
Carol once took a lone trip to Africa to return a Chimp to its native abode !<br />
<br />
Carol went to college....She has worked as an executive secretary. She <br />
<br />
wrote manuals for companies........yes, she could spell !<br />
<br />
At the end of the 1990's Carol's mother fell ill. Her dad had passed away...<br />
<br />
as well as her brother. Carol....who had not married....spent the next seven<br />
<br />
years of her life nursing her mother..keeping her from harm through all the <br />
<br />
varied medical settings one can easily find oneself in these days, being the<br />
<br />
advocate and caretaker she had always been. Eventually her mother passed<br />
<br />
on. With the proceeds left to her Carol bought an old farmhouse in rural Maine.<br />
<br />
With an expanse of land and backing up to a river......she felt she had the ideal<br />
<br />
spot for her own retirement. She paid cash for this bucolic setting...as she dreamed <br />
<br />
about the many things she could now do. Carol also spent many years working with<br />
<br />
a veterinarian on pet-cancer programs. She spoke often about it with reserved pride<br />
<br />
in her voice...how so many animals were being saved on the programs they designed<br />
<br />
for these treasured pets ! How surprised and grateful the clients were......how good she<br />
<br />
felt about what they were doing........Carol loved animals from the get go ! She bought <br />
<br />
a few to add to her parrot of twenty years duration and her best-pal dog. She found<br />
<br />
a 'dream horse' and a few other appropriate 'I live on a farm and this is my land and <br />
<br />
these are my animals' sorts of 'critters' !<br />
<br />
About five years ago now...Carol..after a trip to the store....( trips to the store in rural<br />
<br />
Maine.can take some time!) ...... came home to find her beautiful<br />
<br />
horse beheaded......that's right!..The animals head was detached from its body and <br />
<br />
it was glistening out back on the ground ! Her parrot ? Dog ? other pets ? Gone !<br />
<br />
Stolen. Robbed.......Who would do such a thing? Someone....a neighbor? thought<br />
<br />
they might profit from calling the racketeers they give pay-checks to in Maine?<br />
<br />
In trying to get justice..i.e., expose the crooks for who and what they are ....Carol<br />
<br />
has had many run-ins with state-of 'officials'. The horror this gentle-woman experienced<br />
<br />
should only ever exist on the Saturday night movies. Carol lived through it. She knows<br />
<br />
who did it. If you listened to her you would too ! But...last October 14th a Maine cop<br />
<br />
with no warrant ( I know this because Carol said so ) intruded into her off road home. <br />
<br />
This cop had to go past a Federal No Trespass sign to go up and open Carol's door !<br />
<br />
As an excuse he said he heard something ? So sorry.....not good enough ! Also he<br />
<br />
mentions in one of the first reports that he was 'checking up on her for PETA !'.<br />
<br />
Do all of you over-stressed tax-payers realize that your local police forces are ...<br />
<br />
doing business on the side ....while wearing the county or state uniform.....???<br />
<br />
I wonder if you do. Carol lived alone . After that day five years ago she lived <br />
<br />
with the knowledge that whomever killed her baby horse ..might come back ! In fact<br />
<br />
the more the state of Maine yelled at HER to pay a fine, instead of find the perps...<br />
<br />
the more leary she became ! Enter officer cop.10/14/09.who pepper sprayed Carol. She<br />
<br />
tried to stop him from being in her home with a useless stun-toy. Maybe you people ,<br />
<br />
ought to look into the Castle Doctrine...or, have any of you ever heard that ones<br />
<br />
home is supposed to be their castle ? No. No one who works for the state of Maine<br />
<br />
apparently has ever heard this ! I wonder what they must dump into the water up there <br />
<br />
to cause such a disgusting case of Nobody Home ! Might be both catching and <br />
<br />
terminal ! No kidding ! Check out the paper story below and see if you can figure it <br />
<br />
out . Hurry ! 'Getting late and I think you're about to develope a rash !Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-6260626581437674732010-02-12T08:57:00.001-05:002010-02-12T08:59:41.267-05:00PROOF THAT MAINE HAS A TWO BRANCH GOVERNMENT<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7pSd0fSsh0s/S3VervBHXGI/AAAAAAAAADo/zGwe2VKHKMA/s1600-h/State+of+Maine+Organization+Chart+2009.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5437356230568270946" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 246px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7pSd0fSsh0s/S3VervBHXGI/AAAAAAAAADo/zGwe2VKHKMA/s320/State+of+Maine+Organization+Chart+2009.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-40320395068947520942010-02-11T09:08:00.001-05:002010-02-11T10:19:23.801-05:00A NOTICE TO PUBLIC SERVANTSWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. — Thomas Jefferson, <a href="http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/decl.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">American Declaration of Independence</a><br /><br /><br />Tom Paine (Common Sense):<br />[Government is made] necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world ... [and] the design and end of government [is] freedom and security. ... [The] articles or charter of government should be formed first, and men delegated to execute them afterwards ... As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith.<br /><br /><br />John Stuart Mill (Essay on Liberty):<br />[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. ... [T]he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.<br /><br /><br />Aldous Huxley: (Brave New World Revisited):<br />Big Government and Big Business ... will try to impose social and cultural uniformity upon adults and their children. To achieve this they will (unless prevented) make use of all the mind-manipulating techniques at their disposal and will not hesitate to reinforce these methods of non-rational persuasion by economic coercion and threats of physical violence. If this kind of tyranny is to be avoided, we must begin without delay to educate ourselves and our children for freedom and self-government. Such an education for freedom should be ... first of all in facts and in values — the facts of individual diversity and genetic uniqueness and the values of freedom, tolerance and mutual charity, which are the ethical corollaries of these facts.<br /><br /><br /><br />TREASON - A NOTICE TO PUBLIC SERVANTS-<br /><br /><a href="http://www.joycerosenwald.com/Treason.htm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.joycerosenwald.com/Treason.htm</a> <a href="http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm</a> <a href="http://www.serendipity.li/index.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.serendipity.li/index.html</a> <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=UNITED+STATES+is+a+Corporation+%28youtube%29&form=MSNH14&qs=n&x=76&y=13" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.bing.com/search?q=UNITED+STATES+is+a+Corporation+%28youtube%29&form=MSNH14&qs=n&x=76&y=13</a> <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/04/2294593.htm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/04/2294593.htm</a> <a href="http://www.bing.com/search?q=UNITED+STATES+is+a+Corporation+%28youtube%29&form=MSNH14&qs=n&x=76&y=13" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">ttp://www.bing. com/search? q=UNITED+ STATES+is+ a+Corporation+ %28youtube% 29&form=MSNH14&qs=n&x=76&y=13</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill.html#american_coup" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">An American Coup</a><br /><a href="http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill.html#defrauding_america" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Defrauding America</a><br /><a href="http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill.html#us_const" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">The U.S. Constitution</a><br /><a href="http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">John Stuart Mill's Essay On Liberty</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/voting_machines.htm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Voting Machines</a><br /><a href="http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill.html#churchandstate" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Separation of Church and State</a><br /><a href="http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill.html#gun_control" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Gun Control</a><br /><a href="http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill.html#further" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Further reading</a><br /><br /><br /><br />On the night of December 23, 1913 the United States Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act and thereby committed the greatest act of TREASON in history. It surrendered this nation's sovereignty and sold the American people into slavery to a cabal of arch-charlatan international bankers who proceeded to plunder, bankrupt, and conquer this nation with a money swindle.<br /><br /><br />The "money" the banks issue is merely bookkeeping entries. It cost them nothing and is not backed by their wealth, efforts, property, or risk. It is not redeemable except in more debt paper. The Federal Reserve Act forced us to pay compound interest on thin air. We now use worthless "notes" backed by our own credit that we cannot own and are made subject to compelled performance for the "privilege".<br /><br /><br />From 1913 until 1933, the United States paid the "interest" with more and more gold. The structured inevitability soon transpired: the Treasury was empty, the debt was greater than ever, and the United States declared bankruptcy. In exchange for using notes belonging to bankers who create them out of nothing on our own credit, we are forced to repay in substance (labor, property, land, businesses, resources, life in ever-increasing amounts. This may have been the greatest heist and fraud of all time.<br /><br /><br />When a government goes bankrupt, it loses its sovereignty. In 1933 the United States declared bankruptcy, as expressed in Roosevelt's Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260, House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933, confirmed in Perry v. United States, (1935) 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 L.Ed 912, as well as 31 USC 5112, 5119, and 12 USC 95A. The bankrupt United States went into receivership, reorganized in favor of 115 creditors and new owners. In 1913, Congress turned over America... lock, stock and barrel to a handful of criminals whose avowed intent from the beginning was to plunder, bankrupt, conquer, and enslave the people of the United States of America and eliminate this nation from the face of the earth. The goal was, and is, to absorb America into a one-world private commercial government, a "New World Order."<br /><br /><br />On March 9, 1933 President Roosevelt called for the passing of The WAR POWERS ACT TITLE 12 USC. Section 95 (a) and 95 (b). This act declared all United States Citizens to be the enemy of the United States Government, and placed us under permanent Emergency Rule, bypassing Constitutional constraints on government.<br /><br /><br />With the Erie R.R. v Tompkins case of 1938, the Supreme Court confirmed their success. We are now in an international private commercial jurisdiction in colorable admiralty-maritime under the Law Merchant. We have been conned and betrayed out of our sovereignty, rights, property, freedom, common law, Article III Courts, and The Bill of Rights has been statutized into "civil rights" in commerce. You have destroyed the Republic. America has been stolen.<br /><br /><br />We have been made slaves, i.e. permanent debtors, bankrupt, in legal incapacity, rendered commercial "persons," "residents," and corporate franchisees known as "citizens of the United States" Since 1933 what is called the "United States Government" is a privately owned corporation of the Federal Reserve/Internation al Monetary Fund. It is merely an instrument whereby the bankers administer their ongoing subjugation and plunder of what was once considered "the last great hope of human freedom."<br /><br /><br />All "public servants," officials, Congressmen, politicians, judges, attorneys, law enforcement officers, States and their various agencies, etc., are the express agents of these foreign principals - see Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938; 22 USC 286 et seq, 263A, 185G, 267J, 611(C) (ii) & (iii); Treasury Delegation Order #91 - who have stolen the country by clever, intentional, and unrelenting fraud, trickery, treachery, non-disclosure, miss-representation , intrigue, coercion, conspiracy, murder. If there is a greater tragedy in human history it is hard to know what it is.<br /><br /><br />An insidious aspect of this is that "officials" like you may think you are "public servants," are upholding the "law," or other hoaxes. In truth you are conscientiously and assiduously serving the archenemies of yourselves, your own rights, your fellow citizens, continued human rights, life, and freedom in general. YOU are seditiously administering the plunder, bankruptcy, conquest, destruction, dismantling, and elimination of your country. YOU are systematically defrauding, extorting, impoverishing, and injuring human life on the basis of crimes and lies of such magnitude, depth, and proportions as to be beyond human comprehension.<br /><br /><br />Now you believe you can sell this nation to foreign powers with the stroke of a pen by Executive Order 12803, April 30, 1992.<br />By so doing, you are committing TREASON and PERFIDY so immense as "to make the angels weep." If you and your fellow "officials" do not understand the real situation, you are ignorant, naive, deceived, and conned. You are sheer dupes. If you do know and are parties to it, you are guilty of evil and heinous BETRAYAL. You are in such case TRAITORS and CRIMINALS. All of you "in power" are therefore, either fools or knaves, either of which eminently invalidates your "authority" and renders null and void absolutely all-moral obligation to pay allegiance or to obey the TREASONOUS SYSTEM you enforce with such mechanical viciousness.<br /><br /><br />If, you, "public servants" had any shred left of humanity, awe, heart, clarity, sanity, access to your true being and conscience, you would instantly resign and do everything possible to inform the American people of their plight and help us retrieve our rights and our country. Only by such means can you even begin to atone for your endless crimes against humanity, the lives you so arrogantly and mindlessly butcher with the "meat-grinder of the law."<br /><br /><br />What do you think the American people will do as they discover that they have no more country, that they are slaves to mortal enemies, that they have been tricked and betrayed by their "leaders" who sold them out? What do you think they will do when they realize that all their alleged "public servants" are willing or stupidly compliant parties to the plunder, bankruptcy, subjugation, and ruin of their lives and country?<br /><br /><br />There is no acceptable excuse for what you have done. You cannot engage in bringing harm to life and, like the Nazi's defense at Nuremberg, presume that because you do so under the "authority" of an imaginary, abstract, unreal legal fiction called "government" you are freed of the consequences of your acts. Moral and natural law are not obviated by ignorance, hubris and self-righteous militancy. Your entire system - from the ground up - is deceit and fraud. It is illicit in essence and ab initio. As Broom's Maxims 297, 729 put it: "A right of action cannot arise out of fraud." Honor is earned by honesty and integrity, not under false and fraudulent pretenses. The color of the cloth one wears cannot cover up the usurpations, lies, and treachery. "When black is fraudulently declared to be white, not all will live in darkness."<br /><br /><br />More and more Americans are awakening to the truth. What do you think the American people will do as they discover that they have no more country, that they are slaves to mortal enemies, that they have been tricked and betrayed by their "leaders" who sold them out? What do you think they will do when they realize that all their alleged "public servants" are willing or stupidly compliant parties to the plunder, bankruptcy, subjugation, ruin and destruction of their lives and country? Thomas Jefferson wrote: "An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens." Lincoln said: "Just as I would not be a slave, neither would I be a master."<br /><br /><br />I will not participate in your corrupt, arrogant, and cruel fraud, either as perpetrator or victim. I will no longer sit here and writhe. The TYRANNY over this nation MUST END! End Emergency Rule. Repeal all laws passed under Emergency Rule. Give us back our substance and our law. Give us back our Republican form of government.<br /><br /><br />If you continue with this course, you will have natural and moral law and higher powers to answer to, not to mention all those you have wronged under color of law. You will have your own laws turned against you, as you have turned the law against us. To transform the shield of protection into a sword of exploitation, subjugation, and plunder is perfidy. I am an American. My destiny is to live as a freeman on the land my forefathers conquered and that I will fight to keep.<br /><br /><br />You have now been placed on notice. All further actions on your part will be willful!<br /><br /><br />Resolutely, from Americans who demand their country backAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-29904797096476291852010-02-10T00:48:00.001-05:002010-02-11T11:09:13.204-05:00BAR ASSOCIATION HISTORY & WHO OWNS THE U.S.{THE REAL AMERICAN HISTORY NOT TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS ON THE 227th ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST 4th Of July 1776} History of "BAR ASSOCIATIONS" The Crown Temple Secret Society of theThird Way Order by Rule of Mystery Babylon. The Templars of the Crown.<br /><br /><br />The governmental and judicial systems within the United States of America, at both federal and local state levels, is owned by the "Crown," which is a private foreign power. Before jumping to conclusions about the Queen of England or the Royal Families of Britain owning the U.S.A. , this is a different "Crown" and is fully exposed and explained below. We are specifically referencing the established Templar Church, known for centuries by the world as the "Crown." From this point on, we will also refer to the Crown as the Crown Temple or Crown Templar, all three being synonymous.<br /><br /><br />First, a ......snip... ... between Fleet Street and Victoria Embankment at the Thames River. Its grounds also house the Crown Offices at Crown Office Row. This Temple " Church " is outside any Canonical jurisdiction. The Master of the Temple is appointed and takes his place by sealed (non-public) patent, without induction or institution. All licensed Bar Attorneys -Attorners (see definitions below) ­ in the U.S. owe their allegiance and give their solemn oath in pledge to the Crown Temple , realizing this or not. This is simply due to the fact that all Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the International Bar Association located at the Inns of Court at Crown Temple, which are physically located at Chancery Lane behind Fleet Street in London.<br /><br /><br />Although they vehemently deny it, all Bar Associations in the U.S. , such as the American Bar Association, the Florida Bar, or California Bar Association, are franchises to the Crown. The Inns of Court (see below, The Four Inns of Court) to the Crown Temple use the Banking and Judicial system of the City of London - a sovereign and independent territory which is not a part of Great Britain (just as Washington City, as DC was called in the 1800's, is not a part of the north American states, nor is it a state) to defraud, coerce, and manipulate the American people. These Fleet Street bankers and lawyers are committing crimes in America under the guise and color of law (see definitions for legal and lawful below).<br /><br /><br />They are known collectively as the "Crown." Their lawyers are actually Templar Bar Attornies, not lawyers. The present Queen of England is not the "Crown," as we have all been led to believe. Rather, it is the Bankers and Attornies (Attorneys) who are the actual Crown orCrown Temple. The Monarch aristocrats of England have not been ruling sovereigns since the reign of King John, circa 1215. All royal sovereignty of the old British Crown since that time has passed to the Crown Temple in Chancery.<br /><br /><br />The U.S.A. is not the free and sovereign nation that our federal government tells us it is. If this were true, we would not bedictated to by the Crown Temple through its bankers and attornies. The U.S.A. is controlled and manipulated by this private foreign power and our unlawful Federal U.S. Government is their pawn broker. The bankers and Bar Attorneys in the U.S.A. are a franchise in oath and allegiance to the Crown at Chancery – the Crown Temple Church and its Chancel located at Chancery Lane - a manipulative body of elite bankers and attorners from the independent City of London who violate the law in America by imposing fraudulent "legal" - but totally unlawful -contracts on the American people.<br /><br /><br />The banks Rule the Temple Church and the Attorners carry out their Orders by controlling their victim's judiciary. Since the first Chancel of the Temple Church was built by the Knights Templar, this is not a new ruling system by any means. The Chancel, or Chancery, of the Crown Inner Temple Court was where King John was, in January 1215, when the English barons demanded that he confirm the rights enshrined in the Magna Carta. This City of London Temple was the headquarters of the Templar Knights in Great Britain where Order and Rule were first made, which became known as Code.<br /><br /><br />Remember all these terms, such as Crown, Temple, Templar, Knight, Chancel, Chancery, Court, Code, Order and Rule as we tie together their origins with the present American Temple Bar system of thievery by equity (chancery) contracts. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." -Matthew 23:27<br /><br /><br />By what authority has the "Crown" usurped the natural sovereignty of the American people? Is it acceptable that the U.S. Supreme Court decides constitutional issues in the U.S.A? How can it be considered in any manner as being "constitutional" when this same Supreme Court is appointed by (not elected) and paid by the Federal U.S. Government? Is it any wonder the states and her people have no justice as they dwellupon the land? As you will soon see, the land called North America belongs to the Crown Temple. The legal system (judiciary) of the U.S.A. is controlled by the Crown Temple from the independent and sovereign City of London.<br /><br /><br />The private Federal Reserve System, which issues fiat U.S. Federal Reserve Notes, is financially owned and controlled by the Crown from Switzerland, the home and legal origin for the charters of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and most importantly, the Bank of International Settlements. Even Hitler respected his Crown bankers by not bombing Switzerland. The Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland controls all the central banks of the G7 nations. He who controls the gold rules the world.<br /><br /><br />Definitions You Never Knew:<br /><br /><br />ATTORN [e-'tern] Anglo-French aturner to transfer (allegiance of a tenant to another lord), from Old French atorner to turn (to), arrange, from a- to + torner to turn: to agree to be the tenant of a new landlord or owner of the same property. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996.<br /><br /><br /> ATTORN, v.i. [L. ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn,or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary.<br /><br /><br />ESQUIRE, n. [L. scutum, a shield; Gr. a hide, of which shields were anciently made.], a shield-bearer or armor-bearer, scutifer; an attendant on a knight. Hence in modern times, a title of dignity next in degree below a knight. In England, this title is given to the younger sons of noblemen, to officers of the king's courts and of the household, to counselors at law, justices of the peace, while in commission, sheriffs, and other gentlemen. In the United States, the title is given to public officers of all degrees, from governors down to justices and attorneys. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary.<br /><br /><br />RULE, n. [L. regula, from rego, to govern, that is, to stretch, strain or make straight.] 1. Government; sway; empire; control; supreme command or authority. 6. In monasteries, corporations or societies, a law or regulation to be observed by the society and its particular members. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary<br /><br /><br />RULE n. 1 [C] a statement aboutwhat must or should be done, (syn.) a regulation.<br /><br /><br />REGULATION n. 1 [C] a rule, statement about what can be done and what cannot. 2 [U] the general condition of controlling any part of human life. -Newbury House Dictionary ©1999.<br /><br /><br />CODE n. 1 [C;U] a way of hiding the true meaning of communications from all except those people who have the keys to understand it. 2 [C] a written set of rules ofbehavior. 3 [C] a formal group of principles or laws. -v. coded, coding, codes to put into code, (syn.) to encode.<br /><br /><br />ENCODE v. 1 to change written material into secret symbols. -NewburyHouse Dictionary ©1999.<br /><br /><br />CURTAIN n. [OE. cortin, curtin, fr. OF. cortine, curtine, F. courtine, LL. cortina, also, small court, small inclosure surrounded by walls, from cortis court. See Court .] 4. A flag; an ensign; -- in contempt.[Obs.] Shak. Behind the curtain, in concealment; in secret. -1913Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.<br /><br /><br />COURT, n. 3. A palace; the place of residence of a king or sovereign prince. 5. Persons who compose the retinue or council of a king or emperor. 9. The tabernacle had one court; the temple, three. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary.<br /><br /><br />COURT n. 2 the place where a king or queen lives or meets others. -The Newbury House Dictionary ©1999.<br /><br /><br /> TEMPLAR, n. [from the Temple , a house near the Thames , which originallybelonged to the knights Templars. The latter took their denomination from an apartment of the palace of Baldwin II in Jerusalem, near the temple.] 1. A student of the law. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary.<br /><br /><br />TEMPLE, n. [L. templum.] 1. A public edifice erected in honor of some deity. Among pagans, a building erected to some pretended deity, and in which the people assembled to worship. Originally, temples were open places, as the Stonehenge in England. 4. In England, the Temples are two inns of court, thus called because anciently the dwellings of the knights Templars. They are called the Inner and the Middle Temple.-Webster's 1828 Dictionary.<br /><br /><br />CAPITOL, n. 1. The temple of Jupiter in Rome, and a fort or castle, on the Mons Capitolinus. In this, the Senate of Rome anciently assembled; and on the same place, is still the city hall or town-house, where the conservators of the Romans hold their meetings. The same name was given to the principal temples of the Romans in their colonies.<br /><br /><br />INN, n. [Hebrew, To dwell or to pitch a tent.] 2. In England, a college of municipal or common law professors and students; formerly, the town-house of a nobleman, bishop or other distinguished personage, in which he resided when he attended the court. Inns of court, colleges in which students of law reside and are instructed. The principal are the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, Lincoln’s Inn, and Gray's Inn. Inns of chancery, colleges in which young students formerly began their law studies. These are now occupied chiefly by attorneys, solicitors, etc.<br /><br /><br />INNER, a. [from in.] Interior; farther inward than something else, as an inner chamber; the inner court of a temple or palace. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary.<br /><br /><br />CROWN, n. 4. Imperial or regal power or dominion; sovereignty. There is a power behind the crown greater than the crown itself. Junius. 19. A coin stamped with the image of a crown; hence, a denomination of money; as, the English crown. -- Crown land, land belonging to the crown, that is, to the sovereign. -- Crown law, the law which governs criminal prosecutions. -- Crown lawyer, one employed by the crown, as in criminal cases. v.t. 1. To cover, decorate, orinvest with a crown; hence, to invest with royal dignity and power.-1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.<br /><br /><br />COLONY, n. 1. A company [i.e. legal corporation] or body of people transplanted from their mother country to a remote province or country to cultivate and inhabit it, and remaining subject to the jurisdiction of the parent state; as the British colonies in America or the Indies; the Spanish colonies in South America. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary.<br /><br /><br /> STATE, n. [L., to stand, to be fixed.] 1. Condition; the circumstances of a being or thing at any given time. These circumstances may be internal, constitutional or peculiar to the being, or they may have relation to other beings. 4. Estate; possession. [See Estate.]-Webster's 1828 Dictionary.<br /><br /><br />ESTATE, n. [L. status, from sto, to stand. The roots stb, std and stg, have nearly the same signification, to set, to fix. It is probable that the L. sto is contracted from stad, as it forms steti.] 1.In a general sense, fixedness; a fixed condition; 5. Fortune; possessions; Property in general. 6. The general business or interest of government; hence, apolitical body; a commonwealth; a republic. But in this sense, we now use State.<br /><br /><br />ESTATE, v.t. To settle as a fortune. 1. To establish. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary.<br /><br /><br />PATENT, a. [L. patens, from pateo, to open.] 3. Appropriated by letters patent. 4. Apparent; conspicuous.<br /><br /><br /> PATENT, n. A writing given by the proper authority and duly authenticated, granting a privilege to some person or persons. By patent, or letters patent, that is, open letters, the king of Great Britain grants lands, honors and franchises.<br /><br /><br />PATENT, v.t. To grant by patent. 1. To secure the exclusive right of a thing to a person. LAWFUL. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. "Lawful" properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; "Legal", a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a "legal" process however defective. ­ A Dictionary of Law 1893.<br /><br /><br />LEGAL. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual. "Legal" looks more to the letter, and "Lawful" to the spirit, of the law. "Legal" is more appropriate forconformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful" for accord with ethical principle. "Legal" imports rather that the forms of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; "Lawful" that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. "Legal" is the antithesis of "equitable", and theequivalent of "constructive". - 2 Abbott's Law Dict. 24; A Dictionary of Law (1893).<br /><br /><br /><br />STATUS IN QUO, STATUS QUO. [L., state in which.] The state in which anything is already. The phrase is also used retrospectively, as when, on a treaty of place, matters return to the status quo ante bellum, or are left in status quo ante bellum, i.e., the state (or, in the state) before the war. -1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary<br /><br /><br /><br />The Four Inns of Court to the unholy Temple Globally, all the legalistic scams promoted by the exclusive monopoly of the Temple Bar and their Bar Association franchises come from four Inns or Temples of Court: the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, Lincoln's Inn , and Gray's Inn. These Inns/Temples are exclusive and private country clubs; secret societies of world power in commerce. They are well established, some having been founded in the early 1200's. The Queen and Queen Mother of England are current members of both the Inner Temple and Middle Temple. Gray's Inn specializes in Taxation legalities by Rule and Code for the Crown. Lincoln's Inn received its name from the Third Earl of Lincoln (circa 1300).<br /><br /><br /><br /> Just like all U.S. based franchise Bar Associations, none of the Four Inns of the Temple are incorporated - for a definite and purposeful reason: You can't makeclaim against a non-entity and a non-being. They are private societies without charters or statutes, and their so-called constitutions are based solely on custom and self-regulation. In other words, they exist as secret societies without a public "front door" unless you're a private member called to their Bar. While the Inner Temple holds the legal system franchise by license to steal from Canada and Great Britain , it is the Middle Temple that has legal license to steal from America. This comes about directly via their Bar Association franchises to the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple through the Crown Temple.<br /><br /><br />From THE HISTORY OF THE INN , Later Centuries, [p.6], written by the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, we can see a direct tie to the Bar Association franchises andits Crown signatories in America : "Call to the Bar or keeping terms in one of the four Inns a pre-requisite to Call at King's Inns until late in the 19th century. In the 17th and 18th centuries, students came from the American colonies and from many of the West Indian islands. The Inn’s records would lead one to suppose that for a time there was hardly a young gentleman in Charleston who had not studied here. Five of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence were Middle Templars, and notwithstanding it and its consequences, Americans continued to come here until the War of 1812".<br /><br /><br />All Bar Association licensed Attorneys must keep the terms of their oath to the Crown Temple in order to be accepted or "called to Bar" at any of the King's Inns. Their oath, pledge, and terms of allegiance are made to the Crown Temple. It's a real eye opener to know that the Middle Inn of the Crown Temple has publicly acknowledged there were at least five Templar Bar Attornies, under solemn oath only to the Crown, who signed what was alleged to be an American Declaration of Independence. This simply means that both parties to the Declaration agreement were of the same origin, the Crown Temple.<br /><br /><br />In case you don't understand the importanceof this, there is no international agreement or treaty that will ever be honored, or will ever have lawful effect, when the same party signs as both the first and second parties. It's merely a worthless piece of paper with no lawful authority when both sides to any agreement are actually the same. In reality, the American Declaration of Independencewas nothing more than an internal memo of the Crown Temple made among its private members.<br /><br /><br /> By example, Alexander Hamilton was one of those numerous Crown Templars who was called to their Bar. In 1774, he entered King's College in New York City, which was funded by members of the London King's Inns, now named Columbia University. In 1777, he became a personal aide and private secretary to George Washington during the American Revolution. In May of 1782, Hamilton began studying law in Albany , New York , and within six months had completed a three year course of studies, passed his examinations, and was admitted to the New York Bar.<br /><br /><br /><br />Of course, the New York Bar Association was/is a franchise of the Crown Temple through the Middle Inn. After a year's service in Congress during the 1782-1783 session, he settled down to legal practice in New York City as Alexander Hamilton, Esqr. In February of 1784, he wrote the charter for, and became a founding member of, the Bank of New York, the State's first bank. He secured a place on the New York delegation to the Federal Convention of 1787 at Philadelphia . In a five hour speech on June 18th, he stated "an Executive for life will be an elective Monarch". When all his anti-Federalist New York colleagues withdrew from the Convention in protest, he alone signed theConstitution for the United States of America representing New York State, one of the legal Crown States (Colonies).<br /><br /><br />One should particularly notice that a lawful state is made up of the people, but a State is a legal entity of the Crown - a Crown Colony. This is an example of the deceptive ways the Crown Temple – Middle Templars - have taken control of America since the beginning of our settlements. This is explained in further detail below.<br /><br /><br />Later, as President Washington's U.S. Treasury Secretary, Hamilton alone laid the foundation of the first Federal U.S. Central Bank, secured credit loans through Crown banks in France and the Netherlands, and increased the power of the Federal Government over the hoodwinked nation-states of the Union. Hamilton had never made a secret of the fact that he admired the government and fiscal policies of GreatBritain. Americans were fooled into believing that the legal Crown Colonies comprising New England were independent nation states, but they never were nor are today. They were and still are Colonies of the Crown Temple, through letters patent and charters, who have no legal authority to be independent from the Rule and Order of the CrownTemple. A legal State is a Crown Temple Colony. Neither the American people nor the Queen of Britain own America.<br /><br /><br /> The Crown Temple owns America through the deception of those who have sworn their allegiance by oath to the Middle Templar Bar. The Crown Bankers and their Middle Templar Attornies Rule America through unlawful contracts, unlawful taxes, and contract documents of false equity through debt deceit, all strictly enforced by their completely unlawful, but "legal", Orders, Rules and Codes of the Crown TempleCourts, our This is because the Crown Temple holds the land titles and estate also-called "judiciary" in America deeds to all of North America. The biggest lie is what the Crown and its agents refer to as "the rule of law". In reality, it is not about law at all, but solely about the Crown Rule of all nations.<br /><br /><br />For example, just read what President Bush stated on November 13, 2001, regarding the "rule of law:" "Our countries are embarked on a new relationship for the 21st century, founded on a commitment to the values of democracy, the free market, and the rule of law."- Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin on 11/13/01, spoken from the White House, Washington D.C. What happened in 1776? "Whoever owns the soil, owns all the way to the heavens and to the depths of the earth." - Old Latin maxim and Roman expression.<br /><br /><br />1776 is the year that will truly live in infamy for all Americans. It is the year that the Crown Colonies became legal Crown States. The Declaration of Independence was a legal, not lawful,document. It was signed on both sides by representatives of the Crown Temple. Legally, it announced the status quo of the Crown Colonies to that of the new legal name called "States" as direct possessive estates of the Crown (see the definitions above to understand the legal trickery that was done). The American people were hoodwinked into thinking they were declaring lawful independence from the Crown. Proof that the Colonies are still in Crown possession is the use of the word "State" to signify a "legal estate of possession." Had this been a document of and by the people, both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution would have been written using the word "states". By the use of "State," the significance of a government of estate possession was legally established.<br /><br /><br />All of the North American States are Crown Templar possessions through their legal document, signed by their representation of both parties to the contract, known as theConstitution of the United States of America. All "Constitutional Rights" in America are simply those dictated by the Crown Temple and enforced by the Middle Inn Templars (Bar Attorners) through their franchise and corporate government entity, the federal United States Government. When a "State Citizen" attempts to invoke his "constitutional", natural, or common law "rights" in Chancery (equity courts), he is told they don't apply. Why? Simply because a State citizen has no rights outside of the Rule and Codes of Crown "law".<br /><br /><br />Only a state citizen has natural and common law rights by the paramount authority of God's Law. The people who comprise the citizenry of a state are recognized only within natural and common law as is already established by God's Law. Only a State Citizen can be a party to an action within a State Court. A common state citizen cannot be recognized in that court because he doesn't legally exist in Crown Chancery Courts.<br /><br /><br />In order to be recognized in their State Courts, the common man must be converted to that of a corporate or legal entity (a legal fiction). Now you know why they create such an entity using all capital letters within Birth Certificates issued by the State. They convert the common lawful man of God into a fictional legal entity subject to Administration by State Rules, Orders and Codes (there is no "law" within any Rule or Code). Of course, Rules, Codes, etc. do not apply to the lawful common man of the Lord of lords, so the man with inherent Godly law and rights must be converted into a legal "Person" of fictional "status" (another legal term) in order for their legal – but completely unlawful ­ State Judiciary (Chancery Courts) to have authority over him.<br /><br /><br />Chancery Courts are tribunal courts where the decisions of "justice" are decided by 3 "judges". This is a direct result of the Crown Temple having invoked their Rule and Code over all judicial courts. "It is held to be a settled Rule, that our courts can not take notice of any title to land not derived from the State or Colonial government, and duly verified by patent." -4 Johns. Rep. 163.Jackson v. Waters, 12 Johns. Rep. 365. S.P.<br /><br /><br /> The Crown Temple was granted Letters Patent (see definition above) and Charters (definition below) for all the land (Colonies) of New England by the King of England, a sworn member of the Middle Temple (as the Queen is now). Since the people were giving the patent/charter corporations and Colonial Governours such a hard time, especially concerning Crown taxation, a scheme was devised to allow the Americans to believe they were being granted "independence."<br /><br /><br />Remember, the Crown Templars represented both parties to the 1776 Declaration of Independence; and, as we are about to see, the latter 1787 U.S. Constitution. To have this "Declaration" recognized by international treaty law, and in order to establish the new legal Crown entity of the incorporated United States, Middle Templar King George III agreed to the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783, "between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States ". The Crown of Great Britain legally was, then and now, the Crown Temple. This formally gave international recognition to the corporate " United States ", the new Crown Temple States (Colonies).<br /><br /><br />Most important is to know who the actual signatories to the Treaty of Paris were. Take particular note to the abbreviation "Esqr." Following their names (see above definition for ESQUIRE) as this legally signifies "Officers of the King's Courts", which we now know were Templar Courts or Crown Courts. This is the same Crown Templar Titlegiven to Alexander Hamilton (see above). The Crown was represented in signature by "David Hartley, Esqr.", a Middle Templar of the King's Court. Representing the United States (a Crown franchise) by signature was "John Adams, Esqr", "Benjamin Franklin, Esqr." and "John Jay, Esqr."<br /><br /><br />The signatories for the "United States" were also Middle Templars of the King's Court through Bar Association membership. What is plainly written in history proves, once again, that the Crown Temple was representing both parties to the agreement. What a perfect and elaborate scam the people of North America had pulled on them! It becomes even more obvious when you read Article 5, which states in part, "to provide for the Restitution of all Estates, Rights, and Properties which have been confiscated, belonging to real British Subjects."<br /><br /><br />The Crown Colonies were granted to "persons" and corporations of the Crown Temple through Letters Patent and Charters, and the North American Colonial land was owned by the Crown. Since 1883, the Crown has been receiving "restitution" from the United States, their incorporated Crown franchisee, because the Crown owns the land through paramount and allodial title as a possessory estate.<br /><br />Now, here's a real catch-all in Article 4: "It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted." Since the Crown and its Templars represented both the United States, as the debtors, and the Crown, as the creditors, then they became the creditor of the American people by owning all debts of the former Colonies, now called the legal Crown States. This sounds too good to be true, but these are the facts.<br /><br /><br />The words SCAM and HOODWINKED can't begin to describe what had taken place. So then, what debts were owed to the Crown Temple and their banks as of 1883? In the Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles July 16, 1782, Article I states, "It is agreed and certified that the sums advanced by His Majesty to the Congress of the United States under the title of a loan, in the years 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, and the present 1782, amount to the sum of eighteen million of livres, money of France, according to the following twenty-one receipts of the above-mentioned underwritten Minister of Congress, given in virtue of his full powers, to wit."<br /><br /><br />That amount equals about $18 million dollars, plus interest, that Hamilton 's U.S. Central Bank owed the Crown through Crown Bank loans in France . This was signed, on behalf of the United States , by an already familiarMiddle Templar, Benjamin Franklin, Esquire. An additional $6 million dollars (six million livres) was loaned to the United States at 5% interest by the same parties in a similar Contract signed on February 25, 1783.<br /><br /><br />The Crown Bankers in the Netherlands and France were calling in their debts for payment by future generations of Americans. The Fiscal Agents of Mystery Babylon Since its beginnings, the Temple Church at the City of London has been a Knight Templar secret society. It was built and established by the same Temple Knights who were given their Rule and Order by the Roman Pope.<br /><br /><br />It's very important to know how the British Royal Crown was placed into the hands of the Knights Templars, and how the Crown Templars became the fiscal and militaryagents for the Pope of the Roman Church. This all becomes very clear through the Concession Of England To The Pope on May 15, 1213. This charter was sworn in fealty by England's King John to Pope Innocent and the Roman Church. It was witnessed before the Crown Templars, as King John stated upon sealing the same, "I myself bearing witness in the house of the Knights Templars."<br /><br /><br /><br />Pay particular attention to the words being used that we have defined below, especially charter, fealty, demur, and concession: We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal, not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offerand freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom of Ireland , with all their rights and appurtenances. We perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman church, binding our successors and our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur. As a sign, we will and establish perpetual obligation and concession from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid kingdoms.<br /><br /><br />The Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling, saving to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and regalia; all of which things, as they have been described above, wewish to have perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our successors not to act counter to them. And if we or any one of our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be, unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and his senses, he shall lose his right to the kingdom, and this charter of our obligation and concessionshall always remain firm.<br /><br /><br />Most who have commented on this charter only emphasize the payments due the Pope and the Roman Church. What should be emphasized is the fact that King John broke the terms of this charter by signing the Magna Carta on June 15, 1215. Remember; the penalty for breaking the 1213 agreement was the loss of the Crown (right to the kingdom) to the Pope and his Roman Church. It says so quite plainly. To formally and lawfully take the Crown from the royal monarchs of England by an act of declaration, on August 24, 1215, Pope Innocent III annulled the Magna Carta; later in the year, he placed an Interdict (prohibition) on the entire British empire.<br /><br /><br />From that time until today, the English monarchy and the entire British Crown belonged to the Pope.The following definitions are all taken from Webster's 1828 Dictionary since the meanings have not been perverted for nearly 200 years:<br /><br /><br />FEALTY, n. [L. fidelis.] Fidelity to a lord; faithful adherence of a tenant or vassal to the superior of whom he holds his lands; loyalty. Under the feudal system of tenures, every vassal or tenant was bound to be true and faithful to his lord, and to defend him againstall his enemies. This obligation was called his fidelity or fealty, and an oath of fealty was required to be taken by all tenants to their landlords. The tenant was called a liege man; the land, a liege fee; and the superior, liege lord.<br /><br /><br />FEE, n. [In English, is loan]. This word, fee, inland, or an estate in trust, originated among the descendants of the northern conquerors of Italy, but it originated in the south of Europe . See Feud.] Primarily, a loan of land, an estate in trust, granted by a prince or lord, to be held by the grantee on condition of personal service, or other condition; and if the grantee or tenant failed to perform the conditions, the land reverted to the lord or donor, called the landlord, or lend-lord, the lord of the loan. A fee then is any land or tenement held of a superior on certain conditions. It is synonymous with fief and feud. In the United States, an estate in fee or fee simple is what is called in English law an allodial estate, an estate held by a person in his own right, and descendible to the heirs in general.<br /><br /><br />FEUD, n. [L. fides; Eng. loan.] A fief; a fee; a right to lands or hereditaments held in trust, or on the terms of performing certain conditions; the right which a vassal or tenant has to the lands or other immovable thing of his lord, to use the same and take the profits thereof hereditarily, rendering to his superior such duties and services as belong to military tenure, &c., the property of the soil always remaining in the lord or superior. By swearing to the 1213 Charter in fealty, King John declared that the British- English Crown and its possessions at that time, including all future possessions, estates, trusts, charters, letters patent, and land, were forever bound to the Pope and the Roman Church, the landlord. Some five hundred years later, the New England Colonies inAmerica became a part of the Crown as a possession and trust named the "United States."<br /><br /><br />ATTORNING, ppr. Acknowledging a new lord, or transferring homage and fealty to the purchaser of an estate. Bar Attorneys have been attorning ever since they were founded at the Temple Church , by acknowledging that the Crown and he who holds the Crown is the new lord of the land. Because King John defaulted on the 1213 contract, the new Crown (the Crown Temple) had a new lord: The Pope and his Roman Church.<br /><br /><br />CHARTER, n. 1. A written instrument, executed with usual forms, given as evidence of a grant, contract, or whatever is done between man and man. In its more usual sense, it is the instrument of a grant conferring powers, rights and privileges, either from a king or other sovereign power, or from a private person, as a charter of exemption, that no person shall be empanelled on a jury, a charter of pardon, &c.<br /><br /><br />The charters under which most of the colonies in America were settled, were given by the king of England , and incorporated certain persons, with powers to hold the lands granted, to establish a government, and make laws for their own regulation. These were called charter- governments. By agreeing to the Magna Carta, King John had broken the agreement terms of his fealty with Rome and the Pope. What that means is that he lost all rights to the kingdom, and the royal English Crown was turned over by default to the Pope and the Roman Church.<br /><br /><br />The Pope and his Roman Church control the Crown Temple because his Knights established it under his Orders. So also the Temple Banks , the Templar Attorneys, the corporate United States , the corporate British Commonwealth, the chartered Federal Reserve Bank and Bank of England;the list is nearly endless. He who controls the gold controls the world.<br /><br /><br />The Crown Temple Today The workings of the Crown Temple in this day and age is moreso obvious, yet somewhat hidden. The Crown Templars have many names and many symbols to signify their private and unholy Temple.<br /><br /><br />Take a close look at the (alleged) one dollar $1 private Federal Reserve System (a Crown banking franchise) Debt Note. Notice in the base of the pyramid the Roman date MDCCLXXVI which is written in Roman numerals for the year 1776. The words ANNUIT COEPTIS NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM are Roman Latin for ANNOUNCING THE BIRTH OF THE NEW ORDER OF THE WORLD. Go back to the definitions above and pay particular attention to the words CAPITOL, CROWN and TEMPLE. 1776 signifies the birth of the New World Order under the Crown Temple.That's when their American Crown Colonies became the chartered government called the United States , thanks to the Declaration of Independence.<br /><br /><br /><br />Since that date, the United Nations (another legal Crown Temple by charter) rose up and refers to every nation as a State member. Note also that there are 13 layers for the pyramid denoting the 13 chartered Colony-States and that the eye of Osirus, one of many Templar signs used the Temple Illuminati or their Order of the Rose and Order of the Cross.<br /><br /><br />The Wizard of Oz = the Crown Temple This is not a mere child's story written by L. Frank Baum. What symbol does "Oz" stand for? Ounces. What is measured in ounces? Gold. What is the yellow brick road? Bricks or ingot bars of gold. The character known as the Straw Man represents that fictitious ALL CAPS legal fiction - a PERSON - the Federal U.S. Government created with the same spelling as your Christian birth name.<br /><br />Remember what the Straw Man wanted from the Wizard of Oz? A brain! No legal fiction has a brain because they have no breath of life! What did he get in place of a brain? A Certificate. A Birth Certificate for a new legal creation. He was proud of his new legal status, plus all the other legalisms he was granted. Now he becomes the true epitome of the brainless sack of straw who was given a Certificate in place of a brainof common sense.<br /><br /><br /> What about the Tin Man? Does Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) mean anything to you? The poor TIN Man just stood there mindlessly doing his work until his body literally froze up and stopped functioning. He worked himself to death because he had no heart nor soul. He's the heartless and emotionless creature robotically carrying out his daily task as if he was already dead. He's the ox pulling the plow and the mule toiling under the yoke. These days, his task masters just oil him nightly with beer and place him in front of a hypnotic television until his very existence no longer has any meaning or value. His masters keep him cold on the outside and heartless on the inside in order to control any emotions or heart he may get a hold of.<br /><br /><br />The pitiful Cowardly Lion was always too frightened to stand up for himself. Of course, he was a bully and a big mouth when it came to picking on those smaller than he was. Did you ever notice how bullies are really the biggest cowards? They act as if they have great courage, but they really have none at all. All roar with no teeth of authority to back them up. When push came to shove, the Cowardly Lion always buckled under and whimpered when anyone of any size or stature challenged him. He wanted courage from the Grand Wizard, so he was awarded a medal of "official" recognition. Now, regardless of how much of a coward he still was, his official status made him a bully with officially recognized authority. He's just like the Attorneys who hide behind the Middle Courts of the Temple Bar.<br /><br /><br />What about the trip through the field of poppies? Notice how it never affected the Straw Man (no brain) or the TIN Man (no heart or soul)? They weren't real people, so drugs had no effect on them. The Wizard of Oz was written at the turn of the century, so how could the author have known America was going to be drugged?<br /><br /><br />The Crown has been playing the drug cartel game for centuries. Just look up the history of Hong Kong and the Opium Wars. The Crown already had valuable experience conquering all of China with drugs, so why not the rest of the world? Who finally exposed the Wizard for what he really was?<br /><br /><br />Toto, the ugly (or cute, depending on your perspective) and somewhat annoying little dog. Toto means "in total, all together; Latin in toto." Notice how Toto was not scared of the Great Wizard's theatrics, yet he was so small in size compared to the Wizard, no-one seemed to notice him. The smoke, flames and hologram images were designed to frighten people intodoing as the Great Wizard of Oz commanded. Toto simply went over, looked behind the curtain ­ the court - (see the definition for curtain above), saw it was a scam, and started barking until others paid attention to him and came to see what all the barking was about. Who was behind the curtain?<br /><br /><br />Just an ordinary person controlling the levers that created the illusions of the Great Wizard's power and authority. When Toto pulled back the curtain to completely expose him, the charade was over. The veil hiding the corporate legal fiction and its false courts was removed. The Wizard's game was up. It's too bad that people don't realize how loud a bark from a little dog is.<br /><br /><br />How about your bark? Do you just remain silent and wait to be given whatever food and recognition, if any, your legal master gives you? Let's not forget those pesky flying monkeys. What a perfect mythical creature to symbolize the Bar Association Attorners who attack and control all the little people for the Great Crown Wizard, the powerful and grand Bankers of Oz - Gold.<br /><br />What is it going to take to expose the Wizard and tear down the court veil for what they really are? Each of us needs only a brain, a heart and soul, and courage. Then, and most importantly, we all need to learn how to work together. Only "in toto," working together as one Body of the King of Kings, can we ever be free or have the freedom given under God's Law. Mystery Babylon Revealed.<br /><br /><br />There is no mystery behind the current abomination of Babylon for those who discern His Truth: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. -Revelation 17:5 God has reserved His judgment for the great idolatress, Rome , the chief seat of all idolatry, that rules over many nations with whom the kings have committed to the worship of her idols (see Revelation 17:1-4).<br /><br /><br />The Pope and His purported Church; sitting on the Temple throne at the Vatican; ruling the nations of the earth through the Crown Temple of ungodly deities are the Rule and Order of Babylon; the Crown of godlessness and the Code of commerce. One may call the Rule of the world today by many names: The New World Order (a Bush family favourite), the Third Way (spoken by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton), the Illuminati, Triad, Triangle, Trinity, Masonry, the United Nations, the EU, the US , or many dozens of other names. However, they all point to one origin and one beginning.<br /><br /><br />We have traced this in history to the Crown Temple, the Temple Church circa 1200. All world banking, judiciary, and rule of "law" has been under the Rule and Order of the Crown Temple since that time. Because the Pope created the Order of the Temple Knights (the Grand Wizards of deception) and established their mighty Temple Church in the sovereign City of London, it is the Pope and his Roman Capitols who control the world.<br /><br /><br />"And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication" -Revelation 17:4 This verse appears to be an accurate description of the Pope and His Bishops for the past 1,700 years. The idolatries of commerce in the world: all the gold and silver; the iron and softmetals; the money and coins and riches of the world: All of these are under the control of the Crown Temple ; the Roman King and his false Church; the throne of Babylon; attended to by his Templar Knights, the Wizards of abomination and idolatry. "The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman [mother of harlots] sitteth" - Revelation 17:9<br /><br /><br />The only mention of "seven mountains" within our present-day Bible is at Revelation 17:9, so it's no wonder this has been a mystery to the current Body of Christ. The 1611 King James (who was a Crown Templar) Bible is not the entire canon of the early church ("church" in Latin ecclesia; in Greek ekklesia). There were other gospels and books that have been forbidden by the Papal Throne at Rome since the third century.<br /><br /><br />Greek and Aramaic copies of the "unapproved writings" were sought after and destroyed by Rome. This in itself is no mystery as history records the existence and destruction of these early church writings; just as history has now proven their genuine authenticity with the appearance of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the coptic library at Nag Hagmadi in Egypt , among many other recent Greek language discoveries within the past 100 years.<br /><br /><br />The current Holy Bible quotes the Book of Enoch numerous times: By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, "and was not found, because God had taken him"; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. - Hebrews 11:5 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." - Jude 1:14-15.<br /><br /><br />The Book of Enoch was considered scripture by most early Christians. The earliest literature of the so-called "Church Fathers" is filled with references to this mysterious book. The second century Epistle of Barnabus makes much use of the Book of Enoch. Second and Third Century "Church Fathers," such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria , all make use of the Book of Enoch. Tertullian (160-230C.E) even called the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture". The Ethiopic Church included the Book of Enoch to its official canon. It was widely known and read the first three centuries after Christ. However, this and many other books became discredited after the Roman Council of Laodicea. Being under ban of the Roman Papal authorities, afterwards they gradually passed out of circulation.<br /><br /><br />At about the time of the Protestant Reformation, there was a renewed interest in the Book of Enoch, which had long since been lost to the modern world. By the late 1400's, rumors began to spread that a copy of the long lost Book of Enoch might still exist. During this time, many books arose claiming to be the lost book but were later found to be forgeries. The return of the Book of Enoch to the modern western world is credited to the famous explorer James Bruce, who in 1773 returned from six years in Abyssinia with three Ethiopic copies of the lost book.<br /><br /><br />In 1821, Richard Laurence published the first English translation. The now famous R.H. Charles edition was first published byOxford Press in 1912. In the following years, several portions of the Greek text also surfaced. Then, with the discovery of cave number four of the Dead Sea Scrolls, seven fragmentary copies of the Aramaic text were discovered.<br /><br /><br />Within the Book of Enoch is revealed one of the mysteries of Babylon concerning the seven mountains she sits upon (underlining has been added): [CHAPTER 52] 2 There mine eyes saw all the secret things of heaven that shall be; a mountain of iron, a mountain of copper, a mountain of silver, a mountain of gold, a mountain of soft metal, and a mountain of lead. 6<br /><br /><br />These [6] mountains which thine eyes have seen: The mountain of iron, the mountain of copper, the mountain of silver, the mountain of gold, the mountain of soft metal, and the mountain of lead. All these shall be in the presence of the Elect One as wax: Before the fire, like the water which streams down from above upon those mountains, and they shall become powerless before his feet. 7 It shall come to pass in those days that none shall be saved, either by gold or by silver, and none be able to escape. 8 There shall be no iron for war, nor shall one clothe oneself with a breastplate. Bronze shall be of no service, tin shall all be of no service and shall not be esteemed, and lead shall not be desired.<br /><br /><br />9 All these things shall be denied and destroyed from the surface of the earth when the Elect One shall appear before the face of the Lord of Spirits.' [CHAPTER 24] 3 The seventh mountain was in the midst of these, and it excelled them in height, resembling the seat of a throne; and fragrant trees encircled the throne. [CHAPTER 25] 3<br /><br /><br />And he answered saying: 'This high mountain which thou hast seen, whose summit is like the throne of God, is His throne, where the Holy Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when He shall come down to visit the earth with goodness. 4 As for this fragrant tree, no mortal is permitted to touch it until the great judgment when He shall take vengeance on all and bring (everything) to its consummation for ever. 5 It shall then be given to the righteous and Holy. Its fruit shall be for food to the elect: It shall be transplanted to the Holy place, to the temple of the Lord, the Eternal King. 6 Then shall they rejoice with joy and be glad, and into the Holy place shall they enter; its fragrance shall be in their bones and they shall live a long life on earth, such as thy fathers lived: In their days shall no sorrow, or plague, or torment, or calamity touch them.'<br /><br /><br />The present wealth and power of all the world's gold, silver, tin, bronze, pearls, diamonds, gemstones, iron, and copper belonging the Babylon whore, and held in the treasuries of her Crown Templar banks and deep stony vaults, will not be able to save them at the time of the Lord's judgment.<br /><br /><br />But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in[yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. ­ Matthew 23:13<br /><br /><br />Where do we go from here? Now that their false Temple has been exposed, how does this apply to the Kingdom of Heaven? To reach the end, you must know the beginning. For everything ordained of God, there is an imitation ordained of evil that looks like the genuine thing. There is the knowledge of good and the knowledge of evil.<br /><br /><br />The problem is, most believe they have the knowledge of God when what they really have is knowledge of world deceptions operating as gods. Where there is the true Tabernacle or Temple of God, there are also the false Temples of unholy gods. The only way to discern and begin to understand the Kingdom of Heaven is to seek the Knowledge that comes only from God, not the knowledge of men who take their legal claim as earthly rulers and gods.<br /><br /><br />The false Crown Temple and its Grand Wizard Knights have led the world to believe that they are of the Lord God and hold the knowledge and keys to His Kingdom. What they hold within their Temples are the opposite. They claim to be the “Holy Church," but which holy church? The real one or the false one?<br /><br /><br />Are the Pope and his Roman Church the Temple of God , or is this the unholy Temple of Babylon sitting upon the seven mountains? They use the same words, but alter them to show the true meaning they have applied: The State is not a state; a Certificate is not a certification. The Roman Church is not the church (ekklesia). There is the Crown of the Lord; and a Crown of that which is not of the Lord.<br /><br /><br />There is the mark and seal of the Lord God; and there are the Marks and Seals of the false gods. All imitations appear to be the genuine article, but they are fakes. Those who are truly seeking the genuine Kingdom of God must allow the Lord to show them the discernment between the genuine and the imitation. Without this discernment by the Holy Spirit, all will remain fooled by the illusions of false deity emanating from the unholy spirits of the Wizards. Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or, lo there!For behold, the kingdom of God is within you. - Luke 17:21<br /><br /><br />Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the FATHER'S kingdom is within you and it is outside you. ­ Gospel of Thomas 3 Don't you know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God lives in you? ­<br /><br /><br /> 1 Corinthians 3:16 Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. For there is nothing hidden that will not berevealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised."] ­ Gospel of Thomas 5<br /><br /><br />Wisdom And Freedom produced by WORLD NEWSSTAND<br /><br /><br />__._,_.___,_._,___Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-74353721896944033052010-02-05T11:03:00.001-05:002010-02-05T11:07:38.971-05:00JEFF NIELSON'S INSTABLOG 10-26-09Jeff Nielson's Instablog<br /><br />Jeff Nielson is from Canada and is a writer/editor for Bullion Bulls Canada (http://www.bullionbullscanada.com/#content). He has a personal background in law and economics. Bullion Bulls Canada provides general macro-economic and political commentary, since the precious metals markets are among... More<br />My business:<br />Bullion Bulls Canada<br />My blog:<br />bullionbullscanada.c...Profile Articles (130) Instablog (200) StockTalk (1) Comments (672) Who OWNS Foreclosed U.S. Properties?, Part II: the role of MERS 4 comments<br />Oct 26, 2009 12:21 PM<br /><br /> In Part I, “Scam in the making”, I explained how Wall Street created the U.S. housing-bubble and its concurrent Ponzi-scheme – with the full assistance of its accomplices: U.S. rating agencies and U.S. regulators. I also explained why it had to be obvious before they started creating this bubble that it would end with an unprecedented wave of foreclosures.<br /><br /><br /><br />Because a big part of the bubble/Ponzi-scheme was “mortgage securitization” (which meant the bank originating the mortgage no longer held title to the mortgage), and because the U.S. financial crime syndicate knew there would be a huge wave of foreclosures, it had to invent an entity which could serve as a proxy in foreclosure proceedings – representing all of the players in these debt “daisy-chains”.<br /><br /><br /><br />This was why MERS was created in 1995. As I wrote in Part I, MERS is nothing more than a confidential electronic registry which exists only to “track mortgages and the changes of servicing rights and mortgage ownership”. In other words, it has no proprietary interest in these mortgages.<br /><br /><br /><br />The reason why that last fact is so important is because of the fact that Wall Street had created such convoluted chains of “ownership” that even in court proceedings the banksters are unable to show any party in these chain of transactions as having clear title to the mortgage. Wall Street's plan was to send MERS (nothing but a glorified, electronic clerk) to all these foreclosure proceedings and allow MERS to act as if it was the mortgage-holder in these proceedings.<br /><br /><br /><br />However, it is one of the oldest principals of our Western legal system that in civil proceedings any party wanting to bring an action before the court has to have “standing”. Typically, this is defined as a direct, proprietary interest in the subject of the trial. Clearly, MERS has no proprietary interest – and thus in several legal decisions it has been found to have no right to initiate foreclosure proceedings.<br /><br /><br /><br />As I pointed out in Part I (via an article by Edward Harrison), one of these court cases has already been upheld on appeal – setting the stage for courts to broaden the previous rulings. Until now, judges who have ruled that MERS has no “standing” have only done so narrowly, on a case-by-case basis. The next step in this natural legal evolution (the law always moves in “baby steps”) is for courts to rule that MERS has no standing, period!<br /><br /><br /><br />When that day occurs, it will immediately create two, huge legal ramifications. First of all, there would be no further point in the bankers even showing up to a trial over a foreclosure unless the bankers can sift through the deliberately complicated maze of transactions and clearly identify a party with genuine, legal title over a mortgage. Otherwise, not only would the bankers face a summary dismissal of their action, but it's very possible that the judge in question would simply nullify the entire mortgage – as recently happened in a case in New York.<br /><br /><br /><br />What this means is that any American homeowner whose mortgage has been “securitized” must take their case to court if/when a foreclosure proceeding is commenced against them. The worst-case scenario is that the foreclosure proceeding is dismissed and the homeowner can stay in his home, and not even bother with making any more payments. Why send cheques to a bank when you can live in your home for free – and never have to worry again about foreclosure?<br /><br /><br /><br />However, once MERS is found to (broadly) have no legal “standing”, this will effect far more people than those about to be foreclosed. Another important concept in our legal system involves the concept of “discovery”. Its relevance in this particular situation is as follows.<br /><br /><br /><br />If Americans who have already lost their homes to foreclosure “discover” today that the party who was officially behind these foreclosure proceedings (which in many cases is MERS) never had legal standing to foreclose on their property (whether that took place five days ago or five years ago), this means that the foreclosure proceeding was legally invalid.<br /><br /><br /><br />What this means is that courts will very likely find that these “foreclosure victims” are still the legal owners of their homes. This not only is a crippling blow to the U.S. financial crime syndicate, but an even more serious blow to people who have been buying these “foreclosed” properties.<br /><br /><br /><br />If the bank who “sold” them the “foreclosed” property never had legal title then obviously that bank had nothing to sell to the “buyer”. In other words, many (if not most) of the people who have bought “foreclosed” properties in the U.S. over the last few years may own nothing.<br /><br /><br /><br />This becomes a double loss for the banks. Not only do they end up with nothing with respect to the original mortgage they claimed to own, but the subsequent buyer who is stripped of their purchase will then sue the banker for the full purchase price, all of their related costs (moving costs, furniture, etc.) plus the judge will very likely tack on some steep “punitive damages” to punish the banks for creating this legal nightmare and attempting to “foreclose” and “sell” properties they never owned.<br /><br /><br /><br />As I pointed out a few weeks ago (see “Bankster Sues Bankster – AGAIN”), even if Wall Street banks can survive the massive losses they are incurring as their Ponzi-scheme unravels, there is no possibility of them surviving the tidal wave of litigation which is just beginning.<br /><br /><br /><br />On a related subject, it was recently reported that the huge stash of money which Wall Street has in a “savings account” with the Federal Reserve now exceeds $1 trillion. Doesn't it seem odd that with Wall Street banks regularly bragging about how much money there are making with their own, in-house trading that they would leave a trillion dollars sitting in a savings account during this fantasy-rally in U.S. markets (which they helped to engineer)?<br /><br /><br /><br />Obviously the banksters dare not admit to their shareholders or the media that they have stockpiled a trillion dollars as a down-payment for all the pay-outs they will be forced to make in future litigation. Instead, they just hide this money with the Federal Reserve and pretend it doesn't exist. Meanwhile, as I also pointed out in a recent commentary, U.S. banks are holding at least 5 million already-foreclosed homes off of the market. No point in trying to “sell” these properties if they don't actually own them.<br /><br /><br /><br />There is one potentially serious consequence for average Americans as a result of this crucial legal precedent. If millions of Americans suddenly discover they have essentially “free homes” (and with actual housing inventories at least three times greater than what the NAR pretends), this could be the catalyst for another huge drop in house prices. A homeowner who loses his job, but then suddenly ends up with a “free home” will be willing to accept a much lower purchase price (as he down-sizes to a smaller residence) than a homeowner with an “underwater mortgage” desperately trying just to break-even.<br /><br /><br /><br />In short, we could be heading for utter chaos in the U.S. housing market. Millions of people who thought they had purchased a foreclosed property could find they own nothing - and have to vacate those premises, remaining in “limbo” until they have successfully sued the bankers responsible for their problems. Millions of homeowners who thought they had lost their homes may suddenly have the keys returned to them. Perhaps most importantly, all “foreclosure sales” will essentially dry-up – since no buyers could be foolish enough to hand a banker a six-figure cheque when that banker may not even have title to the property.<br /><br /><br /><br />Can you imagine desperate bankers trying to show “clear title” to potential buyers when they can't even demonstrate that in a court-room – armed with a team of lawyers? The only thing which is absolutely certain at this point is that the U.S. housing sector cannot possibly be close to any “bottom” given that the pain is only beginning in this market.<br /><br />Themes: U.S. housing sector, U.S. financial sector, U.S. corruptionAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-24152377355863401692010-02-02T08:55:00.002-05:002010-02-03T20:52:41.645-05:00WHERE DOES THE FRAUD BEGIN?WHERE DOES THE FRAUD BEGIN?<br />This document is meant to take the reader down a road they have likely never traveled. This is a layman’s explanation of what has been happening in this country that most have no idea or inkling of. It is intended to give the reader an overview of a systemic Fraud in this country that has reached epic proportions and provoke action to eradicate this scourge that has descended upon the people of America. Depending on what your situation is, you may react with disbelief, fear, anger or outright disgust at what you are about to learn. The following information is supported with facts, exhibits, law and is not mere opinion.<br />Let’s start our journey of discovery with the purchase of a home and subsequent steps in the financial process through the life of the "mortgage loan". It all starts at the "closing" where we gather with other people that are "involved" in the process to sign the documents to purchase our new home. Do we really know what goes on at the closing? Are we ever told who all the participants are in that entire process? Are we truly given "full disclosure" of all the various aspects of that entire transaction regarding what, for most people, is the single largest purchase they will make in their entire life?<br />Let’s start with the very first part of the transaction. We have a virtual stack of papers placed in front of us and we are instructed where we are supposed to start signing or initialing on those "closing documents". There seems to be so many different documents with enough legal language that we could read for hours just to get through them the first time, much less begin to fully understand them. Are we given a copy of all these documents at least 7 days prior to the closing so we can read and study these documents so we fully understand what it is that we are signing and agreeing to? That has never happened for the average consumer and purchaser of a property in the last 30 years or more if it ever has at all. WHY? We have a stack of documents placed before us at the "closing" that we haven’t ever seen before and are instructed where to sign or initial to complete the transaction and "get our new home". We depend on the real estate agent, in most cases, to bring the parties together at the closing after we have supplied enough financial data and other requested information so that the "lender" can determine whether we can qualify for our "loan". Obviously we have the "three day right of rescission" but do we really stop to read all the documents after we have just purchased our home and want to move in? Is the thought that there might be something wrong with what we have just signed a primary thought in our mind at that time? Did we trust the people involved in the transaction? Are we naturally focusing on getting moved into our new home and getting settled with our family?<br />Who are the players involved in the transaction from the perspective of the consumer purchasing a property and signing a "Mortgage Note" and "Deed" or similar "Security Instrument" at the closing? There is, of course, the seller, the real estate agent(s), title insurance company, property appraiser who is supposed to properly determine the value of the property, and the most obvious one being who we believe to be "the lender" in the transaction. We are led, by all involved, to believe that we are, in fact, borrowing money from the "lender" which is then paid to the current owner of the property as compensation for them relinquishing any "claim of ownership" to the property and transferring that "claim of ownership" to us as the purchaser. It all seems so simple and clear on its face and then the transaction is completed. After the "closing" everyone is all smiles and you believe you have a new home and have to repay the "lender", over a period of years, the money which you believe you have "borrowed".<br />IS THERE SOMETHING WE DON’T KNOW?<br />Everything appears to be relatively simple and straightforward but is that really the case? Could it be that there are other players involved in this whole transaction that we know nothing about that have a very substantial financial interest in what has just occurred? Could it be that those players that we are totally unaware of have somehow used us without our knowledge or<br />consent to secure a spectacular financial gain for themselves with absolutely no investment or risk to themselves whatsoever? Could it be that there is a hidden aspect of this whole transaction that is "standard operating procedure" in an industry where this hidden "aspect of a transaction" occurs every single banking day across this country and beyond? Could it be that this hidden "aspect of a transaction" is a deliberate process to unjustly enrich certain individuals and entities at the expense of the public as a whole? Could it be that there was not full disclosure of the "true nature" of the transaction as it actually occurred which is required for a contract to be valid and enforceable?<br />THE DOCUMENTS INVOLVED<br />The two most important and valuable documents that are signed at a closing are the "Note" and the "Deed" in various forms. When looking at the definition of a "Mortgage Note" it is obvious that it is a "Security Instrument". It is a promise to pay made by the maker of that "Note". When looking at a copy of a "Deed of Trust" such as the attached Exhibit "A", which is a template of a Tennessee "Deed of Trust" form that is directly from the freddiemac.com website, it is very obvious that this document is also a "Security Instrument". This is a template that is used for MOST government purchased loans. You will note that the words "Security Instrument" are mentioned no less than 90 times in that document. Is there ANY doubt it is a "Security"? When at the closing, the "borrower" is led<br />to believe that the "Mortgage Note" that he signs is a document that binds him to make repayment of "money" that the "lender" is loaning him to purchase the property he is acquiring. Is there disclosure to the "borrower" to the effect that the "lender" is not really loaning any of their money to the "borrower" and therefore is taking no risk whatsoever in the transaction? Is it disclosed to the "borrower" that according to FEDERAL LAW, banks are not allowed to loan credit and are also not allowed to loan their own or their depositor’s money? If that is the case, then how could this transaction possibly take place? Where does the money come from? Is there really any money to be loaned? The answer to this last question is a resounding NO! Most people are not aware that there has been no lawful money since the bankruptcy of the United States in 1933.<br />Since House Joint Resolution 192 (HJR 192) (Public law 7310) was passed in 1933 we have only had debt, because all property and gold was seized by the government as collateral in the bankruptcy of the United States. Most people today would think they have money in their hand when they pull something out of their pocket and look at the paper that is circulated by the banks that they have been told is "money". In reality they are looking at a "Federal Reserve Note" which is stated right on the face of the piece of paper we have come to know as "money". It is NOT really "money", it is debt, a promise to pay made by the United States! If you take a "Federal Reserve Note" showing a value of ten dollars<br />and buy something, you are then making a purchase with a "Note" (a promise to pay). There is absolutely no gold or silver backing the Federal Reserve Notes that we refer to as "money" today.<br />When you sit down at the closing table to complete the transaction to purchase your home aren’t you tendering a "Note" with your signature which would be considered money? That is exactly what you are doing. A "Note" is money in our monetary system today! You can deposit the "Federal Reserve Note" (a promise to pay) with a denomination of $10 at the bank and they will credit your account in that same amount. Why is it that when you tender your "Note" at the closing that they don’t tell you that your home is paid for right on the spot? The fact is that it IS PAID FOR ON THE SPOT. Your signature on a "Note" makes that "Note" money in the amount that is stated on the "Note"! Was this disclosed to you at the "closing" in either verbal or written form? Could this be the place where the other players come into the transaction at or near the time of closing? What happens to the "Note" (promise to pay) that you sign at the closing table? Do they put it in their vault for safe keeping as evidence of a debt that you owe them as you are led to believe? Do they return that note to you if you pay off your mortgage in 5, 10 or 20 years? Do they disclose to you that they do anything other than put it away for safe keeping once it is in their possession?<br />WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS TO THE "NOTE"?<br />Unknown to almost everyone, there is something VERY different that happens with your "Mortgage Note" immediately after closing.<br />Your "Mortgage Note" is endorsed and deposited in the bank as a check and becomes "MONEY"! See attached (Exhibit "B" para 13) The document that you just gave the bank with your signature on it, that you believe is a promise to pay them for money loaned to you, has just been converted to money in THEIR ACCOUNT. You just gave the "lender" the exact dollar value of what they said they just loaned you! Who is the REAL creditor in this "Closing Transaction"? Who really loaned who anything of value or any money? You actually just paid for your own home with your promissory "Mortgage Note" that you gave the bank and the bank gave you what in return? NOTHING!!! For any contract to be valid there must be consideration given by both parties. But don’t they tell you that you must now pay back the "Loan" that they have made to you?<br />How can it be that you could just write a "Note" and pay for your home? This leads us back to the bankruptcy of the United States in 1933. When FDR and Congress took all the property and gold from the people in 1933 they had to give something in return for that confiscation of property. See attached (Exhibit "B" para 6) What the people got in return was the promise that all of their needs would be met by the government because the assets and the labor of the people were collateral for the debt of the United States in the<br />bankruptcy. All of their debts would be "discharged". This was done without the consent of the people of America and was an act of Treason by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The problem comes in where they never told us how we could accomplish that discharge and have what we were entitled to after the bankruptcy. Why has this never been taught in the schools in this country? Could it be that it would expose the biggest fraud in the history of this entire country and in the world? If the public is purposely not educated about certain things then certain individuals and entities can take full financial advantage of virtually the entire population. Isn’t this "selective education" more like "indoctrination"? Could this be what has happened? In Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat. Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 1987 it says "Party having superior knowledge who takes advantage of another's ignorance of the law to deceive him by studied concealment or misrepresentation can be held responsible for that conduct." Does this mean that if there are people with superior knowledge as a party in this "Loan Transaction" that take advantage of the "ignorance of the law", (through indoctrination) of the public to unjustly enrich themselves, that they can be held responsible? Can they be held responsible in only a civil manner or is there a more serious accountability that falls into the category of criminal conduct?<br />It is well established law that Fraud vitiates (makes void) any contract that arises from it. Does this mean that this intentional "lack of disclosure" of the true nature of the contract we have<br />entered into is Fraud and would make the mortgage contract void on its face? Could it be that the Fraud could actually be "studied concealment or misrepresentation" that makes those involved in the act responsible and accountable? What happens to the "Note" once it is deposited in the bank and is converted to "money"? Are there different kinds of money? There is money of exchange and money of account. They are two very different things. See attached (Exhibit "B" para 11), Affidavit of Expert Witness Walker Todd. Walker Todd explains in his expert witness affidavit that the banks actually do convert signatures into money. The definition of "money" according to the Uniform Commercial Code: "Money" means a medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government and includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more nations. Money can actually be in different forms other than what we are accustomed to thinking. When you sign your name on a promissory note it becomes money whether you are talking a mortgage note or a credit card application! Did the bankers ever "disclose" this to us? Were we ever taught anything about this in the school system in this country? Could it be that this whole idea of being able to convert our signature to money is a "studied concealment" or "misrepresentation" where those involved become responsible if we are harmed by their actions? What happens if you have signed a "Mortgage Note" and already paid for your home and they come at a later date and foreclose and take it from you? Would you consider yourself to be harmed in any way? We will bring this up again very shortly but we need to look at the<br />other document that is signed at the "closing" that is of great significance.<br />THE DEED OF TRUST<br />Why do we need a Deed of Trust? What exactly IS a Deed of Trust or other similar "Security Instrument"? It spells out all the details of the contract that you are signing at the "closing", including such things as insurance requirements, preservation and maintenance and all of the financial details of how, when, where and why you are going to make payments to the "lender" for years and years. Wait a minute!!!!! Make payments to the "lender"???? Why do you have to make payments to the "lender"??? Didn’t we just establish the fact that your house was paid for by YOU, with your "Mortgage Note" that is converted to money by THE BANK DEPOSITING IT? Is there something wrong with this picture? We have just paid for our "home" but now we are told we have to sign a Deed of Trust or similar "Security Instrument" that binds us to pay the "lender" back? Pay the "lender" back for what? Did they loan us any money? Remember the part about banks not being able to loan "their or their depositors money" under FEDERAL LAW? What about: "In the federal courts, it is well established that a national bank has no power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, indorser, or guarantor for him." Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat ‘l Bank, 11 F 2d 83, 271 U.S. 669; "A national bank has no power to lend its credit to any person or corporation." Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94<br />F 925, 36 CCA 553, certiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US 682, 44 LED 637?<br />What is happening here with this "Deed of Trust" or similar "Security Instrument" that says we have to pay all this money back and if we don’t, they can foreclose and take our home? Why do we have to have this kind of agreement when we have already paid for our home through our "Mortgage Note" which was converted to money BY THE BANK? Could this possibly be another example of "studied concealment or misrepresentation" where those involved could be held accountable for their conduct? What happens to this Deed of Trust or similar "Security Instrument" after we sign it? Where does it go? Does it go into the vault for safekeeping like we might think? See attached Exhibit "C" for substantially more information.<br />WHO ARE THE OTHER PLAYERS?<br />We have already found out that the "Note" doesn’t go into the vault for safe keeping but instead is deposited into an account at the bank and becomes money. Where does the Note go then? This is where things get VERY interesting because your "Mortgage Note" is then used to access your Treasury Account (that you know nothing about) and get credit in the amount of your "Mortgage Note" from your "Prepaid Treasury Account". If they process the "Note" and get paid for it then they have received the funds from YOUR<br />account at Treasury to pay for YOUR home correct? They then turn around and bundle the "Note" and sell it to investors on Wall Street and get paid again! Now let’s see what happens to the "Deed of Trust" or similar "Security Instrument" after you have signed it. You may be quite surprised to know that not only does it not go into "safekeeping" it is immediately SOLD as an INVESTMENT SECURITY to one of any number of investors tied to Wall Street. There is a ready, and waiting, market for all of the "mortgage paper" that is produced by the banks. What happens is the "Deed of Trust" or other similar "Security Instrument" is bundled and SOLD to a buyer and the BANK GETS PAID FOR THE VALUE OF THE MORTGAGE AGAIN!! Haven’t the bankers just transferred any risk on that mortgage to someone else and they have their money? That is a pretty slick way of doing things! They ALWAYS get their money right away and everyone else connected to the transaction has the liabilities! Is there something wrong with THIS picture? How can it possibly be that the bank has now been paid three times in the amount of your "purported" mortgage? How is it that you still have to pay years and years on this "purported" loan? Was any of this disclosed to you before you signed the "Deed of Trust" or other similar "Security Instrument"? Would you have signed ANY of those documents including the "Mortgage Note" if you knew that this is what was actually happening? Do you think there were any "copies" of the "Mortgage Note" and "Deed of Trust" or other similar "Security Instrument" made during this process? Are those<br />"copies" just for the records to be put in a file somewhere or is there another purpose for them?<br />CAN REPRODUCING A NOTE OR DEED OF TRUST BE ILLEGAL?<br />We have already established that the "Mortgage Note" and the "Deed of Trust" or other similar "Security Instrument" are "Securities" by definition under the law. Securities are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission which is an agency of the Federal Government. There are very strict regulations about what can and cannot be done with "Securities". There are very strict regulations that apply to the reproduction or "copying" of "Securities":<br />The Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992, Public Law 102‐550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, permits color illustr<br />tions of U.S. currency provided: The illustration is of a size less than three‐ourths or more than one and one‐h part of the item illustrated<br />ear dimension, of ea<br /><br /> The illustration is one‐ided All negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use<br />Other<br />O<br />bligations and Securities Photographic or other likenesses of other United States obligations and securities and foreign currencies are permissible for any non‐raudulent purpose, provided the items are reproduced in black and white and are less<br /><br /><br />than three‐uarters or greater than one‐nd‐ne‐alf times the size, in linear dimension, of any part of the original item being reproduced. Negatives and plates used in making the likenesses must be destroyed after their use for the purpose for which they were made.<br />Title 18 USC § 472 Uttering counterfeit obligations or securities Whoever, with intent to defraud, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or with like intent brings into the United States or keeps in possession or conceals any falsely made, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.<br />Title 18 USC § 473 Dealing in counterfeit obligations or securities Whoever buys, sells, exchanges, transfers, receives, or delivers any false, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, with the intent that the same be passed, published, or used as true and genuine, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.<br />Title 18 USC § 474 Plates, stones, or analog, digital, or electronic<br />images for counterfeiting obligations or securities Whoever, with intent to defraud, makes, executes, acquires, scans, captures, records, receives, transmits, reproduces, sells, or has in such person’s control, custody, or ossession, an analog, digital, or electronic image of any obligation or other security f the United States is guilty of a class B felony.<br />p<br />o<br />Are these regulations always adhered to by the "lender" when they have possession of these "original" SECURITIES and make reproductions of them before they are "sold to investors? How much has been in the media in the past 2 years about people demanding to see the "wet ink signature Note" when there is a foreclosure action initiated against them? You hear it all the time. Why is that such a big issue? Shouldn’t the "lender" be able to just bring the "Note" and the "Deed of Trust" or similar "Security Instrument" to the Court and show that they have the original<br />documents and are the "holder in due course" and therefore have a legal right to foreclose? To foreclose they must have BOTH the "Mortgage Note" and "Deed of Trust" or other similar "Security Instrument" ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS in their possession at the time the foreclosure action is initiated. Furthermore, IS there a real honest to goodness obligation to be collected on?<br />Why is it that there is such a problem with "lost Mortgage Notes" as is claimed by numerous lenders that are trying to foreclose today? How could it be that there could be so many "lost" documents all of a sudden? Could it be that the documents weren’t really lost at all, but were actually turned into a source of revenue that was never disclosed as being a part of the transaction? To believe that so many "original" documents could be legitimately "lost" in such a short period of time stretches the credibility of such claims beyond belief. Could this be the reason that MERS (Mortage Electronic Registration Systems) was formed in the 1990’s as a way to supposedly "transfer ownership of a mortgage" without having to have the "original documents" that would be required to be presented to the various county recorders? Could it be they KNEW THEY WOULDN’T HAVE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FOR RECORDING and had to devise a system to get around that requirement? When the foreclosure action is filed in the court the attorney for the purported "party of interest", usually the "lender" who is foreclosing, files a "COPY" of the "Deed of Trust" or similar "Investment Security" with the Complaint to begin foreclosure<br />proceedings. Is that "COPY" of the "Security Instrument" within the "regulations" of Federal Law under 18 U.S.C. § 474? Is it usually the same size or very nearly the same size as the original document? Yes it is and without question it is a COUNTERFEIT SECURITY! Who was it that produced that COUNTERFEIT SECURITY? Who was involved in taking that COUNTERFEIT SECURITY to the Court to file the foreclosure action? Who is it that is now legally in possession of that COUNTERFEIT SECURITY? Has everyone from the original "lender" down to the Clerk of the Court where the foreclosure is now being litigated been in possession or is currently in possession of that COUNTERFEIT SECURITY? What about the Trustees who are involved in the process of selling foreclosed properties in nonjudicial states? What about the fact that there is no judicial proceeding in those states where the documentation purported to be legal and proper to bring a foreclosure action can be verified without expensive litigation by the alleged "borrower"? All the trustee has to do is send a letter to the alleged "borrower" stating they are in default and can sell their property at public auction. It is just ASSUMED that they have the "ORIGINAL" documents in their possession as required by law. In reality, in almost every situation, they do NOT!!! They are using a COUNTERFEIT SECURITY as the basis to foreclose on a property that was paid for by the person who signed the "Mortgage Note" at the closing table that was converted to money by the bank. When it is demanded they produce the actual "original signed documents" they almost always refuse to do so and ask the Court to "take their word for it" that<br />they have . They have, instead, submitted a COUNTERFEIT SECURITY to the Court as their "proof of claim" to attempt to unjustly enrich themselves through a blatantly fraudulent foreclosure action. One often cited example of this was the decision handed down by U. S. Federal District Court Judge Christopher A. Boyko of Ohio, who on October 31, 2007 dismissed 14 foreclosure actions at one time with scathing footnote comments about the actions of the Plaintiffs and their attorneys. See (Exhibit "E"). Not long after that came the dismissal of 26 foreclosure cases in Ohio by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas M. Rose who referenced the Boyko ruling in his decision. See (Exhibit "F"). How many other judges have not been so brave as to stand on the principles of law as Judges Boyko and Rose did, but need to start doing so TODAY? BOTH of the original documents which are absolutely required to be in their possession to begin foreclosure actions. Almost every time the people that are being foreclosed on are able to convince the Court (in judicial foreclosures) to demand that those "original documents" be produced in Court by the Plaintiff, the foreclosure action stops and it is obvious why that happens! THEY DON’T HAVE THE "ORIGINAL" DOCUMENTS<br />Has any of this foreclosure activity crossed state lines in communications or other activities? Have there been at least two predicate acts of Fraud by the parties involved? Have the people involved used any type of electronic communication in this Fraud such as telephone, faxing or email? It is obvious that those<br />questions have to be answered with a resounding YES! If that is the case, then the Fraud that has been discussed here falls under the RICO statutes of Federal Law. Didn’t they eventually take down the mob for Racketeering under RICO statutes years ago? Is it time to take down the "NEW MOB" with RICO once again?<br />HOW RAMPANT IS THIS FRAUD?<br />How could this kind of situation ever occur in this country? Could it be that this whole entire process could be "studied concealment or misrepresentation" where the parties involved are responsible under the law for their conduct? Could it be that it is no "accident" that so many "wet ink signature" Notes cannot be produced to back up the foreclosure actions that are devastating this country? Could it be that the overwhelming use of COUNTERFEIT SECURITIES, as purported evidence of a debt in foreclosure cases, is BY DESIGN and "studied concealment or misrepresentation" so as to strip the people of this country of their property and assets? Could it be that a VERY substantial number of Banks, Mortgage Companies, Law Firms and Attorneys are guilty of outright massive Fraud, not only against the people of this country, but of massive Fraud on the Court as well because of this COUNTERFEITING? How could one possibly come to any other conclusion after learning the facts and understanding the law? How many other people are implicated in this MASSIVE FRAUD such as Trustees and Sheriffs that have sold literally millions of<br />homes after foreclosure proceedings based on these COUNTERFEIT SECURITIES submitted as evidence of a purported obligation? How many judges know about this Fraud happening right in their own courtrooms and never did anything? How many of them have actually been PAID for making judgments on foreclosures? Wouldn’t that be a felony or at the very least, misprision of felony, to know what is going on and not act to stop it or make it known to authorities in a position to investigate and stop it?<br />How is it that so many banks could recover financially, so rapidly, from the financial debacle of 200809, with foreclosures still running at record levels, and yet pay back taxpayer money that was showered on them and do it so quickly? Could it be that when they take back a property in foreclosure where they never risked any money and actually were unjustly enriched in the previous transaction, that it is easy to make huge sums by reselling that property and then beginning the whole "Unconscionable" process all over again with a new "borrower"? How is it that just three years ago a loan was available to virtually almost anyone who could "fog a mirror" with no documentation of income or ability to repay a loan? Common sense makes you ask how "lenders" could possibly take those kinds of risks. Could it be that the ability to "repay a loan" was not an issue at all for the lenders because they were going to get their profits immediately and risk absolutely nothing at all? Could it be that, if anything, they stood to make even more money if a person defaulted on the "alleged loan" in a<br />short period of time? They could literally obtain the property for nothing other than some legal fees and court filing costs through foreclosure. They could then resell the property and reap additional unjust profits once again! One does not need to have been a finance major in college to figure out what has been happening once you are enlightened to the FACTS.<br />WHAT ACTIONS HAVE PEOPLE TAKEN TO AVOID LOSING THEIR HOMES IN FORECLOSURE?<br />There have been a number of different actions taken by people to keep from losing their homes in foreclosure. The first and most widely used tactic is to demand that the party bringing the foreclosure action does, in fact, have the standing to bring the action. The most important issue of standing is whether that party has actual possession of the "original wet ink signature" documents from the closing showing they are the "holder in due course". As previously mentioned, in almost ALL cases the Plaintiff bringing the action refuses to make these documents available for inspection by the Defendant in the foreclosure action so they can, in fact, determine the authenticity of those documents that are claimed to be "original" and purportedly giving the legal right to foreclose. The fact that the Courts allow this to happen repeatedly without demanding the Plaintiff bring the "wet ink signature documents" into the court for inspection by the Defendant, begs the question of whether some of the judiciary are involved in this<br />Fraud. Where is due process under the law for the Defendant when the Plaintiff is NOT REQUIRED by the Court to meet that burden of proof of standing, when demanded, to bring their action of foreclosure?<br />One other option that has been used more and more frequently in recent months to deal with foreclosure actions is the issuing of a "Bonded Promissory Note" or "Bill of Exchange" as payment to the alleged "lender" as satisfaction of any amounts allegedly owed by the Defendant. As was earlier described, a "Note" is money and as the banks demonstrated after the closing, it can be deposited in the bank and converted to money. SOME of the "Bonded Promissory Notes" and "Bills of Exchange" are, in fact, negotiated and credit is given to the accounts specified and all turns out well. See (Exhibit "B" para 12) The problem that has occurred is that MANY of the "lenders" say that the "Bonded Promissory Notes" and "Bills of Exchange" are bogus documents and are worthless and fraudulent and they refuse to give credit for the amount of the "Note" they receive as payment of an alleged debt even though they are given specific instructions on how to negotiate the "Note". Isn’t it interesting that THEY can take a "Note" that THEY print and put before you to sign at the closing table and deposit it in the bank and it is converted to money immediately, but the "Note" that YOU issue is worthless and fraudulent? The only difference is WHO PRINTS THE NOTE!!!! They are both signed by the same "borrower" and it is that person’s credit that backs that "Note".<br />The "lenders" don’t want the people to know they can use your "Prepaid Treasury Account", just as the banks do without your knowledge and consent. See (Exhibit "D") for more information on "Bills of Exchange". The fact that SOME of the "Bonded Promissory Notes" are negotiated and accounts are settled, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are legal SECURITIES just like the one that the bank got from the "borrower" at the closing. Why then aren’t ALL of the "Notes" processed and credit given to the accounts and the foreclosure dismissed? Because by doing so you would be lowering the National Debt and the bankers would make less money!!!!<br />One very interesting thing that happens with these "Bonded Promissory Notes" or "Bills of Exchange" that are submitted as payment, is that they are VERY RARELY RETURNED TO THE ISSUER yet credit is not given to the intended account. They are not returned, and the issuer is told they are "bogus, fraudulent and worthless" but they are NOT RETURNED! Why would someone keep something that is allegedly "bogus, fraudulent and worthless"? Could it be that they are NOT REALLY "BOGUS, FRAUDULENT AND WORTHLESS" and the "lender" has, in fact, actually negotiated them for YET EVEN MORE UNJUST ENRICHMENT? That is exactly what happens in many instances. There could be no other explanation for the failure to return the allegedly "worthless" documents WHICH ARE ACTUALLY SECURITIES!!! Does the fact that they keep the "Note" that was<br />submitted and refuse to credit the account that it was written to satisfy, rise to the level of THEFT OF SECURITIES? This is just one more example of the Fraud that is so obvious. This is but one more example of the ruthless nature of those who would defraud the people of this country.<br />CONCLUSIONS<br />One of the incredible aspects of this whole debacle is the fact that the very people who are participants in this Fraud are victims as well. How many bank employees, judges, court clerks, lawyers, process servers, Sheriffs and others have mortgages? How many of the people who work in law offices, Courthouses, Sheriffs Departments and other entities that are directly involved in this Fraud have been fraudulently foreclosed on themselves? How many people in our military, law enforcement, firefighting and medical fields have lost their homes to this Fraud? How many of your friends or neighbors have lost their homes to these fraudulent foreclosures? Everyone who has a mortgage is a VICTIM of this fraud but some of the most honest, trusting, hardest working and most dedicated people in this country have been the biggest victims. Who are those who have been the major beneficiaries of this massive Fraud? Those with the "superior knowledge" that enables them to take advantage of another's ignorance of the law to deceive them by "studied concealment or misrepresentation". This group of beneficiaries includes many on Wall Street, large investors, and most notoriously, the bankers at the top and the lawyers who work so hard to enhance their profits<br />and protect the Fraud by them from being exposed. The time has now come to make those having superior knowledge who HAVE taken advantage of another's ignorance of the law to deceive them by studied concealment or misrepresentation to be held responsible for that conduct. This isn’t just an idea. It is THE LAW and it is time to enforce it starting with the criminal aspect of the fraud! Under the doctrine of "Respondeat Superior" the people at the top of these organizations are responsible for the actions of those in their employ. That is where the investigations and arrests need to start.<br />What is it going to take to put a stop to the destruction of this country and the lives of the people who live here? It is going to take an uprising of the people of this country, as a whole, to finally say that they have had enough. The information presented here is but one part of the beginning of that uprising and the beginning of the end of the Fraud upon the people of America. It is obvious, as has been pointed out here, with supporting evidence, that Fraud is rampant. You now know the story and can no longer say you are totally uninformed about this subject. This is only an outline of what needs to, and will, become common knowledge to the people and law enforcement agencies in this country. If you are in law enforcement it is YOUR DUTY to take what you have been given here and move forward with your own intense investigation and root out the Fraud and stop the theft of people’s homes. Your<br />failure to do so would make you an accessory to the fraud through your inaction now that you have been noticed of what is occurring.<br />If you are an attorney and receive this information it would do you well to take it to heart, and understand there is no place for your participation in this Fraud and if you participate you will likely become liable for substantial damages, if not more severe consequences such as prison. If you are in the judiciary you would do well to start following the letter of the law if you haven’t been, and start making ALL of those in your Court do likewise, lest you find yourself looking for employment as so many others are, if you are not incarcerated as a result of your participation in the fraud. If you are part of the law enforcement community that enforces legal matters regarding foreclosure you would do well to make sure that ALL things have been done legally and properly rather than just taking the position "I am just doing my job" and turn a blind eye to what you now know. If you are a banker, you must know that you are now going to start being held accountable for the destruction you have wreaked on this country. You have every right to be, and should be, afraid……very afraid. If you are one of the ruthless foreclosure lawyers that has prayed on the numerous people who have lost their homes, you need to be afraid also. Very VERY afraid. When people learn the truth about what you have done to them you can expect to see retaliation for what you have done. People are going to want to see those who defrauded them brought to justice. These are not threats by any stretch of the<br />imagination. These are very simple observations and the study of human behavior shows us that when people find out they have been defrauded in such a grand manner as this, they tend to become rather angry and search for those who perpetrated the fraud upon them. The foreclosure lawyers and the bankers will be standing clearly in their sights.<br />The question of WHERE DOES THE FRAUD BEGIN has been answered. It began right at the closing table and was perpetuated all the way to the loss of property through foreclosure or the incredible payment of 20 or 30 years of payments and interest by the alleged "borrower" to those who would conspire to commit Fraud, collusion and counterfeiting and practice "studied concealment or misrepresentation" for their own unjust enrichment.<br />The simplest of analogies: What would happen if you were to make a copy of a $100 Federal Reserve Note and go to Walmart and attempt to use it to fraudulently acquire items that you wanted? You more than likely would be arrested and charged with counterfeiting under Title 18 USC § 474 and go to prison. What is the difference, other than the magnitude of the fraud, between that scenario and someone who makes a copy of a mortgage security, and using it through foreclosure, attempts to fraudulently acquire a property? Shouldn’t they be treated exactly the same under the law? The answer is obvious and now it is starting to happen.<br />Title 18 USC § 474<br />Whoever, with intent to defraud, makes, executes, acquires, scans, captures, records, receives, transmits, reproduces, sells, or has in such person’s control, custody, or possession, an analog, digital, or electronic image of any obligation or other security of the United States is guilty of a class B felony.<br />"Fraud vitiates the most solemn Contracts, documents and even judgments" [U.S. vs. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, at pg. 65].<br />"It is not necessary for rescission of a contract that the party making the misrepresentation should have known that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be unjust to allow one who made false representations, even innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by such representations." [Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166].<br />"Any false representation of material facts made with knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted on by another in entering into contract, and which is so acted upon, constitutes 'fraud,' and entitles party deceived to avoid contract or recover damages." Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co. 92 F 26 817.<br />A thorough reading of the attached exhibits will enlighten one even more, including Exhibit "G".Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-44279767916279443552010-01-16T01:01:00.002-05:002010-01-16T01:03:55.976-05:00FBI KNEW ABOUT MORTGAGE FRAUD YEARS AGO<a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mortgagefraud25-2008aug25,1,4792318.story">http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mortgagefraud25-2008aug25,1,4792318.story</a><br /><br />FBI saw threat of mortgage crisis<br /><br />EARLY WARNING: Chris Swecker in 2005. In charge of criminal probes for the FBI, he believed the agency would prevent upheaval in the mortgage industry.<br />A top official warned of widening loan fraud in 2004, but the agency focused its resources elsewhere.<br />By Richard B. Schmitt, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer August 25, 2008<br />WASHINGTON -- Long before the mortgage crisis began rocking Main Street and Wall Street, a top FBI official made a chilling, if little-noticed, prediction: The booming mortgage business, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, was starting to attract shady operators and billions in losses were possible."It has the potential to be an epidemic," Chris Swecker, the FBI official in charge of criminal investigations, told reporters in September 2004. But, he added reassuringly, the FBI was on the case. "We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis," he said.<br />Today, the damage from the global mortgage meltdown has more than matched that of the savings-and-loan bailouts of the 1980s and early 1990s. By some estimates, it has made that costly debacle look like chump change. But it's also clear that the FBI failed to avert a problem it had accurately forecast.Banks and brokerages have written down more than $300 billion of mortgage-backed securities and other risky investments in the last year or so as homeowner defaults leaped and weakness in the real estate market spread.In California alone, lenders have foreclosed on $100 billion worth of homes over the last two years and are foreclosing at a rate of 1,300 houses every business day, according to a recent report from ForeclosureRadar.com.<br />Most observers have declared the mess a gross failure of regulation. To be sure, in the run-up to the crisis, market-oriented federal regulators bragged about their hands-off treatment of banks and other savings institutions and their executives. But it wasn't just regulators who were looking the other way. The FBI and its parent agency, the Justice Department, are supposed to act as the cops on the beat for potentially illegal activities by bankers and others. But they were focused on national security and other priorities, and paid scant attention to white-collar crimes that may have contributed to the lending and securities debacle.Now that the problems are out in the open, the government's response strikes some veteran regulators as too little, too late.Swecker, who retired from the FBI in 2006, declined to comment for this article.But sources familiar with the FBI budget process, who were not authorized to speak publicly about the growing fraud problem, say that he and other FBI criminal investigators sought additional assistance to take on the mortgage scoundrels.They ended up with fewer resources, rather than more.In 2007, the number of agents pursuing mortgage fraud shrank to around 100. By comparison, the FBI had about 1,000 agents deployed on banking fraud during the S&L bust of the 1980s and '90s, said Anthony Adamski, who oversaw financial crime investigations for the FBI at the time.The FBI says it now has about 200 agents working on mortgage fraud, but critics say the agency might have averted much of the problem had it heeded its own warning."The FBI correctly diagnosed that mortgage fraud was epidemic, but it did not come close to meeting its announced goal," said William K. Black, who was a federal regulator during the S&L crisis and now teaches economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City."It used everyday procedures and woefully inadequate resources to deal with an epidemic," he said. "The approach was certain to bring symbolic prosecutions and strategic defeat."The mortgage debacle has laid bare a system marked by dubious practices at every stage of the process. Lenders often made loans to borrowers who had limited ability to repay them but little desire to pass up the dream of homeownership. Many loans lacked basic documentation, such as information about borrowers' incomes.Still, mortgage companies could hardly sell them fast enough, packaging the loans as investment securities and peddling them to eager buyers on Wall Street.The FBI defends its handling of the crisis, with officials contending that as home prices were rising several years ago, the trouble brewing in the mortgage market -- and the potential crimes behind it -- was not immediately apparent.Officials said they began approaching mortgage companies and others in an attempt to raise awareness about the growing fraud problem. But the lenders had little incentive to cooperate because they were continuing to make money. Black says that in many cases, they were part of the fraud."Nobody wanted to listen," Sharon Ormsby, the chief of the FBI's financial crimes section, said in an interview. "We were dealing with the issue as best we could back then."Over the last three years, the FBI and other agencies have brought dozens of mortgage-fraud cases. The bureau has rooted out foreclosure rescue schemes in which homeowners are tricked into signing over the deeds to their homes to operators who buried the properties even deeper in debt. Agents have disrupted cases of identity theft in which criminals open -- and exhaust -- home equity lines of credit and leave homeowners stuck with the bill.<br /><br />Many of the cases have been relatively small, however, with about half the investigations involving losses of less than $1 million -- the size of two or three loans.But the tepid response also reflects a broad realignment of law-enforcement priorities at the Justice Department in which mortgage fraud and other white-collar crimes have been subordinated to other Bush administration priorities.<br />That has reflected, in part, the ramp-up in national security and terrorism investigations after the Sept. 11 attacks. But the administration has also put more support behind efforts against illegal immigration and child pornography.In a way, the mortgage debacle could not have come onto the FBI radar screen at a worse time. Just as Swecker was making his doomsday forecast, the FBI, under pressure from Congress and the White House, was creating a crime-fighting brain drain, transferring hundreds of agents from its criminal investigations unit into its anti-terrorism program. About 2,500 agents doing criminal work -- 20% or so of the entire force -- were affected.Even as the number of new white-collar cases started declining, the Justice Department did pursue some high-profile corporate prosecutions, such as those arising from the collapse of Enron Corp. But some former prosecutors question the administration's current commitment to pursuing complex, high-stakes cases.<br />"I think most sitting U.S. attorneys now staring at the subprime crisis find scant resources available to pursue sophisticated financial crimes," said John C. Hueston, a Los Angeles lawyer who was a lead federal prosecutor in the trials of Enron executives Kenneth L. Lay and Jeffrey K. Skilling.Absent a major shift in priorities and resources, he said, it is likely that the Justice Department and the FBI will continue on their current path of focusing on simple cases "that don't go to the heart of the problem."The FBI says it has 21 open investigations into possible large-scale fraud related to the subprime meltdown. The Times <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fi-probe24-2008jul24%2C0%2C6703300%2Cfull.story">reported last month</a> that a federal grand jury in Los Angeles had subpoenaed records from three large California lenders: Countrywide Financial Corp. (now part of Bank of America Corp.), New Century Financial Corp. and IndyMac Federal Bank.Among other possible targets, the FBI has said, are investment firms that sold billions in securities backed by shaky subprime mortgages and credit rating agencies that gave high marks to the now-worthless securities and failed to protect investors.But it may be hard to jump-start such probes. Trying to prove that a major mortgage company intended to defraud buyers of its securities, for example, could take years of digging into records and testimony.Moreover, some of those involved may have special legal protection: Credit rating firms have in other cases successfully asserted that their opinions about the values of securities are protected by the 1st Amendment."I am happy to have investigations going on, but these investigations should have taken place years ago," said Blair A. Nicholas, a San Diego lawyer representing investors who lost money in the collapse of several subprime mortgage lenders. "They seem to always get involved after the horse has left the barn. It is always cleaning up the mess rather than being proactive."Could the crisis have been averted, or at least mitigated, if the FBI had intervened more forcefully?"Until there is a catastrophic loss, there is no incentive to investigate criminal conduct," said Cynthia Monaco, a former federal prosecutor in New York. "Nor are there people coming forward with evidence" such as angry investors or whistle-blowing corporate employees, she said.Even now, Monaco added, it is far from clear whether the damage -- suffered by investors and homeowners alike -- was the product of clear-cut fraud.Ormsby says the FBI is more actively working with other federal investigative agencies in the hope they will pick up the slack. The Secret Service, for example, in a departure from its traditional missions of protecting presidents and heads of state and investigating counterfeiting, has assigned more than 100 agents to examine mortgage fraud, said spokesman Edwin Donovan.The Justice Department is also starting to mobilize. The department offered what it described as a "basic seminar" on mortgage fraud cases to about 100 prosecutors last week at its national training academy in South Carolina.No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.9/1634 - Release Date: 8/25/2008 8:48 PMAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-56887156919224933072010-01-15T10:42:00.000-05:002010-01-15T10:43:12.999-05:00TODAY'S QUOTEFriday January 15<br />This week's promise: God is always fair and just<br />Do You Understand Justice?<br />Evil people don't understand justice, but those who follow the Lord understand completely.<br />Proverbs 28:5 NLT<br />Awareness of justice<br />Justice means righteousness, lawfulness, and moral rightness, the quality of being true or correct, the moral principle determining just conduct. So justice has a moral quality. It contains a concept of what is right and, therefore, must also have a concept of what is wrong. Only people who understand these concepts of right and wrong can understand and administer justice. By extension, only those who follow the Lord can understand justice. Why? Because they subscribe to the foundational laws of the one who created them.<br />Thus, as this proverb points out, evil people don't understand justice. Because they refuse to subscribe to justice's moral underpinnings given by God in his Word, they are left to discover their own truths. As a result, many conclude that there is no truth. Others conclude that everyone can have different truths. Both perspectives are hopelessly doomed. And as a building without a foundation will crumble, so justice can never be served without the foundation of right and wrong as given by God in his Word.<br />WISE WAYS What are you using for your foundation? Where do you get your concept of truth, of right and wrong?<br />Today, Lord, teach me the foundational truths about life that are given in your Word.<br />Adapted from <a href="http://click.newsletters.leftbehindprophecyclub.com/yhmmmbfvz_njdhpqllh.html">The One Year® Book of Proverbs</a>, by Neil S. Wilson, Tyndale House Publishers (2002), entry for February 28<br />Children are innocent and love justice, while most adults are wicked and prefer mercy.G K CHESTERTON<br />Delay of justice is injustice.WALTER S LANDOR<br />Content is derived from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation and other publications of Tyndale Publishing HouseAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-77184902527986080702010-01-14T20:35:00.000-05:002010-01-14T20:35:28.606-05:00THEFT BY DECEPTION: MY CASE<a href="http://theftbydeception.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-case.html">THEFT BY DECEPTION: MY CASE</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-26919919083574948252010-01-13T00:25:00.001-05:002010-01-13T00:25:47.585-05:00NEWS ITEMS<a href="http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/invisible_woman_78_jailed_2_weeks_spotlights_flaws_in_so-called_system_of_j/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=ABA+Journal+Daily+News&utm_content=My+Yahoo">http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/invisible_woman_78_jailed_2_weeks_spotlights_flaws_in_so-called_system_of_j/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=ABA+Journal+Daily+News&utm_content=My+Yahoo</a><br /><br />Elder Law<br />‘Invisible’ Woman, 78, Jailed 2 Weeks By ‘So-Called System of Justice’<br />Posted Jan 12, 2010 4:34 PM CSTBy <a title="View this author's information" href="http://www.abajournal.com/authors/5/">Martha Neil</a><br /><br /><br />Arrested for driving on a suspended license after a misunderstanding about whether she had to appear at a court hearing after receiving a letter reinstating her driving privileges, a 78-year-old Florida woman qualified to be released on her own recognizance.<br />But no one pointed that out to the judge in the Hallandale Beach case, and Gabrielle Shaink Trudeau spent 15 days in jail, including Thanksgiving, prior to her Dec. 2 arraignment, reports the <a title="Broward Bulldog" href="http://www.miamiherald.com/486/story/1420180.html?storylink=omni_popular">Broward Bulldog</a> in an article reprinted in the Miami Herald. At that point, a prosecutor announced that the state was dropping the charge, because the defendant's license hadn't been suspended.<br />Shocked at the situation, County Court Judge Lee Seidman apologized to the defendant "on behalf of the system of so-called justice," according to a transcript, noting that the grandmother "is handcuffed like Houdini, for the record. She's got chains around her waist, and she's got handcuffs in front around her hands as if she was some kind of a violent criminal.''<br />Several lapses appear to have led to her two-week stint in jail, the article says. Among them: No one from the pretrial services division, which had found Shaink Trudeau eligible for release on her own recognizance, spoke up as a magistrate judge set her bond at $2,000 at her initial Nov. 18 appearance. And Broward County Public Defender Howard Finkelstein admits that his office "fell down badly," neither representing her at the appearance—even though two assistant public defenders were standing nearby—nor visiting her in jail.<br />"It was almost like she was invisible. I deeply apologize to this woman,'' Finkelstein told Broward Bulldog.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-69287887041871911962010-01-10T17:04:00.006-05:002010-02-03T20:52:00.537-05:00WANTED FOR MORTGAGE/SECURITIES/BANKRUPTCY/MAIL/WIRE FRAUDFrom 2002 thru 2007, Bowdoinham Federal Credit Union was involved in the practice of selling mortgages into the secondary market, without retaining the servicing rights. If BFCU did not possess the "original promissory note" at the time they initiated legal action against my truck and my house, they failed to have legal standing and committed fraud upon the court. And fraudulently took my property, hence the title to my blog. Anyone that obtained a loan or mortgage between 2002 and 2007, from BFCU, should research the facts surrounding their own loan.<br /><br /><br /><br />Daniel A. Daggett at <a href="http://www.downeastcu.com/business-services.php">http://www.downeastcu.com/business-services.php</a><br /><br />Brenden D. Smith at <a href="http://www.mainebankruptcyhelp.com/">http://www.mainebankruptcyhelp.com/</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-69142763164871579692009-12-15T19:15:00.015-05:002010-06-01T22:28:37.181-04:00CAFR1-Walter Burien<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7pSd0fSsh0s/S0QBpW_1pCI/AAAAAAAAADg/4YE66ZySYWQ/s1600-h/WJB5B.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5423461661320520738" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7pSd0fSsh0s/S0QBpW_1pCI/AAAAAAAAADg/4YE66ZySYWQ/s320/WJB5B.jpg" style="cursor: hand; display: block; height: 295px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 320px;" /></a><br />
CAFR1 NATIONAL POST<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
ARCHIVED AT - http://CAFR1.com/DEBT.html<br />
<br />
<br />
Communication with Old Dog - Government Debt<br />
<br />
by Walter Burien - 06/01/10<br />
<br />
<br />
Old Dog:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I always pass on to those I consider friends points on how not to get egg on your face. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It went unsaid but you are appreciated. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Per government, the point not comprehended by the public (intentionally orchestrated so) is per that debt issue. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Picture if you were a multi-millionaire with an openly talked about 11 million dollar worth (property; cash; real-estate) but you had 13 million dollars in debt (the loans / mortgage on your house, property, business; and annual opperating budget made up that 13M debt) and you cried to all that you know that you were almost under and did not know if you would survive, and bankruptcy was right around the corner.. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Well, if people looked at your worth statement (11M) and your standing debt (13M) they would say: Shit, he is 2M in the hole. Or in governments case for impression's sake why they are trying to take more money and provide less services. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Now for the "really piss you off comprehension" <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I will use the same scenario as above but with one modification: <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
As step one you had a net worth free and clear of 13M. You called me up and said: "Walter, I want you to start a bank and I am going to give you for deposit 13M. I am then going to buy a big house (6M), start a business that will cost in setup (5M) and some other property that will cost 2M. I want you to lend the 13M to me for these things and charge me 7% interest and you can keep 2% for your effort in doing this for me. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
So, in reality your 13M in debt is self funded and you are getting most of the interest charged.. The people that thought you were 2M in the hole were being played like a Stradivarius Violin thinking THE EXACT opposite of what was. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
BOTTOM LINE: Government promotes debt at the front door as they fund the same debt with their own investment funds under arrangements / agreements through the back door. Did you ever once ask yourself who is funding that tens of trillions of dollars in debt? Think about it!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The whole sky is falling routine is designed to keep the people oblivious to what actually took place over the last 65 - 70 years as they were masterfully entertained. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Get it? Government took it all over by investment and at the same time locked in the productivity value of the next 5 to 7 generations through their expansion and shell game presented of dept and ongoing expense. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Probably 85% to 90% of government debt both domestically and "internationally" is self funded. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Now I bet this little bit of cognitive comprehension shown has brightened up your day. (sarcastically said) <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
PS: Those trillion dollar bailouts at tax payer expense (productivity value stolen) were applied to make sure government stayed in the black on their own investment funds. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The health care bill that just passed was designed to create major profits (trillions) for the pharmaceutical, health care, insurance companies that government in collective totals between federal and local already own by investment (taken over bit at a time over decades) <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Now that the big (of no equal) light bulb just went off in your head what are you going to do with it? <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Walter Burien - CAFR1 <br />
<br />
P. O. Box 2112<br />
<br />
Saint Johns, AZ 85936<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Tel. (928) 445-3532 <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
http://CAFR1.com and http://TaxRetirement.com <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
PS: If you circulate the above article, I note that I used 85% to 90% self funded on debt. That percentage was intentionally off and used for one reason of: "Take the bait please". <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I would love to see a bureaucrat or talking head come back in reply with: <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
No, no, no, no! He doesn't know what he is talking about! He is way off, it is only 60% to 75%! :<) <br />
<br />
They are in a big "Catch 22" situation here. They can not even mention the issue being that a cognitive thought qualifies the issue in the first place so in response the "Silence is Golden" routine or outright obfuscation directing away to the consequential is the only approach those that set up this type of technique can use. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The world you are masterfully sound-bite condition to understand is not as it seems... <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Please spread a cognitive thought far and wide per the issue in the article by copy and forward to all that you know. All need to have this thought register in their mind and thinking.. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It is time to break the back of the syndicate with simple but VERY important disclosure clearly presented without distraction. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Make their silence is golden routine close in on them until it is suffocating them. This tactic of self funding debt is the 1000 megaton nuke waiting to go off in their laps... <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
Any local government can be restructured to meet their annual budget needs "Without" taxes. TRF (Tax Retirement Funds) paying for every City, County, State’s annual budgetary needs!<br />
<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
To automatically subscribe to CAFR1 NATIONAL posts - http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=subscribe<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
To automatically unsubscribe to CAFR1 NATIONAL posts - http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=unsubscribe<br />
<br />
--------------<br />
<br />
Important PS: http://CAFR1.com/DNT.html (for the kitty)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
FROM ROSE:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Good afternoon Walter:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Thank you for sharing, I am firmly behind your great work, and want you to know how very grateful many of us are to you for your courage and conviction in your efforts, amazingly, there is one in co. commissioner's ofc. who has received info repeatedly on this issue but refuses to believe it, since he feels he is right on top of all of the income and there is no way, he says any can be hidden, am wondering what exact info I might share with him to convince him he is wrong, over the years I have shared a number of things with him, which they too, he rejected as untrue, until it turned out what I had shared was in fact right on track. I feel it is of real urgency to know how to convince others of the truth of such things as this.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
May you know God's richest blessings and may He guide you in this endeavor, I prayed about it just yesterday that He would bring to light and expose such things, in such a way, this entire nation of those who fail to see would know the truth, of this and many other things of which people are being so deceived still.<br />
<br />
For it is the truth that shall set us free, God speed <br />
<br />
Rose in MT<br />
<br />
__________________________________________________________________ _________________________<br />
<br />
WJB REPLY TO ROSE<br />
<br />
____________________________________________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Rose:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Example: Say a city has 200M with a state local government investment pool and the same pool is funding 200M of the same city debt. The same can apply with a bank; brokerage or insurance house.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Now if you asked the city if "they" are funding their own debt they can honestly say "No"<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
But, if the Local Pool; bank; brokerage or insurance house back door equation was added into the picture the answer would have to be "Yes"<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Walter Burien - CAFR1<br />
<br />
P. O. Box 2112<br />
<br />
Saint Johns, AZ 85936<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Tel. (928) 445-3532<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
______________________________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
BACK TO THE CAFR1 FRONT PAGE<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
--<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
powered by phplist v 2.10.9, © tincan ltd <br />
CAFR1 NATIONAL POST<br />
<br />
<br />
<object height="300" width="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HRJZoceF0vQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HRJZoceF0vQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="390" height="300"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
ARCHIVED AT - http://CAFR1.com/Trailer.html<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
__________________________________________<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The People Spoke and CAFR1 Listened<br />
<br />
by Walter Burien<br />
<br />
03/06/10 <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Well, the People Spoke and CAFR1 listened and followed their recommendations..<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The three minute trailer that CAFR1 released for "The Only Game in Town - The Way Our Government Can Be" I was told by many was to short and not adequate to get the point across. So, today I released a new trailer on YouTube that can be viewed at the following link:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRJZoceF0vQ<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I have also updated the CAFR1 front page with the same 10 minute trailer.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Please share this with your email lists, friends and family. If you have a website or blog post the new trailer there also.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The feedback I have received on the new trailer is that it now hits the nail on the head and is more than adequate as a trailer to give the comprehension needed that will motivate the viewer to watch the complete documentary and also they will learn a great deal just from viewing the trailer itself....<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
If you have the 1st three-minute trailer release on your website or blog, please swap out with this ten-minute trailer.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
If you wish to download the trailer directly from the CAFR1 site you can do so at the following link - http://CAFR1.com/Video/CAFR1_Trailer_2.avi<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
And may I make one suggestion? No "if" "and" or "buts," any candidate for office should clearly run on and implement this platform to win. All candidates that refuse to mention "the process to eliminate taxation" and give the voters the silent treatment or obfuscate should not get one vote from the informed. This applies from the mayor of the smallest town to the President of the United States. It will be you that elects a thief perpetuating the status quo or in the alternative a true liberator. No excuses, here it is on a silver platter for all to use...<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks and here is wishing for a much brighter future for all of us and truly yours,<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Walter Burien - CAFR1<br />
<br />
P. O. Box 2112<br />
<br />
Saint Johns, Arizona 85936<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Tel. (928) 445-3532 <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
http://CAFR1.com and http://TaxRetirement.com<br />
<br />
Any local government can be restructured to meet their annual budget needs "Without" taxes. <br />
<br />
TRF (Tax Retirement Funds) paying for every City, County, State’s annual budgetary needs! <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
To automatically subscribe to CAFR1 NATIONAL posts - http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=subscribe <br />
<br />
To automatically unsubscribe - http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=unsubscribe<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
--<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
powered by phplist v 2.10.9, © tincan ltd <br />
<br />
<br />
ARCHIVED AT - http://CAFR1.com/1trillion.html<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Government says their Pensions are 1 trillion Short? <br />
<br />
Well, looks like it may be time for an education lesson!<br />
<br />
by Walter Burien - CAFR1.com<br />
<br />
02/21/10<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
If you said you were $40 short on your monthly food budget, what is the first question that comes to mind? <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
ANS: What is your monthly food budget..<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
If your food budget was $400 you are short 10%, if $80 then you are short 50%.. Big difference between the two.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This media "promotion" of 1 trillion dollars short has two big pieces of the picture intentionally omitted.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
1. What is the "collective" totals under management that they say they are 1 trillion dollars short on?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
2. What is the actuarial projection being used whereby they say they are 1 trillion dollars short?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
EXAMPLE: If you wanted $100,000 a year at retirement, how much money do you need to put to the side that pays you $100,000 of investment return twenty years from now?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The key factor here is the projected rate of return you anticipate getting from your fund balance. Lets say we use an actuarial projection of a 10% rate of return. That means we must have $1,000,000 (1 million dollars) put aside and at a 10% annual return that gives us our $100,000 a year. But if we projected getting a 5% rate of return that would now make the figure $2,000,000 (2 million dollars). Let's take it one step further. Let's use an actuarial projection of 2.5%, that means we would need $4,000,000 (4 million dollars)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Well, there is a big difference between 1 million dollars and 4 million dollars.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
So, under the example above if we at the start used a projection of a 2.5% rate-of-return, had built our balance up with contributions and investment return over ten years to $2,000,000 (2 million dollars) we would be 50% short on our "projected" need to meet our retirement using a 2.5% projected rate of return. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Well here's the kicker.. if "in reality" we were getting a 10% rate of return and adjusted our "actuarial projection" accordingly, we would be 100% over funded..... Get it??? Only $1,000,000 (1 million dollars) needed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
So the ONLY issue when government says they are 1 trillion dollars short is: What are the actuarial projections being used vs . THE REAL RATE of return being accomplished combined with their standing fund balance?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It is VERY important to look at 1, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20 years of performance results to establish a correct actuarial projection that should be used per "projected" rate of return. Keep in mind the local governments own those funds NOT the employees. The employees bought a ticket to ride under contract. They get a set amount at retirement not a penny more. If performance on the fund was up by two or three times what was needed the employees do not get 1c extra, they just have their ticket to ride under specific terms from point "A" to point "B". <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The actuarial projections used by the local governments are designed to build up a "power base" for those local governments. With hundreds of billions of dollars under management in each state that is a lot of grease to grease the skids for Corporate acquisitions; real-estate development; massive loans granted; and bond offerings backed. Here the incentive for the local governments is to fudge the actuarial projections used to build up a much bigger power base. Additionally in doing so they give the impression of being short and thus get more money from the employee and take more tax revenue from the public... <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
On the State level their are many different local government retirement funds. Usually there will be one State retirement fund (usually the largest) and many other local government retirement funds. They are separate from each other but many network together under specialty "private" associations that in consult direct them all as a monopoly of no equal.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
As an example from one state New Jersey, here are a few of the primary State funds that are active or closed but still under management. Many local governments from within the state may or may not be participating in these State funds. Other local governments in the state may be managing their own on the local level. When a local government says they are short, again look closely at the actuarial projections used vs. the real rate of returns accomplished over several years. As a rule government employees are just told the actuarial projection used, they are NOT told the real rate of return accomplished... The employees may be told 7% when 16% or 18% may be the reality... as was the case in Washington, Oregon, and Arizona from 1990 to 1999.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
New Jersey<br />
<br />
Alternate Benefit Program ("ABP")<br />
<br />
Alternate Contribution Tax Sheltered Program ("ACTS")<br />
<br />
Central Pension Fund ("CPF")<br />
<br />
Consolidated Police and Firemen's Pension Fund ("CPFPF")<br />
<br />
Judicial Retirement System ("JRS")<br />
<br />
New Jersey Pensions and Benefits Home Page<br />
<br />
New Jersey Treasury, Division of Pension & Benefit<br />
<br />
Police and Firemen's Retirement System ("PFRS")<br />
<br />
Prison Officers' Pension Fund ("POPF")<br />
<br />
Public Employees' Retirement System ("PERS")<br />
<br />
State Employees' Deferred Compensation Plan ("NJSEDCP")<br />
<br />
State Employees' Tax Savings Program ("Tax $ave")<br />
<br />
State Police Retirement System ("SPRS")<br />
<br />
Supplemental Annuity Collective Trust ("SACT")<br />
<br />
Teachers' Pension and Annuity Fund ("TPAF")<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Collective totals are massive. Most of the large State pension funds put out a CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) for each of their pension funds listing the extensive holdings / investments of each fund.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
And per issue #1 above, collective totals from all local and federal pension / retirement funds from the thousands of "separate" accounts, a good estimate of collective totals would be somewhere between 26 to 30 trillion dollars. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I note as these funds grew and were invested over the last eight decades they drove the economy by their capital investment. Did favoritism; fraud; and market manipulations occur as these funds grew? Oh yes, and some examples came to light (very few) and most went in and out with the tide as normal operations masked. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Bottom line? LOOK AND LEARN...., <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Do not be played for an easy mark (this applies to both taxpayers AND government employees) The only way to see if you are getting played with false actuarial projections applied is to look first hand and see for yourself. You do NOT ask foxes if they are eating hens from the hen house. The only time you may get a straight answer there is if you are a fox yourself and are part of the pack. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I hope the above also gives you a better understanding of what the site TaxRetirement.com brought forward per the TRF (Tax Retirement Funds). Here the same type of massive investment funds can build with the sole objective being to phase out all taxation generated therefrom. Not lowering taxation but eliminating it. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This can be done utilizing the exact same fund managers currently handling government pensions to accomplish the purpose of tax elimination. If you catch the gist of this can you see how through capital reinvestments coming from the TRFs we then can have a long term"economic stimulus package" of no equal and no taxation? In fact government pensions can be included in with the TRFs and benefits paid therefrom... as well as eliminating all taxation.. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Time for a "real" change..? Hopefully you get it and comprehend how this can happen.. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The government syndicate needs to be brought under control and have a means of operation that directly benefits the people from the wealth amassed. The principle of operation of the TRFs does just that and allows for transparency and true good intent to come to play.. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Truly yours, <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Walter Burien - CAFR1.com <br />
<br />
P. O. Box 2112<br />
<br />
Saint Johns, AZ 85936<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Tel. (928) 445-3532 <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
PS: Make the investment wealth of government directly benefit the people and taxation be gone! TRF now! <br />
<br />
------------------------<br />
<br />
Any local government can be restructured to meet their annual budget needs "Without" taxes. TRF (Tax Retirement Funds) paying for every City, County, State’s annual budgetary needs!<br />
<br />
------------------------<br />
<br />
To automatically subscribe to CAFR1 NATIONAL Posts - http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=subscribe<br />
<br />
------------------------<br />
<br />
To automatically unsubscribe to CAFR1 NATIONAL Posts - http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=unsubscribe<br />
<br />
------------------------<br />
<br />
CAFR1 needs help in this corner: http://CAFR1.com/DNT.html<br />
<br />
-------------------------<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
BACK TO THE CAFR1 FRONT PAGE <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
--<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
powered by phplist v 2.10.9, © tincan ltd <br />
<br />
----- Original Message -----From: "Walter Burien" <walterburien@cafr1.com>Sent: Sat, August 23, 2008 12:33<br />
<br />
Subject: WJB - Re: Freddie and Fannie - FNMA and FHLMCCAFR1 NATIONAL REPLY POST TO ERNEST - 08/23/08: Freddie and Fannie - FNMA and FHLMC<br />
<br />
Ernest:You say: "would it have happened regardless, due to all banks being insolvent due to bad loans over the century?"That is what they would like you to think and it is part true.The real question to ask is: "I want to see a detailed list of investors and who defaulted over the last two years on commercial and residential property mortgages?"Both Freddie and Fannie being federal enterprise authorities, it gave the perfect opportunity for local governments to stash away massive amounts of investment capital where it became "invisible" to the public. Always in the black, always turning out a return (except for the last year). The bubble of spec roll-overs began to burst.The actions to sure-up Freddie and Fannie are designed to immediately protect the mortgage investors, not the stock-holders or mortgage holders. The theme is to make the environment secure and profitable in the future for the mortgage investors currently backing six-trillion dollars in mortgages with those investors being predominately local and international governments. The cute part is: These local government entities covertly took the investment capital from the public in the first place to be the primary investors with Freddie and Fannie and now they are using tax-payer funds to bail themselves out and stabilize the government investments that the tax-paying public do not even know exist.Here is where the crimes come in: Who from the inside players nationally were using Fannie and Freddie in the erroneous roll-over mark-up game that stuck it to the investors / stock-holders? And, also who from the inside players simply walked off with a few million before they had a chance to roll-over when the bubble burst?If and audit was done specifically on those two points, several thousand politicians, judges, (city, county, and state) attorneys, and other inside players that made a few extra million dollars on the side from the inside would in most probabilities be indicted; prosecuted; and fall. The problem is, government will not do the audit on those points, or if they did, they would not make it public due to the fact the public is unaware that their own local. Federal, and cooperative International government players are they primary investors (about five-trillion dollars worth). The public would then ask where did all of that government investment capital come from and what else and how much do they have elsewhere? Massive can of worms for them there....So as far as open investigation, audit, and indictments per the two issues noted above, (or 911) you would have had a much better chance of getting Malcum X ellected as the national spokes-person and Chairman for the KKK in the 60's. Silence is golden as the theft took place just as much as it is after the fact..Educate a few local government Law Enforcement Detectives and Police Chiefs on these two points above. Who knows, they may get the ball rolling from the ground floor up, especially if their own pension funds took a hit from the crimes committed by the other government inside players who walked with the cash from Fannie and Freddie and stuck it to them.Yours truly,Walter J. Burien, Jr.P. O. Box 2112Saint Johns, AZ 85936Tel: 928-445-3532Website: <a href="http://cafr1.com/">http://cafr1.com/</a><br />
<br />
FROM ERNEST TO: WJB<br />
> Walter:>> Which one person or group decided to sell mortgages without the contracts at bargain rates to financial houses and banks around the world that led to this crisis, or would it have happened regardless, due to all banks being insolvent due to bad loans over the century?>> Thank you.>> Ernest><br />
<br />
> ----- Original Message -----> From: Walter Burien> To: NATIONAL@cafr1.com> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 11:45 PM><br />
<br />
Subject: Freddie and Fannie - FNMA and FHLMC> > > CAFR1 NATIONAL POST - 08/22/08> > > Please read: <a href="http://cafr1.com/OJ2.html" style="font-weight: bold;" target="_blank" title="This external link will open in a new window">http://CAFR1.com/OJ2.html</a> then read the PS noted here.> > > PS: Here is a snip from the news wire a few days ago:> > "Buddy Piszel, Freddie's chief financial officer, said, "We're managing the firm to not have to access the government support."Freddie's stock tumbled more than 19 percent to$6.49. Shares of Fannie Mae, which reports earnings on Friday, slid almost 15 percent to $11.60."> ------------------------------------------------------------------------> Now take that $6.49 and $11.60 per share and multiply times the shares outstanding. That will give you the value of the "shell" which is a very small fraction of the Six trillion (the substance) being the value of the mortgage investments held which is separately put up by the investors in that vehicle. Even with fractional reserve banking principles being used the value of the mortgages outstanding no where comes close to the value of the stock. The investors in the mortgages? Local and federal investment assets. The bail-out of FNMA and FHLMC is not to protect the stock holders or the mortgagees, it is to protect the investors. Six trillion dollars worth. That is why it is so important to show who the investors behind the mortgages are.. Local and federal governments holding the Lion's share???? On a last note when FNMA and FHLMC stock cut in half, did that mean six-trillion of investments got cut in half. No they did not. It is the default rate that is cutting the shell's stock value which is based on FNMA and FHLMC "management" of the investments held - Six trillion... so again, who are the investors behind that six trillion dollars? Primarily state and federal investment assets "invisible" to the public that are feeling the pinch of substantially reduced rates of return based on the increased default rate..> > > Walter J. Burien, Jr.> P. O. Box 2112> Saint Johns, AZ 85936> > Tel: 928-445-3532> > Website: <a href="http://cafr1.com/" target="_blank" title="This external link will open in a new window">http://cafr1.com/</a>> > --------------------------------<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
CAFR1 NATIONAL POST<br />
<br />
<br />
CAFR1 PRIORITY RELEASE - 01/22/10:<br />
The Trailer of "The Only Game in Town - The Way Our Government Can Be" is now up on the CAFR1 front page and playing on YouTube video as of today.The link on YouTube to watch the trailer is: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2ClJ3Mvzt0" send="false" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2ClJ3Mvzt0</a> If you have a website or blog, please help pass the word and display the trailer there. The YouTube embed html code for placement to source code on your website or blog so that the trailer displays is:<object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y2ClJ3Mvzt0&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y2ClJ3Mvzt0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>The complete Documentary will be viewed from the CAFR1.com site under a 24-hour pass through a $3 Click Per View feature and after four months will be released for open distribution.With every Click the comprehension spreads. Most of us wanted a peaceful revolution that actually gives birth to real change, well what is brought forward here does just that in a big way and at the same time every view of the documentary helps CAFR1 and the TRF move forward.CAFR, GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS, AND YOUFilling in the void of Government "Collective" Investment and Gross Income Totals Taxation? Not Needed! We have seen Government's Game, now it is Time that Government learned the People's ....Only Game in Town!This is a big Win - Win for all involved, and will create a thriving economy probably for the next thousand years in its own right. So please help pass the word worldwide to millions of people, this is not just for the USA but for all countries worldwide... Comprehension is the key to unlocking all doors and here it is, straight forward, clear, and to the point..<br />
I fell behind on getting comments in from people from across the land but will insert them when made available into the documentary. If you would like to submit a 15 to 20 second comment for insert for the final cut of the documentary, please contact me for details on how to do so.Please circulate this to all that you know, post, and distribute. Let them "get it" too. One mind; one body; one heart; one force; no division and the only Game in Town will become all of the People's rock across the land for our and our descendants prosperous future.If you wish to bypass YouTube and save the trailer file for display, it can be downloaded from the CAFR1 site here - <a href="http://cafr1.com/Video/Trailer_CAFR1.flv">http://cafr1.com/Video/Trailer_CAFR1.flv</a>It is time to truly take back our country, let's make it happen and happen soon Timing is everything and I think we all can agree, the time is now.<br />
Truly yours,Walter Burien - CAFR1.comP. O. Box 2112Saint Johns, AZ 85936email: WalterBurien@CAFR1.com Tel. (928) 445-3532<a href="http://cafr1.com/" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/</a> and <a href="http://taxretirement.com/" target="_blank">http://taxretirement.com/</a> ---------------------------------------- Any local government can be restructured to meet their annual budget needs "Without" taxes. TRF (Tax Retirement Funds) paying for every City, County, State’s annual budgetary needs!----------------To automatically subscribe to CAFR1 NATIONAL posts - <a href="http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=subscribe" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=subscribe</a>-------------- To automatically unsubscribe to CAFR1 NATIONAL posts - <a href="http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=unsubscribe" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=unsubscribe</a>--------------Important PS:<a href="http://cafr1.com/DNT.html" target="_blank">http://CAFR1.com/DNT.html</a> (for the kitty) <a href="http://cafr1.com/" target="_blank">BACK TO THE CAFR1 FRONT PAGE</a><br />
--<br />
powered by <a class="poweredphplist" href="http://www.phplist.com/" target="_blank">phplist</a> v 2.10.9, © <a class="poweredphplist" href="http://tincan.co.uk/powered" target="_blank">tincan ltd</a><br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div>CAFR1 NATIONAL POST<br />
<br />
<br />
An article was published today by a Clint Richardson an independent writer per the CAFR and Corporate / Government ownership.<br />
It is a very long read but many provoking thoughts as it progresses. Good effort on his part..<br />
<a href="http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/the-biggest-game-in-town-walter-burien-and-comprehensive-annual-financial-reports/" target="_blank">http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/the-biggest-game-in-town-walter-burien-and-comprehensive-annual-financial-reports/</a><br />
Sent FYI from,<br />
Walter BurienP. O. Box 2112Saint Johns, Arizona 85936Tel. (928) 445-3532<br />
<div></div><br />
<div></div><br />
<div>CAFR1 NATIONAL POST</div><div><span style="color: red;">TIME CLARIFICATION:<br />
The Coast to Coast show is Wednesday the 6th at 10PM PACIFIC TIME (Thursday the 7th at midnight EASTERN TIME).<br />
I should have said Wednesday the 6th.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Walter</span><br />
Walter Burien - CAFR1 will be on the radio show of Coast to Coast AM, with host George Noory, Wednesday January 7th 2010 from 10 PM to 1 AM Pacific time.Even though the radio show is in the late evening on the west coast and early morning on the east coast, the show is rated the #1 listened to night radio program and also as the 5th largest listen to radio program in the county having several million listeners worldwide nightly with Wednesday being the most listened to day of the week for the show.<br />
Coverage of the show is very good on the 500 + local station affiliates. To find a local radio station in your area where you can listen to the show, the following link will give a listing for the US, Canada, Virgin Islands, and Guam - <a href="http://www.coasttocoastam.com/affiliates" target="_blank">http://www.coasttocoastam.com/affiliates</a> several of which stream the show on their station's website over the Internet.Additionally, the show can be heard on SIRIUS XM Satellite Radio Talk Radio - XM Channel 165<br />
CAFR1 will be discussing the truth and falsehood behind governments saying they are broke; qualifying local and federal government "collective" wealth held; the up coming CAFR1 documentary The Only Game in Town - The way Our Government Can be; the path as a nation that we are on, how we got here, and the not to pleasant imminent outcome we face staying on our current path; an alternative path that can be followed that would create a stable and prosperous economy that will last for the next thousand years worldwide and at the same time upfront phase out all taxation. (Not lower but eliminate all together) There is only one thing needed - for you to grasp the comprehension of how it is done and then make it happen!<br />
If you can catch the radio show it promises to be a good one to learn from, record, and share with others.<br />
<br />
Walter BurienP. O. Box 2112Saint Johns, Arizona 85936Tel. (928) 445-3532<a href="http://cafr1.com/" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/</a> and <a href="http://taxretirement.com/" target="_blank">http://taxretirement.com/</a>email: WalterBurien@CAFR1.com<br />
________________________________________________________<br />
Any local government can be restructured to meet their annual budget needs "Without" taxes. TRF (Tax Retirement Funds) paying for every City, County, State’s annual budgetary needs!---------------------------------To automatically subscribe to CAFR1 NATIONAL posts - <a href="http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=subscribe" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=subscribe</a>---------------------------------If you do not wish to be on the CAFR1 NATIONAL email list then click - <a href="http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=unsubscribe" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=unsubscribe</a><br />
________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
CAFR1 NATIONAL POST<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has asked all citizens to help her with the financial crisis in Arizona. I just sent the following message to her via this web page: <a href="http://www.azgovernor.gov/Contact.asp" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.azgovernor.gov/Contact.asp</a><br />
<br />
_____ SUBMITTED 12/26/09 BY WALTER BURIEN - CAFR1.com ___________<br />
<br />
Governor Brewer: Hmmm.. Arizona …. Time for a little audit review of Arizona Local government wealth as brought forward in their Annual Financial Reports! Here are some potential surplus reviews of AZ local governments from 2003 conducted by the late Gerald Klatt a retired federal auditor of 30 years. I wonder what the showing would be for 2009? Arizona State Government – <a href="http://cafrman.com/Articles/Art-AZ-S1.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://cafrman.com/Articles/Art-AZ-S1.htm</a><br />
A few Arizona Counties and Cities Maricopa County – <a href="http://cafrman.com/Articles/Art-MaricopaCounty-AZ-C1.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://cafrman.com/Articles/Art-MaricopaCounty-AZ-C1.htm</a><br />
City of Mesa – <a href="http://cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Mesa-AZ-CY1.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Mesa-AZ-CY1.htm</a><br />
City of Phoenix – <a href="http://cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Phoenix-AZ-CY1.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Phoenix-AZ-CY1.htm</a><br />
Pima County – <a href="http://cafrman.com/Articles/Art-PimaCounty-AZ-C1.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://cafrman.com/Articles/Art-PimaCounty-AZ-C1.htm</a><br />
City of Scottsdale – <a href="http://cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Scottsdale-AZ-CY1.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Scottsdale-AZ-CY1.htm</a><br />
City of Tempe – <a href="http://cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Tempe-AZ-CY1.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Tempe-AZ-CY1.htm</a><br />
City of Glendale – <a href="http://cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Glendale-AZ-C1.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://cafrman.com/Articles/Art-Glendale-AZ-C1.htm</a>———————————<br />
<br />
————— I Note: ENRON Promoted it’s Profits and hid it’s debt. Governments promote their debt and hide their profit. ———————————————— The biggest obstacle to overcome is as expressed in the following quote: TREASON: “Treason doth never prosper; what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.” Sir John Harrington, 1561-1612 You also may wish to take a read through an article I wrote per CA & TX in solving budget shortfalls - <a href="http://cafr1.com/SolvingShortfalls.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/SolvingShortfalls.html</a>And per collective wealth held by government, the "Common Denominator" - <a href="http://cafr1.com/TCD.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/TCD.html</a>There is to much greasing of the skids going on nationally to where the public is getting the very short end of the stick. Let's talk! I can show you how to phase out all taxation in AZ and have a thriving economy, AND the same revenue stream coming in for government at the same time. Want to be a hero who's legacy is remembered for all time to come? Then let's talk! Walter - CAFR1.com<br />
_______ END OF COMMUNICATION TO GOVERNOR BREWER ____________<br />
<br />
COPY SENT TO THE CAFR1 National email list FYI from,<br />
<br />
Walter BurienP. O. Box 2112Saint Johns, Arizona 85936Tel. (928) 445-3532<a href="http://cafr1.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/</a> and <a href="http://taxretirement.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://taxretirement.com/</a>email: WalterBurien@CAFR1.com<br />
________________________________________________________<br />
Any local government can be restructured to meet their annual budget needs "Without" taxes. TRF (Tax Retirement Funds) paying for every City, County, State’s annual budgetary needs!---------------------------------To automatically subscribe to CAFR1 NATIONAL posts - <a href="http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=subscribe" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=subscribe</a>---------------------------------If you do not wish to be on the CAFR1 NATIONAL email list then click - <a href="http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=unsubscribe" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=unsubscribe</a><br />
________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
CAFR1 NATIONAL POST<br />
<br />
<br />
ARTICLE ARCHIVED AT - <a href="http://cafr1.com/How.html" target="_blank">http://CAFR1.com/How.html</a><br />
TREASON: "Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason." Sir John Harrington, 1561-1612<br />
The Who and How they Own and Control it All!<br />
by Walter Burien<br />
December 15th 2009<br />
I will note that the most important fact the people need to know is that in collective totals government (thousands of individual government entities) owns by stock ownership; bond participation; and equity participation most of the large public traded companies such as technology; pharmaceuticals; energy; banks; insurance; and war industry groups through collective stock ownership (in many a case 71% to 83% ownership)<br />
<br />
There is no one individual government entity that will call the shots for these companies (even though some carny more clout then others) but there are private associations that network thousands of local and federal government accounts that have been assigned representative proxy vote rights for the thousands they represent and here is where the control rests.<br />
<br />
By proxy vote representing the "collective" primary shareholders they can exert pressure for that company to do as told and if not they can if they wished remove the board of directors by representative proxy vote. On the other hand they can network millions if not billions of dollars of investment capital for direction and investment with any company.<br />
So, no matter from which side you look at it, the control factor is there.. Do a search for what financial consulting "private associations" with nice government sounding acronyms your many different local governments belongs to and the patterns of control will start coming into view.<br />
For the CAFR local government's Annual Financial Report, the two primary private associations that call the shots by direction and consult are GFOA (Government Financial Officers Association) and GASB (Government Accounting Standards Board). Find the common denominators for your local government pensions (which in collective totals are in the trillions of dollars) and here is where the collective power is exerted.<br />
<br />
Local and federal entities are restricted from owning individually more that 5% of any company, but by networking their 5% with hundreds if not thousands of other local and federal investment portfolios through these private associations, they bypass any restrictions per monopoly and exerting undue influence on the companies they collectively own. Understanding this is VERY important to comprehend how the undercurrents of control are exerted.<br />
On another note, most people don't realize the Democratic and Republican parties are 100% "private associations" designed from the get-go to have their people placed for access to the massive capital flow running through government. (Standing at 15 trillion dollars collective gross income generated each years for local and federal as of 2007 from all sources). You have to ask yourself "What is the intent of these private associations and our government officials?" Is it to make your life better or to enrich themselves giving the "impression" they are there to make your life better.. Well, it does not take to high of an IQ to see the end result of their intent played out in final result. Easy money has brought us to a point of massive theft. Not just of our property and income but also in our environment to maintain a healthy and good life-style.<br />
It does not matter if 95% of us have good intent, when that 3% factor can steal it all in obscurity maintained, there is a slight tad bit of a problem for us all. The new CAFR1 documentary soon to be released will address this problem and offer definitive remedy that can be applied to correct this circumstance, and improve vastly the economy we are living in. (Worldwide application will apply here also)<br />
<br />
Truly yours,Walter J. Burien, Jr. – CAFR1.comP. O. Box 2112Saint Johns, AZ 85936email: WalterBurien@CAFR1.com Tel. (928) 445-3532<a href="http://cafr1.com/" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/</a> and <a href="http://taxretirement.com/" target="_blank">http://taxretirement.com/</a> ----------------------------------------- Any local government can be restructured to meet their annual budget needs "Without" taxes. TRF (Tax Retirement Funds) paying for every City, County, State’s annual budgetary needs!----------------To automatically subscribe to CAFR1 NATIONAL posts - <a href="http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=subscribe" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=subscribe</a>-------------- To automatically unsubscribe to CAFR1 NATIONAL posts - <a href="http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=unsubscribe" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=unsubscribe</a>--------------Important PS: <a href="http://cafr1.com/DNT.html" target="_blank">http://CAFR1.com/DNT.html</a> (for the kitty) <a href="http://cafr1.com/DNT.html" target="_self">BACK TO THE CAFR1 FRONT PAGE</a><br />
<br />
<br />
CAFR1 NATIONAL POST<br />
<br />
<br />
ARTICLE ARCHIVED AT - <a href="http://cafr1.com/TCD.html" target="_blank">http://CAFR1.com/TCD.html</a><br />
The Common Denominatorby Walter Burien12/21/09<br />
Are you ready for the biggest "Ah Ha" moment in your life? Then learn why they do what they do. Learn Government's underlying and primary motive for the actions and decisions that they enact. This applies to the Health Care bill that just passed; financial bailouts that occurred; the price of energy in this country; and the perpetual war that is maintained. There is no gray area here "if" you look and see the reality of the core motive. As has been the case for hundreds of years, if not millenniums, easy money has been a core drive behind the human condition. Guaranteeing a massive profit due to your own actions is a strong driving force no matter who is behind the steering wheel. Per the health care bill that just passed the syndicated media was honest per one disclosure they openly made. That being that the Pharmaceutical Companies profits will soar based on massive increases in drugs prescribed and paid for through tax payer revenue. Additionally that the insurance companies will be a big winner based on reduced liability with taxpayer revenue covering most of the liability. Now this was brought forward by the syndicated media. The common denominator having the most important reality to these statements was intentionally left out. That being: "Who owns the Pharmaceutical Companies and who was the biggest (primary) investor with the insurance companies that would greatly profit? Well, the clear answer to those questions without any question is collective government investments. The health care bill passed guarantees collective government massive profits amounting into trillions of dollars. Prior to reading this answer did this thought even cross your mind? Probably not due to the fact an intentional vacuum, a void in your comprehension was promoted and maintained DUE TO THE MONEY INVOLVED and the power and control derived therefrom. But, being that the players involved had to keep track of their own transactions a record is there for you to see "if" you know where to look to see. The syndicated media and controlled education is in a 100% symbiotic relationship with the money being generated here so not a word from them. They do what they are paid very well to do and they do an excellent job in which one of those roles is not a peep or word of comprehension towards government's collective takeover and thus maintaining the void of comprehension in the masses due to the money involved AND they know if it was comprehended by the masses it would establish the reality to the masses that all they were told throughout their life's was a lie per the USA being a free country ruled by the people having an elected representative government. That in a closer reality, government in the USA had evolved out of opportunity into a well masked communist country with a strongly entrenched permeated fascist twist. The void maintained here in the masses boiled down to who owns it all by investment.. Collective government smoothly made this transition into complete ownership through networking with private financial associations that kept very low profiles but amassed unequaled power through their membership of thousands of local and federal government accounts. Through this process of organized collective they could target any company; industry group; domestic; or International to take them over by investment. Now most of the masses would say: What? Can't be! I would know about that if it happened! I'm to smart for that to have happen without knowing about it! Well, WRONG and simply it is so DUE TO THE MONEY INVOLVED! Even many of the people on the inside track that were working within this procedure developing the takeover as it took place did not know being that they were dealing with just a few branches or trees in the forest but had no idea as to the collective totals involved. Keep in mind collective government's gross income (Local and Federal) as of 2007 from ALL sources (Investment, Taxation, and Enterprise) amounted to fourteen-trillion dollars for the year and the population's gross income net after taxation was five trillion dollars. [Populations gross income was ten-trillion minus direct and indirect taxation of five-trillion]. The few on the top of the heap that did know, knew that silence was truly golden and that the void in comprehension within the masses was imperative to be maintained for them to continue business as usual unabated so massive efforts were made within the syndicated news media; controlled education; political parties to maintain that void. The money involved over the years as it grew allowed for many a skids to be greased and indoctrination of many cooperative paid personal assigned to maintain the void or vacuum of comprehension and illusion as to the life the masses where living whereby they thought they were free but in reality under the yolk of a masterfully presented extortion racket due to the money involved. A racket that was more oppressive then any form of communism, socialist, or fascist government standing alone. The key for the masses to see this and fill the void intentionally created in their comprehension's is to start looking at collective totals. Keep in mind that as of 2009 there are over 184,000 separate local government entities big and small alone in the USA before Federal is accounted for, each with their own investments and separate totals. A few days ago I received a call from a researcher from the state of Washington that wanted to know about the motive behind this Swine Flu vaccine promotion. He wanted to know per the companies that were greatly profiting, what percentage of those companies were owned by collective government. My reply was between 71% to 85% of each company involved was owned through collective stock ownership by government. To qualify my statement I directed him to a source where he could start adding up totals with that source being some of the large local government pension fund holdings. I noted that local government pension funds were set up as "Strictly Participatory" which meant that the local governments owned; controlled; and directed the base equity in those funds and the employees, as if buying a ticket to ride a train had zero (not 1c) ownership, they just had a ticket to ride with set parameters from point A to point B. Local governments set the funds up this way so that they would benefit from the ownership of that equity and have a free hand in developing their own power base derived therefrom. To start I pointed him to one of the largest government funds of many from the State of NY; the listing of investments held by the NY State Retirement Fund in 2006: <a href="http://cafr1.com/STATES/NEWYORK/RETIREMENT/NYRINV2006.PDF" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/STATES/NEWYORK/RETIREMENT/NYRINV2006.PDF</a> I was not picking on this one fund, but it was a good reference of a large fund to start with and I noted to him that he could pull up the same from different states and start adding up collective totals from the different reports. So he downloaded this one listing and we looked at ownership of a few companies and a few of them I list here from this one report: Baxter International $105 million; Gilead Sciences Inc $127 million; Roche $87 million, etc., etc. If you look at the profit made it is substantial. In each state there are several large government retirement funds and many small fund sometimes several hundred in a large state. Looking at the big ones will give a representative example. When looking at say fifty or sixty of the large funds the collective totals add up to being evidently clear that the government OWNS these companies by investment. With the thousands of separate government entities networked through a few private associations, they can rule towards policy; price; procedure; and market saturation. This intertwined ownership and the ability to funnel taxpayer funds into these companies guarantees massive profits for the government's investments and creates the ups and downs in any one market as they enter and exit in uniform collective motion. Any other private investors outside of the loop are subject to guess work and luck if they obtain a profit. The only fundamentals at play here is the movement of the large government institutional funds creating the market as they move in and out in concert networked in perfected timing by the private associations that call the shots for them in consult. This gives a new definition to the golden rule: "He who controls the gold makes the rules" and in this case it is: "He who controls the investments makes all the rules" As you start to look at the different international holdings held in these reports, you will see the top four profit makers in order of profits generated are: The Pharmaceutical / Health Care Companies; The Bank / Financial Companies; The Oil / Energy Companies; The War Industry Groups. Government in its collective totals has acquired absolute ownership of these companies through stock; bond; and cash investment in these companies. The private sector ownership in the same is insignificant in comparison. So here we have government determining police; events; and programs that in all reality guarantees themselves massive profits and in many case bringing forth policy and events that are very counter productive to the general public good and well being. War and Health care costs being perfect examples.. One recommendation for you to track down a few of these government investment holding reports is to use Google. As a starter for you per local government retirement funds I list a few at the bottom of this page with the first grouping being links to government Annual Financial Reports (the CAFR) and the second grouping at the bottom being for Government Retirement funds. <a href="http://cafr1.com/listings/Listings.html" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/listings/Listings.html</a> You will note several of the largest funds listed for each state. It is important to realize that as these funds grew over the decades they drove the economy by capitol investment. The power base that was created was unequaled especially when collective totals are amassed, we are talking just from the thousands of separate government retirement funds both federal and local somewhere between $26 to $28 trillion. Was the general population aware of this? No, they never looked and they were not meant to look due to the money involved. Did most government employees know this? No, and a ditto as stated above.. The News covered the Madoff swindle. Well that was pocket change on pocket change compared to the holdings as stated here. Why was Madoff not stopped sooner? He was burning and stealing from the private sector and not government investment funds. If he had played the same game with government investors, he would have been stopped in 1/10th the time. Bottom line of all of the above? TAXATION IS NOT NEEDED! Government took it all over by investment through the use of taxation being funneled through the coffers. Well, they have accomplished the objective of the takeover. The large corporations; banks; insurance companies; many real-estate projects are owned through investment by collective government. The investment return generated therefrom come the year 2001 was greater than ALL taxation collected. Those that have read the writings of CAFR1 for a while know that a new form of government and economy is being presented by CAFR1. An economy that is based not on Cash; Taxation; and Investment, but an economy that is based on Cash and Investment ONLY! An economy that has a government that is funded by what are called Tax Retirement Funds (TRF) that are established to meet local governments budget requirements whereby taxation is not needed and can be phased out in its entirety. Not reduced but eliminated. The beautiful thing about this is that government in its zeal to take it all over by investment has the standing management teams; structure; and holdings to make this happen at the stroke of a pen. No matter from what direction you look at it from, taxation is extortion and never should have been allowed to take root as it has. Why is the phasing out of taxation and the implementation of the TRFs not happening all across the county and the world at this moment in time? Easy answer there! Easy money and the decades of structure; focus; collusion; intentional non-disclosure, that took place as they (collective government) took it all over by investment. Spoiled children with access to an almost unlimited till do not like to modify their behavior. Especially when they believe they took over the complete show by intentional deception maintained and have amassed massive wealth therefrom. As an end result of the road we all have been on that is why the masses are being stripped piece by piece of freedoms; wealth; and operational unions and the individual is being told for all intents and purposes to shut up; do what you are told; and mind your own business. Arrogance flourishes when massive wealth is created by deception; theft; and extortion as it has within our own government as it has been also within other governments throughout the world and throughout the decades. Government is marketing to the masses that they are broke. Why do they do this? Quite simply; Who looks behind the poor mans house for a tower of gold and riches held... There is no accident that the US has the highest levels of crime; breakup of the family; and drug / alcohol abuse in the world. These factors are VERY profitable to your local governments and especially for the lawyer / attorney complex running the show. That breeding grounds has flourished and exponentially grown as the opportunity to bleed the populace presented itself. It is a scary thought that over 70% of our governors; senators; and congressmen are attorneys. An even more scary thought is that most people that voted for them did not even know the people they voted for were attorneys. When you look at the actions of these elected attorneys, what they are doing is taking all available cash on hand; locking in investment profits; and dotting the I's and crossing the T's to lock in the productivity value of the next five generations. A miraculous awakening needs to take place here to reverse the path we are heading down. It is a very unpleasant path that will lead to our own annihilation in due course. When there is massive wealth as there is in this country, there is the potential for massive orchestrated theft. Well, it has, is, and will continue to happen if the fundamental structure of things remains the same without true corrective measures to reverse the path we are currently on. The key phrase here is: "capital investment" Government took it all by taking control of the world capital investment. From this point forward if the people revert the growth and use of capital investment to run government through the creation of TRFs then the people may stand a chance of regaining freedom; wealth; and future excellence in their lives. The implementation of the TRFs changes the core underlying motive behind the government controllers from having the people at their disposal to be continuously drained and managed productivity units as livestock in the fields, but in turn under the TRF management principle, the more prosperous the people are the more flourishing the economy is and thus solid investment returns and more revenue for the local governments. This gives the top government players a very good incentive to downsize and be as efficient as possible. Additionally it is a win - win for all three power groups: The financial cartels (unequaled capital investment held and growing driving the economy and under their management); The masses (no taxation, smaller government, true ownership of their property; less intrusion by government; better standard of living); and government (steady return coming in from TRFs to operate their budgets from) The new CAFR1 documentary The Only Game in Town - The way our government can be, soon to be released is designed to fill in the void of comprehension inflicted on the masses as to government's take-over of the wealth and more importantly it brings forward the simple steps necessary to correct the situation where taxation is eliminated and the people regain ownership and direct benefit of their own productivity and wealth maintained. A fix that can lead to the proverbial millennium, a thousand years of prosperity for one and all. The TRF is not just for application in the US but is for application worldwide. Anywhere there is taxation the TRF can cancel it out and create a more thriving economy for that country and all that live there.. The new documentary maintains a positive tone and I designed it to be understood by the average person, corporate executives, and world leaders. The launch date for release looks like it will be January 10th 2010 or (01/10/10) for those of you that may see a numeric significance in the release date. It is my hope that the documentary will be viewed by millions of people in a very short period of time whereby triggering in the collective consciousness of the people the comprehension that will start an unstoppable tidal wave for implementation of what is presented that puts into motion, venue by venue the application whereby the current path we are walking down fades and a new well lit path emerges.<br />
As the old saying goes: "May the saints be with us" and "Can you feel it now?" or as Bart Simpson would say "Are we there yet, are we there yet", no not yet but getting closer.Truly yours,Walter J. Burien, Jr. – CAFR1.comP. O. Box 2112Saint Johns, AZ 85936email: WalterBurien@CAFR1.com Tel. (928) 445-3532<a href="http://cafr1.com/" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/</a> and <a href="http://taxretirement.com/" target="_new">http://taxretirement.com/</a><br />
PS: I am still short on meeting the objective for the documentary fund drive currently scheduled to end 12/25/09 (midnight of the 24th). If you or someone you know can help, please have them do so. If the objective is not reached by midnight of the 24th I will be extending the cut off time until 01/10/10. Keep in mind contributors will be reimbursed from the proceeds of the documentary (30% of the gross receipts will be allocated for that purpose) as stated on the documentary info page that is linked below the ChipIn money bomb.<br />
----------------------------------------- Any local government can be restructured to meet their annual budget needs "Without" taxes. TRF (Tax Retirement Funds) paying for every City, County, State’s annual budgetary needs!----------------To automatically subscribe to CAFR1 NATIONAL posts - <a href="http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=subscribe" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=subscribe</a>--------------<br />
To automatically unsubscribe to CAFR1 NATIONAL posts - <a href="http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=unsubscribe" target="_blank">http://cafr1.com/phplist/?p=unsubscribe</a>--------------<br />
Important PS: <a href="http://cafr1.com/DNT.html" target="_blank">http://CAFR1.com/DNT.html</a>(for the kitty) <a href="http://cafr1.com/" style="font-weight: bold;" target="_blank">BACK TO THE CAFR1 FRONT PAGE</a></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-11783539855290786382009-12-12T22:51:00.001-05:002009-12-12T22:51:28.934-05:00DOTTIE'S CASE(S)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-56818649655043938242009-12-12T22:50:00.007-05:002010-01-14T20:33:52.447-05:00MY CASE<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7pSd0fSsh0s/SyViDlv9LTI/AAAAAAAAADY/8KEuYVX-TIU/s1600-h/Letter+from+Bankruptcy+Court.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5414841940795272498" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 246px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7pSd0fSsh0s/SyViDlv9LTI/AAAAAAAAADY/8KEuYVX-TIU/s320/Letter+from+Bankruptcy+Court.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>This summer, I visited the bankruptcy court in Portland, and asked the lady in the Trustee's office if they were interested in bankruptcy fraud. She replied yes, and handed me Shaun Stuart's business card and told me to put my complaint in writing and send it to Ms. Stuart. The following is the 5 page letter that preceded 160 pages of accompanying documents that was hand carried back to the bankruptcy court. Above, is their response.<br /><br /><br />Leon E. Bard Jr.<br />P.O. Box 74<br />Bowdoin, Maine 04287 July 24, 2009<br /><br />To: Shaun K. Stuart, Attorney<br />Office of the United States Trustee<br />537 Congress Street<br />Suite 303<br />Portland, Maine 04101<br /><br />Re: Suspected Bankruptcy Fraud<br /><br />Leon E. Bard Jr. & Carol J. Bard, Case No. 06-20410, Filed in Portland, Maine<br /><br />Dear Ms. Stuart,<br /><br />I recently became aware of a US District Court ruling in Massachusetts, whereby the financial institutions and law firms involved were sanctioned for filing fraudulent or misrepresentative claims in a bankruptcy case. I believe that the same may be true for the bankruptcy case that my wife and I filed in 2006. I learned in late 2007, about the importance of knowing who was the “holder in due course” of the original “wet ink copy” of the promissory note. Since then, I have requested, at least four times, that the creditor produce the original notes for viewing. So far they have refused to produce the originals.<br /><br />In June of 2008, Anne Brubach, a former employee of BOWDOINHAM FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, told me that several times in May of 2004 prior to closing, she heard the CEO of BFCU, Dan Daggett, make the following statement: “We have to hurry up and get the house, so we can sell it.” In September 2008, I accessed online, BFCU’s finance reports that they filed with the National Credit Union Administration. From the third quarter of 2002 thru the second quarter of 2007, these reports reveal that BFCU was in fact selling mortgages into the secondary market, and with only one exception, they did not retain the servicing rights for the loans that they sold. Over this five year time period, BFCU sold millions of dollars worth of mortgages. In searching the Sagadahoc County Registry of Deeds, I have been unable to locate documents that would support this kind of ownership transfer.<br /><br />Another possibility is that BFCU may have gotten paid by their insurance company. According to an insurance investigator, finance institutions are required to have insurance policies to cover delinquent loans. Once a loan becomes 90 to 120 days past due, the institution is allowed and/or required to file a claim, and the insurance company pays off the loan. I’m not sure about my mortgage loan, but my equipment loan document lists a Group Policy Number, this number can only apply to their insurance as I did not purchase any coverage for this loan. This may explain why in the summer of 2005, BFCU started refusing my loan payments. Within days of successfully pushing me past the threshold, BFCU filed suit claiming that I was not making payments.<br />It’s interesting to note here that BFCU’s Finance Report dated September 30, 2005, did not list either of my loans as being delinquent.<br /><br />While in court on October 17, 2005, I told Brenden Smith and Robert Ireton-Hewitt, that I had an opportunity to sell one of the trailers. Mr. Smith told me to contact the credit union when I got home. I left a message on Mr. Ireton-Hewitt’s voicemail, when he returned my call a couple of hours later he stated that they could not figure out how to split the trailer from the loan. On October 24, 2005, BFCU accepted a payment of $7,800, which was more than what was required to bring the equipment loan current. About a week later I left another message for Mr. Ireton-Hewitt, suggesting that they figure out how to split the trailer from the loan before I lost the sale.<br /><br />I’m told that after a finance institution sells your note, they will try to get you to recontract with them. What happened next seems to support this theory. A meeting was scheduled for 8:00 PM on November 10, 2005. (audio of meeting available) Present were Brenden Smith and Robert Ireton-Hewitt and myself. During this meeting, I was informed that the only way that I would be allowed to sell the trailer was that I had to comply with the following: refinance my house, refinance the equipment, and surrender the title to a third trailer. The interest rate on each loan would increase by one percentage point, bringing the mortgage to 9.5 % and the equipment loan to 12 %. After deducting $20,000 from the equipment loan, as a result of the sale of the trailer, another $30,000 would be transferred to the mortgage. $2,000 in closing fees would also be added to the mortgage. Mr. Smith tried to convince me that this was a good deal, because my payments would be reduced by $500/month. I neglected to tell him that I was renting the trailer that I was going to sell, for $1,500/month. Complying with their demands would mean loss of ownership of the trailer and a net loss of $1,000/month. Each time I refused to accept their “refinance offer”, BFCU would send the Sheriff up to my house and tie up my truck so as to prohibit me from working. The first time this happened, I called Dan Daggett at his house. When I told him that the Sheriff had just visited, he replied “Well, I call it leverage”.<br /><br />In Brenden Smith’s affidavits filed into our bankruptcy case, he states that he attended two one week seminars with Collections Expert William Mapother. Mr. Mapother died in June of 2006. I got a chance to review his website before it was removed. Brenden Smith was listed as among those that attended a seminar in 2004 and again in 2005. Mr. Smith’s employer was listed as Recovery CUSO, LLC., a Maine company founded in April of 2005.<br /><br />Gretchen L. Jones Esq., of Auburn, was the clerk/registered agent for BFCU in 2005. Included in this package, is a letter Dated: October 11, 2005. It is from the legal counsel at the NCUA, it is addressed to Gretchen L. Jones, Esq. and is in response to an inquiry she made to them. Subject is in regards to: Permissibility of CUSO’s Purchase of Nonperforming Loans for Debt Collection. The following quote was taken from the letter:<br /><br />“According to your description, the CUSO will provide debt collection services to its credit union owners, using a salaried attorney from one of the owner credit unions. The CUSO will reimburse the credit union for the attorney’s work and, in turn, will seek reimbursement from the credit unions using the debt collection service. Maine law, however, prevents the member credit unions from reimbursing the CUSO for the attorney’s work on debt collection unless the CUSO owns the nonperforming loans.”<br /><br />The timing of this letter is important to note, it is dated three days after I was served a summons to court. Although this letter does not refer to the credit unions by name, it does state that they plan to use “a salaried attorney from one of the owner credit unions”. To my knowledge, BFCU is the only credit union that had a full time in house salaried attorney, who was also an officer of the credit union. Isn’t it a conflict of interest for an officer of the credit union to also be their collection attorney?<br /><br />On page 17, of BFCU’s September 2005 finance report, (included in this package) there is another CUSO listed: Collections CUSO LLC. A current search on the Secretary of States website yielded no results for this CUSO.<br /><br />In the summer/fall of 2004, Anne Brubach, along with Dan Daggett and Kaj Johansen of BFCU, attended William Mapother’s seminar in Waterville, Maine. Several times during the seminar, Dan Daggett would get excited when Mapother would tell them things that creditors could do in the collection process. Anne Brubach told Dan Daggett that some of those things were illegal in Maine and that she was not going to jail for him. Several months later, on February 17, 2005, knowing that she would not go along with his plans, Dan Daggett fired Anne Brubach, claiming that she couldn’t do her job. The previous month she had gotten the employee of the month award. Anne had been the one that trained Dan Daggett on the teller line, when he was hired at the credit union. This was well planned, as Robert Ireton-Hewitt had already been hired, and took Anne’s place a couple of days later, this is when my problems with BFCU started. Anne Brubach was not aware that BFCU had been selling the mortgages into the secondary market until I showed her the finance reports in September of 2008. Since her job was collections, it now makes sense that Dan Daggett would keep this information from her. Anne would have had a problem collecting payments on loans that BFCU no longer owned. In November of 2006, Robert Ireton-Hewitt was fired from BFCU. A little over a year ago, I was told that the reason that he was fired had to do with my case. He did act strange at the creditors meeting on October 20, 2006.<br /><br />In the fall of 2004, Dan Daggett implied to me that he had taken a seminar on providing benefits to members. As I found out a year later, the seminar had nothing to do with providing benefits to members, it was the Mapother seminar on aggressive collection techniques. In December of 2004, Dan Daggett talked my wife and I into signing a second lien on our property, it connected the equipment loan to our real estate. This document was totally fabricated and was simply titled “Mortgage”. A casual observer would not know that this was referring to my equipment loan. This document was signed on December 14, 2004, but for some strange reason it was not recorded in the Sagadahoc County Registry of Deeds until March 31, 2005. Although BFCU regularly recorded documents during this three and a half month period. In exchange for signing this “Mortgage”, Dan Daggett loaned us additional money on the equipment loan, which was used to clean up a few business bills and gave us skip payments on both loans. Within this second mortgage is a statement that says: “Mortgager acknowledges and warrants that the value of the property herein exceeds the balance owed on all encumbrances against the property and there exists equity in the property for the benefit of mortgagee.” The sum of both liens against the real estate exceeded the value of the real estate by $75,000. Did Dan Daggett give us skip payments and delay the recording of the second lien, in order to give himself plenty of time to sell the first mortgage? Did he then sell out this second lien as a mortgage, even though it was my equipment loan?<br /><br />It appears that BFCU was having financial problems, and eventually merged with DOWN EAST CREDIT UNION in the end of July of 2007. In April of 2008, DECU with the assistance of the Sagadahoc County Sheriff’s Department successfully repossessed my truck and trailers. I had over $200,000 invested. On June 11, 2008 I filed a suit against Dan Daggett, Brenden Smith and Robert Ireton-Hewitt in US District Court in Portland. The Sagadahoc County Sheriff’s Department refused to acknowledge the federal law suit along with other documents filed in both federal and state courts. On June 25, 2008, the Sheriff’s Department seized our home of 32 years. When we stopped to take care of our animals, my wife and I were illegally arrested for criminal trespassing on our own property and we each spent time in jail. Last week we had to scrape together $640 to pay the fine in order to avoid being found in contempt of court.<br /><br />On October 24, 2008, I spoke with David Tozier, CEO of DECU, I asked for a meeting with him to discuss my case, and view my file. He said my file was quite large, I replied that all I needed to see was the original notes. He said he could bring certified copies, I replied that copies were not acceptable and that I would have to see the originals, he replied, OK. I offered to meet him halfway, but he said that he would meet me in Bowdoinham at 11:00 AM on Wednesday the 29th, a three hour drive from Baileyville. At approximately 2:00 PM on Tuesday the 28th, he called and cancelled the meeting. A review of DECU’s past finance reports indicates that before the merger, they were not selling the mortgages into the secondary market. This may explain why Mr. Tozier felt it wouldn’t be a problem to produce the originals, since they were kept in the Baileyville office. But as he was preparing for the meeting on Wednesday, he may have realized that my loan originated with BFCU, and discovered that they did not possess the original loan documents.<br /><br />On December 3rd, 2008, I had an opportunity to speak with former Sheriff Mark Westrum, I stated to him that if the credit union didn’t have the original notes for both my truck loan and the house loan, that everything that they had done to me was null and void. His chin dropped and his head bobbed, he understood what I meant. I asked him if he would testify for us at trial in January, he replied “I suppose that I could be subpoenaed”. So I sent him a subpoena, when he received it he realized that he would be implicating himself and the Sheriff’s Department. He requested that the court quash the subpoena, which they immediately obliged. Coincidently, on the same day, the Asst. DA sent an offer to settle the trespassing charges, first offer in six months. I subpoenaed David Tozier, CEO of DECU and requested that he bring the original loan notes, and I also subpoenaed Dan Daggett, former CEO of BFCU. DECU’s attorney sent a letter to the court requesting that the subpoenas be quashed, again the court obliged.<br /><br />On March 25, 2009, I sent a RESPA letter to DECU via Registered Mail. About a week later I received a response from their attorney Mark Frenette, saying that they would not be answering my letter. The RESPA letter required them to identify the holder in due course of the notes for my truck loan and house loan.<br /><br />I sent copies of the RESPA letter to HUD, DOJ, FBI and FTC in Wash. DC. Last week I got a response from the FBI, Financial Crimes Section, the package that I sent to them would be forwarded to the FBI office in Augusta, Maine. (letter included)<br /><br />I have prepared an identical package as the one that I’m sending to you. I will send it to the Augusta office of the FBI, since they have jurisdiction over Sagadahoc County.<br /><br />I don’t know if after reading this, you will come to the same conclusion that I have or not. But deep down, I know there is something terribly wrong with the way this case has evolved. Of all the finance companies that I have associated with over the years, I have never been so viciously attacked and threatened. We had been members at this credit union for almost ten years, with never a problem that couldn’t be resolved. From October of 2005 to February of 2006, I made payments to BFCU totaling almost $20,000. I feel like a guinea pig for the Mapother technique.<br /><br />Is there a way to discover who owns the notes?<br /><br />Thank you for your consideration in this matter.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br /><br />_____________________<br />Leon E. Bard Jr.<br />P.O. Box 74<br />Bowdoin, Maine 04287<br /><br />E-Mail: <a href="mailto:LeonBard54@aol.com">LeonBard54@aol.com</a><br /><br />Cell: 207-319-2529</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div><span style="color:#ff0000;">WANTED FOR PROPERTY THEFT</span></div><div><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span></div><div><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span></div><div><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span></div><div></div><div></div><div>Daniel A. Daggett Former CEO of Bowdoinham Federal Credit Union</div><div></div><div>Brenden D. Smith Former VP of Collections/Lawyer of Bowdoinham Federal Credit Union</div><div></div><div>David Tozier Current CEO of Down East Credit Union</div><div></div><div>Robert Ireton-Hewitt former VP of Collections at Bowdoinham Federal Credit Union</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><span style="color:#ff0000;">ACCOMPLICES</span><br /><p><span style="color:#000000;">Joseph Field Administrative Hearing Officer at West Bath District Court-For issuing a void judgment</span></p><p>Sagadahoc County Sheriffs Department-For false arrest, kidnapping and violation of due process rights</p><p><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span> </p><p><span style="color:#ff0000;"></span> </p><p><span style="color:#ff0000;">HERE IS AN E-MAIL THAT I SENT TO SOMEONE WHO HAD WORKED ON WALL STREET FOR MANY YEARS, THEIR RESPONSE FOLLOWS</span></p><p> I've just finished reading your recent article, in regards to the Financial Crisis on Wall Street. Since the early part of last year, I've lost both my business and our family home to predatory lenders, a local credit union. It wasn't until I downloaded their finance reports from the NCUA's website, that I learned that they were selling the mortgages into the secondary market, and did not retain servicing rights. So far they have refused to produce the original notes. In addition to my home mortgage, I believe that the credit union converted my business/equipment loan to a mortgage (via a fabricated document) and may have sold it also into the secondary market. One of the points that you raised in your article is the fact that purchasers of these mortgages, skipped the actual physical recording of the mortgage at the county registry of deeds. This seems to be true in the local county registry of deeds, as I have been unable to find assignments that represent the millions of dollars worth of mortgages sold by the credit union. Both of my loans were obtained in May of 2004. In November of 2005, the credit union tried to get me to refinance both loans. Now I believe that they tried to get me to recontract with them because they had sold my notes. In addition to their finance reports, I have a witness that was an employee of the credit union at the time I obtained the loans, who overheard the CEO of the credit union make the statement that "they had to hurry up and get the house so that they could sell it". Are you aware of any means of tracking mortgages sold into the secondary market?<br /><br />Thank You Leon Bard Bowdoin, Maine </p><p><span style="color:#000000;">HERE IS THEIR RESPONSE</span></p><p><span style="color:#ff0000;">Your story suggests the possibility to me that the CEO and/or officials of the credit union are receiving kickbacks to generate product for a firm doing securitizations. Credit unions are there for their members; they do not exist to churn loans as you experienced. When this happens, something untoward is going on.<br /><br />I strongly suggest that you set up an appointment with your county District Attorney. If you feel he's compromised, send a detailed chronology via priority mail to your State Attorney General. Since it's likely these loans are crossing state lines, you could also call the FBI.<br /><br />Once you have an easily understandable chronology with supporting documentation available, you should select a top investigative reporter at a trusted area newspaper to dig further and cover the story. If you wish to remain anonymous, you can give the information to the reporter "as background only."<br /><br />Good luck to you.</span></p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-35676736024040788252009-12-12T21:28:00.003-05:002010-03-12T01:02:34.468-05:00SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENTWyoming Sheriffs Put Feds in Their Place<br />
<br />
<br />
SEND THIS TO ALL YOUR SHERIFFS WHEREEVER YOU LIVE!!<br />
WE CAN WIN THIS FIGHT. IF THE SHERIFFS IN BONNERS FERRY AND WACO AND<br />
KLAMATH OREGON HAD DONE THIS THE SITUATIONS WOULD NOT HAVE ENDED IN TRAGEDY.<br />
<br />
County Sheriff Can Bust Big Brother: Wyoming Sheriffs Put Feds in Their Place<br />
<br />
The duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county. He has law enforcement powers that exceed that of any other state or federal official.<br />
<br />
This is settled law that most people are not aware of.<br />
County sheriffs in Wyoming have scored a big one for the 10th Amendment and states rights. The sheriffs slapped a federal intrusion upside the head and are insisting that all federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all their activity in a Wyoming County with the Sheriff's Office. Deja vu for those who remember big Richard Mack in Arizona .<br />
<br />
Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis spoke at a press conference following a recent U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006)) and announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval ......<br />
<br />
"If a sheriff doesn't want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or<br />
retain them in custody."<br />
<br />
The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriff's Association. The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.<br />
<br />
Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official." Go back and re-read this quote.<br />
<br />
The court confirms and asserts that "the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official." And you thought the 10th Amendment was dead and buried - not in Wyoming , not yet.<br />
<br />
But it gets even better. Since the judge stated that the sheriff "has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official," the Wyoming sheriffs are flexing their muscles. They are demanding access to all BATF files. Why? So as to verify that the agency is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibits the registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners. This would be wrong.<br />
<br />
The sheriffs are also demanding that federal agencies immediately cease the seizure of private property and the impoundment of private bank accounts without regard to due process in Wyoming state courts.<br />
<br />
Gosh, it makes one wish that the sheriffs of the counties relative to Waco , Texas and Oklahoma City , Oklahoma regarding their jurisdictions were drinking the same water these Wyoming sheriffs are.<br />
<br />
Sheriff Mattis said, "I am reacting in response to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their property without regard to constitutional safeguards. I hope that more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens from the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of constitutional law. Employees of the IRS and the EPA are no longer welcome in Bighorn County unless they intend to operate in conformance to constitutional law." [Amen].<br />
<br />
However, the sad reality is that sheriffs are elected, and that means they are required to be both law enforcement officials and politicians as well.<br />
Unfortunately, Wyoming sheriffs are the exception rather than the rule . . .but they shouldn't be. Sheriffs have enormous power, if or when they choose to<br />
use it. I share the hope of Sheriff Mattis that "more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens."<br />
<br />
If Wyoming Sheriffs can follow in the steps of former Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack and recognize both their power and authority, they could become champions for the memory of Thomas Jefferson who died thinking that he had won those "states' rights" debates with Alexander Hamilton.<br />
<br />
This case is not just some amusing mountain melodrama. This is a BIG deal. This case is yet further evidence that the 10th Amendment is not yet totally dead, or in a complete decay in the United States . It is also significant in that it can, may, and hopefully will be interpreted to mean that "political subdivisions of a State are included within the meaning of the amendment, or that the powers exercised by a sheriff are an extension of those common law powers which the 10th Amendment explicitly reserves to the People, if they are not granted to the federal government or specifically prohibited to the States."<br />
<br />
Winston Churchill observed, "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you with only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory at all, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-82662733461979571162009-12-12T00:04:00.000-05:002009-12-12T00:17:05.530-05:00COURT ISSUESCERT. MAIL # 7006 2150 0005 2595 1253<br />November 4, 2009<br />James T. Glessner, State Court Administrator<br />Administrative Office of the Courts<br />P.O. Box 4820<br />Portland, ME 04112-4820<br />RE: Criminal Complaint against Judge Christine Foster, Biddeford District Court<br />Dear Mr. Glessner,<br />Pursuant to Title 4, Chapter 1 § 17, your duties as State Court Administrator include, but are not limited to, the study of operation, condition of business, practice and procedure of the Judicial Department; making recommendations for the efficient administration of justice; examinations of the status of dockets of all courts so as to determine cases and other judicial business that have been unduly delayed; investigating complaints with respect to the operation of the courts.<br />Pursuant to Title 4: Judiciary, Chapter 1 § 1 administrative responsibilities of the court and the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice, as the head of the judicial branch, shall, in accordance with the rules, regulations and orders of the Supreme Judicial Court, be responsible for the efficient operation of the judicial branch and for the expeditious dispatch of litigation therein and for the proper conduct of business in all courts and the prompt and proper administration of justice.<br />Pursuant to Title 4: Judiciary, Chapter 13 § 568. Duties of clerks as to records; All clerks of courts shall receive and safely keep all such records and papers lodged in their offices.<br />For years Judge Christine Foster has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. Her conduct has been inconsistent with constitutional requirements, statutes, rules of court, decisional law, and common sense and non-compliant with the Code of judicial and ethical conduct. Her continuous pattern of improper activity, breach of duty, intentional harm upon litigants and misrepresentation of the judicial system is official oppression and racketeering. MAINE LAW DEFINING ’OFFICIAL OPPRESSION’: “A person is guilty of official oppression if, being a public servant and acting with the intention to benefit himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an act of his office, or knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office.”<br /><br />Criminal conduct has become a regular way of conducting business in her court, as well as in the York County Superior Court, and constitutes “racketering activity” per RICO. Judge Foster's pattern of racketeering activity over a period of several years, in concert with others, her acts of extortion, obstruction of justice, conspiracy of rights, deprivations of rights and tampering with court records are crimes within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. and RICO. It is a crime to steal property through abuse of office. Another attempt is being made to steal a fourth piece of property from me in Judge Foster's court. She, in concert with others - including Judges and higher courts – have used their public offices to conspire, extort, defraud and obstruct justice to achieve an intended goal. Extortion under color of official right occurs when an agent of the government uses his or her legitimate governmental powers to obtain an illegitimate objective. The courts are being used as a racketeering enterprise to deprive litigants, with open-ended continuity extending indefinitely into the future, and commands a full investigation into the courts management and operations. Tampering with court files and dockets are commonplace in the court. The mail fraud statutes have been violated to advance a scheme to defraud.<br />Judge Christine Foster is in violation of the Maine Code of Judicial Conduct, Canons 1; 2(a)(b); 3(A)(B)(1)(2)(5)(7)(8), (C)(1), E(1), (2)(a)(b)(c)(d)(iv).<br />On July 9, 2009 I filed a Motion for Relief From Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) on grounds of Void Judgment and Motion for Recusal of Judge Christine Foster from presiding over any issues involving me. This case pertains to property and a contract between two people, one deceased. With the death of the defendant, the right sought to be enforced survives onto the surviving plaintiff.<br />On July 28, 2009 an order was issued directing me to file a fee of $60 within 7 days or the court would dismiss my motion without further hearing. I timely paid the $60 fee and have been denied access to the court. This is extortion.<br />On September 23, 2009 I filed a Motion for Directed Verdict, judgment as a matter of law, attached as Exhibit “A”.<br />On October 27, 2009 I filed a Motion to Compel Entry of Judgment for Directed Verdict by the Clerk, since 30 days had passed and the court failed to enter judgment, attached as Exhibit “B”.<br />On November 3, 2009 I received a denial of my Motion for Directed Verdict by Judge Foster, attached as Exhibit “C”. Judge Foster entered a denial, dated October 26, 2009, one day before my filing for judgment by the clerk. She had more than 30 days to act on my motion. It is my belief that this denial was predated due to my filing with the clerk. On November 3rd I went to the District Court to check the docketing of the Clerk's entry of Judgment for Directed Verdict. I learned that it had not been entered on the docket. I asked to speak with the head clerk. She had gone to lunch and I was given a time to return in which to speak with the clerk. When I returned to the court, Nancy LaFontaine (2nd in command) told me that the head clerk was not available, but purportedly did relay my questions to her, as I waited. LaFontaine refused to release this clerk's name. I requested to LaFontaine that she give me a date for hearing before the judge. LaFontaine refused stating that such requests must be in writing. I stated that I had filed previous motions for show cause hearings in the court and they had all been ignored.<br />I requested a certified copy the docket sheet on this case (BID 91-DV-23). I learned from Clerk LaFontaine that “a docket sheet was unavailable for this type of case.” I pursued a certified copy, which is needed for an appeal or whatever action may be taken, and was given Exhibit “D” as the docket sheet. This is totally unacceptable. Clerk LaFontaine notarized this document stating “Docket record unavailable for this case type.” Upon questioning the incomprehensible exhibit “D” documents, Clerk LaFontaine gave me “Exhibit E”. The failure of the clerk to safely maintain court records is a violation of Title 4: Judiciary, Chapter 13 § 568, Duties of clerks as to records, constitutes tampering with public records, solidifies my claim of aiding and abetting and demands that criminal charges also be pursued against the clerk(s).<br />On November 10, 2009 I filed an Objection with Motion to Vacate Denial of Entry of Judgment for Directed Verdict on grounds of 1)Abuse of Discretion, 2) Official Oppression, 3) Obstruction of Justice, 4) Fraud and 5) Void Order, attached as “Exhibit F”.<br />Judge Christine Foster had no authority to issue any order as I motioned for her recusal for many legitimate reasons.<br />Pattern of activity relative to this case:<br />On August 15, 2008 correspondence was sent to Matthew Pollack, Clerk of the Maine Supreme Court. Pursuant to M.R.SA. Title 4 § 120 Justice of the Superior Court to sit in District Court, I requested the order of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to assign Superior Court Justice Robert Crowley to sit in the Biddeford District Court in order to finish an issue in the above named case, which he had presided over as a Judge of the District Court and which remained unresolved after his confirmation to the Superior Court, attached as Exhibit “G”.<br />On November 17, 2008 a response from Mr. Pollack, Clerk of the Maine Supreme Court was sent to me stating that the Chief Justice cannot order Judge Crowley to hear my case (this contradicts and violates M.R.SA. Title 4 § 120), attached as Exhibit “H”.<br />On December 5, 2008 a response from Thomas Humphrey, Chief Justice, Superior Court was sent to me stating that due to “the trial courts experiencing a significant lack of judicial resources”, he declined to authorize his cross-assignment to the above named case, attached as Exhibit “I”.<br />The “lack of judicial resources” is not the reason for declining to uphold what State law mandates. Judge Humphrey is shielding Judge Crowley's involvement in this case where the pattern of racketeering began, in concert with opposing counsel. Criminal conduct became a regular way of conducting business in his court. His unlawful conduct commenced the racketeering activity. Additionally, I learned that Judge Crowley held a (fraudulent) foreclosure hearing upon my business property, in concert with bankers/attorney and without notice to me which resulted in the unlawful confiscation of my property and deprived me of my livelihood. I was denied my right to defend against bank fraud perpetrated against me.<br />Regarding Judge Humphrey and his refusal to authorize cross-assignment, he is in a direct conflict with me as he participated in a fraudulent foreclosure of my home. His order was issued in a court which lacked jurisdiction; my demand for change of venue and trial by jury were taken under advisement, however, Judge Humphrey issued an order in favor of a fraudulent foreclosure; no trial was held and my counterclaim was never acted upon. He has participated in the same pattern of activity as Judge Crowley and Judge Christine Foster, all resulting in the theft of property. This continued pattern of activity has found its way into the York County Superior Court as well.<br />March 6, 2009, my response to Judge Humphrey's December 5, 2009 correspondence, attached as Exhibit “J”. Judge Humphrey forwarded my letter to Ms. Laura O'Hanlon, Counsel for the Supreme Judicial Court.<br />Submitted as additional evidence to you is Case # BID-03-CV-179 involving the theft of my home through the concerted efforts of individuals, city officials and the courts. Attached hereto as “Exhibit “K” is a subpoena for my appearance in Judge Foster's court on 9/13/05 in an attempt to extort $35,000 from me. Certification of my attendance in court on 9/13/05, attached as “Exhibit L”. After all of the cases were called, I asked the clerk why this case had not been called. The clerk couldn't find the file, no one in the clerk's office could find the file. I explained the subpoena against me and the clerk had the party come to the clerk's window. The party played dumb, didn't understand or know anything about the subpoena that he had signed! He thought his Property Manager might have a copy of the subpoena, went to speak with him and was to return to the clerk. When he did not return, the clerk paged the party to come back to the clerk's window, but the party (and 2 other people) fled the courthouse. This is yet another example of the tampering with public records! To note, the Property Manager lives in MY home!<br />Issue of Appeals:<br />The issue of appeals now comes into play. It is fruitless to appeal to the Maine Supreme Court, as not one of the many cases filed has ever been granted, despite the crystal clear evidence of triable issues; gross violations of law, violations of procedural due process, malfeasance of office, judicial oppression, discrimination through abuse of judicial power, and tampering with court records in the lower courts. The Maine Supreme Court has continually upheld lower court decisions which violated both State and Federal constitutional law including, but not limited to, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and 1964. In 2008, the Justice Department announced an agreement with administrative officials of the Maine judiciary which resolved an investigation of a complaint alleging that the Maine judicial branch, which receives federal funding, was not in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. However, under the terms of the agreement, the Justice Department will monitor Maine’s compliance for a period of two years. Maine courts are not in compliance with Federal law and continue to accept federal funding.<br />The matters affecting the administration of the Judicial Department are not in compliance with 4 M.R.S.A. as defined above. It is time for a probe of judicial misconduct within the Maine judicial system. It is useless to file appeals in the Maine Supreme Court until there is a total cleansing of the judicial system.<br />I request an immediate hearing with you to present additional evidence of the operation, condition of business, practice and procedure of the courts/court personnel in York County and a demand for investigation with respect to the operation of these courts. I sincerely hope this matter can be resolved in Maine. If within 10 days from receipt of this correspondence, there is no response from you, I will have no choice but to pursue this matter further.<br /><br />I appreciate your cooperation and look forward to your immediate response.<br />Sincerely,<br />Dorothy Lafortune P.O. Box 187 Biddeford, Maine 04005<br />Enc.(s) 12Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-6257046028965909552009-12-11T23:23:00.000-05:002009-12-11T23:25:49.038-05:00HONEST SERVICES FRAUD<a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/KenKlukowski/2009/12/11/high_court_considers_whether_feds_can_make_everyone_a_criminal">http://townhall.com/columnists/KenKlukowski/2009/12/11/high_court_considers_whether_feds_can_make_everyone_a_criminal</a><br /><br /><br />Friday, December 11, 2009<br />High Court Considers Whether Feds Can Make Everyone a Criminal<br />by Ken Klukowski<br /><br />What if there was a federal law stating that anytime you owe anyone a duty to be honest and you violate that duty, you’re committing a federal felony? Guess what—there already is. And now the Supreme Court is deciding whether to strike it down.<br />There’s a federal law on the books called “honest services fraud,” making it a crime to deprive anyone of the “intangible right of honest services.” In other words, if you’re in a relationship where you have a duty to provide a service to someone (government, employer, etc.), and you engage in any sort of deceit resulting in them not getting your honest, good-faith efforts, then you’ve committed a felony that could land you in federal prison for twenty years.<br />The idea behind the law didn’t start off too badly. Because the federal government provides the U.S. Postal Service, it’s a federal crime to use the U.S. mail to engage in fraud. From that, Congress wanted to go after any fraud where the criminal used the mail service.<br />But the problem with government is that it tends to expand, including expanding its ability to throw people in jail.<br />Fortunately, the Constitution provides a check on this power. Often these days, “due process” is used as a catchall to advance any number of legal theories, most of them liberal. But one correct doctrine from the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment is that a statute can be “void for vagueness.”<br />What that means is that one of the principles of our criminal-law system is the concept of “notice.” Although ignorance of the law is no excuse, the law must be written with sufficient clarity that if a particular action is a crime, a citizen who does due diligence into that law should be put on notice that the action he’s thinking of is criminal.<br />Put otherwise, if a law is so vague that a person can’t tell if a particular action falls within what that law forbids, then the law is so vague that it would violate due process to punish him for breaking it. You can’t justly punish someone if they couldn’t have known that what they did is forbidden.<br />That was what the Court heard arguments about in two cases on Dec. 8. One was Black v. U.S., where three corporate employees engaged in a fraudulent scheme. The other was Weyhrauch v. U.S., where a state representative in the Alaska legislature engaged in some shady business.<br />The problem is this: Fraud is already illegal in all fifty states. If you lie, cheat or steal, you can go to prison and be forced to pay restitution. This isn’t about people getting away with doing wrong; district attorneys and state authorities are more than capable of enforcing their state laws to hold dishonest people accountable<br />The federal government shouldn’t be involved in a law that is so sweeping that everyone reading this column could be thrown in prison. Yet I guarantee you that you’ve violated this law at least once.<br />The justices clearly got this point. Justice Breyer—the most moderate of the liberals on the Court—posed hypothetical situations such as one where a boss stops by a worker’s cubicle, then the worker lies about focusing on his current work task to get the boss to move on down the office so that the worker can resume looking at race-track forms instead of working. Breyer pointed out that this would deprive the company of “honest services” to the financial loss of the company, and could be prosecuted under this law. Both he and Justice Sotomayor were looking for a way to save the statute by narrowing its meaning to avoid such situations.<br />Sensing it was on shaky ground, the Obama Justice Department tried to assure the Court that the law would realistically only be applied in cases of bribery, kickbacks, or conflicts of interest where there is a financial impact.<br />Although the Court could interpret the statute as a narrow one barring those three specific crimes, it looks like there may be five votes to strike it down altogether as being void for vagueness. It’s unclear, because Chief Justice Roberts seemed troubled that Black’s court briefs didn’t fully argue that issue. But Black’s lawyer pointed out that it was a central argument before the lower courts in this case, and Justice Scalia tried to save the possibility by signaling that he was in favor of picking up on that question where the lower courts left off, instead of having to do “somersaults” to save a statute that should be struck down.<br />Scalia compared this statute to a fictional criminal law that says, “No person shall commit a bad act.” There’s no way to know exactly what that means, and it gives government too much power to prosecute for any “bad act” it chooses. Even if “bad act” only means “bribery,” Scalia continued, it violates due process for a person to have to take their case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court before that definition is put in place. The law must be written in a way that people understand from the beginning what sorts of behavior are forbidden.<br />One very unfortunate fact for the Obama-Holder Justice Department is that Black is being represented by the person who should have been America’s first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court: Miguel Estrada. On questions such as Roberts’ concern about briefing the vagueness issue, Estrada’s answers and arguments were brilliant, and may have cleared the high hurdle needed to get the Court to take the much more aggressive route of striking down the statute.<br />Chief Justice John Marshall—who did more to shape the role of the courts in America than any other man—said in 1819 in one of the Court’s most famous opinions that the power to tax is the power to destroy. That’s very true.<br />But it can also be said that the power to imprison is the power to destroy. The federal government is already too big, and too intrusive into our lives. The Founding Fathers designed a Constitution to limit the scope of government. It looks like the Court will have an opportunity to do so here. A decision is likely around March of 2010.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-24874158710684990652009-12-10T23:18:00.000-05:002009-12-11T23:54:17.705-05:00PICTURES<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7pSd0fSsh0s/SyMhsAwsLCI/AAAAAAAAADI/R2uzg9UlHBc/s1600-h/ddaggett.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5414208217031650338" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 118px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 180px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7pSd0fSsh0s/SyMhsAwsLCI/AAAAAAAAADI/R2uzg9UlHBc/s320/ddaggett.jpg" border="0" /></a>Here's the former CEO of Bowdoinham Federal Credit Union.<br /><br /><br /><div><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7pSd0fSsh0s/SyHJLrLNp9I/AAAAAAAAADA/ix51QnO0_xs/s1600-h/untitled.bmp"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5413829429481547730" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 241px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 320px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7pSd0fSsh0s/SyHJLrLNp9I/AAAAAAAAADA/ix51QnO0_xs/s320/untitled.bmp" border="0" /></a> Here's the CEO of Down East Credit Union, Does it look like he is enjoying the spoils from taking my property last year? Can you say Cancun? </div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><br /><div><br /><br /><div><a id="myphotolink" href="http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30300291&id=1529595843"></a></div></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2312787101844349928.post-37735799559624859702009-12-10T22:59:00.000-05:002009-12-10T23:02:50.109-05:00BOOKSBarbara Johnson - Behind the Black Robes: Failed Justice<br /><br /><br />In case you missed it:<br />TABLE OF CONTENTS of Behind the Black Robes: Failed Justice<br /><br /><br />Behind the Black Robes: Failed Justice<br />is available for purchase as a paperback ($23.99) or a Kindle edition ($9.99)<br />on <a href="http://www.amazon.com/">www.Amazon.com</a>. To go directly to the book page, click<br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Behind-Black-Robes-Failed-Justice/dp/1439241155/ref=sr_">http://www.amazon.com/Behind-Black-Robes-Failed-Justice/dp/1439241155/ref=sr_</a><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Behind-Black-Robes-Failed-Justice/dp/1439241155/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251668088&sr=1-1">1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251668088&sr=1-1</a><br />~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br />TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />Preface: Birds of a Feather Don’t Stick Together! i<br />Introduction: A Law Case: A Game of Chess v<br />1. Marriage and Divorce: “She got the ring, he got the finger.” 1<br />2. Child Custody: For the Love of a Child 19<br />3. Guardians ad litem: Arsenic in a Report 39<br />4. Child Support: With Pleasure or Punishment 57<br />5. His, Hers, and Theirs! No, not Children, Property! What's Mine is Mine and What's Yours is Mine (and Financial STatements) 75<br />6. Relocation and Child Removal Cases: Genii, genii, come out of your bottle and make my wish come true! 83<br />7. Restraining Orders: Gang-banged in court or in jail. It’s the law. 95<br />8. Contempts: A Woman’s Heaven and a Man’s Hell 113<br />9. Rape and Date Rape: When is rape not rape? 127<br />10. Child Protection Agency Cases: Wars Against Governmental Kidnapping 141<br />11. Fraud, Fraud on the Court and Complicity by the Court: From Riches to Rags 151<br />12. Immigration Fraud: The new internal terrorism: marital immigration, artificial insemination for anchor babies and ultimately child support 163<br />13. Employment Discrimination: Dirty! 173<br />14. Estates and Trusts: Judges make paper hay 185<br />15. Criminal Cases, Including Parental Kidnapping and Paternity Fraud: Does the number of imprisoned guilty convicts exceed the number of imprisoned innocent convicts or vice versa? 195<br />16. Relief from Wrongdoing in Other Actions, Malicious Prosecution, Pro se-ers Suing the World: Opportunity or No Opportunity to Succeed? 205<br />17. Federal Abstention Doctrines and the Domestic Relations Exception” to the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine: A heavily legal chapter only for the highly motivated reader 217<br />18. Immunity and the Pseudo Eleventh Amendment: Formulas for the Courts’ A-bombs 245<br />19. Quasi-judicial, Prosecutorial, and Qualified Immunities: Protecting Judges’ Parasites, the Other Enemies of the People 263<br />20. Legal Malpractice: Foxes Guarding the Chicken Coops 281<br />21. Court Reporters: Beware of Transcription Companies 297<br />22. Appellate cases: Fellow Brethren, My Golfmates, “Please save my face. Thanks!” 313<br />23. Intimidation and Insolence of Judges: Voodoo Club of Judges and Zombies 321<br />24. The Bar v Barb and Barb v. The Bar et al 343<br />25. Court Reform 353<br />ENDNOTES 361<br />Please forward this announcement to everyone who you believe would be interested. Thank you.<br />Read the customer reviews as they come in after publication and/or write your own review!<br />Unsubscribe to delete your email address.<br />Barbara C. Johnson, Advocate of Court Reform and Attorney in Fact<br />Apdo #404-4013Alajuela, Atenas, Atenas20501-Costa Rica<br /><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:veritas.johnson74@gmail.com">veritas.johnson74@gmail.com</a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:barbjohnson74@gmail.com">barbjohnson74@gmail.com</a><br />SKYPE ID: barbaracjohnson74SKYPEIN: 978-961-0079 (Call forwarded from Massachusetts to Costa Rica. The cost to you is only the cost from your phone to the Massachusetts number.) New!Phone 506-2446-6724 (506 is the Country Code)<br />False Allegations: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.falseallegations.com/">http://www.falseallegations.com</a>Formerly, Participating Attorney: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.lawguru.com/cgi/bbs2/user/browse.shtml">http://www.lawguru.com/cgi/bbs2/user/browse.shtml</a> Campaign 2002: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.barbforgovernor.com/">http://www.barbforgovernor.com</a> ----- The judicial system is very broken. It must be fixed. There are four people who can do the job: Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody. Everybody thinks Somebody will surely do it. It is a job Anybody can do. But Nobody is doing it. At least I'm trying. What are you doing?<br />It is dangerous to be rightwhen the government is wrong. --- VOLTAIRE<br />All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. --- ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11610553719919660978noreply@blogger.com1