Dorean Trial II

[Dr. Caligari]

Starting a new thread in the hope that someone has some news for us.

[Dezcad]

No news about the trial but Kurt seems to be mentioned in another thread, near the bottom here:

The current Master is, as they all tend to be, a very busy man.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Starting a new thread in the hope that someone has some news for us.

As I've said before, in the grand scheme of schemes, the Dorean case, while fascinating to many of us here, lacks the dollar volume or celebrity status that would attract the typical media assignment editor. I suspect that warts from certain rare toads would be more interesting, unless the toads were threatened.

The lunatic fringe like Johnson make themselves automatically filtered when it comes to garnering the attention of the mainstream news media. It never ceases to amaze me how little they understand how news is managed.

For example, if WTP could get/afford the right PR firms they'd have the routine kind of not-so-subtle promotions on almost every evening and morning "news" program that the pop culture flacks routinely arrange.

When it comes to managing outcomes, the right PR firm can turn iron into gold.

[nobodyknows]

Anybody have any updates on the trial? Saw on Pacer where K&S requested a day for prep for closing arguments. Does that mean it's almost done?

Did they ever find Todd Swanson?

[Judge Roy Bean]

If history and experience serve, there aren't many trial days left.

Part of the urgency involves not only the court calendar but what the jury might have been told about their obligation as to the length of their duty. There is a viable reluctance to unduly inconvenience a jury.

[Demosthenes]

If history and experience serve, there aren't many trial days left.

Part of the urgency involves not only the court calendar but what the jury might have been told about their obligation as to the length of their duty. There is a viable reluctance to unduly inconvenience a jury.

The jury was told the trial could go until Thanksgiving.

[nobodyknows]

Looks like Swanson has been detained, and is using his 5th amendment rights. Judge has ruled that K&S will not be allowed to question him.

[Judge Roy Bean]

The proposed jury instructions will probably alarm the sock puppets among the faithful. A portion of them reads:

The second part of my instructions concerns the substantive law that bears on this case.

This statement of the law pertains to all time periods relevant to this case. Although you have heard and seen evidence concerning legal points, you must take my instructions as supreme on matters of law and an accurate and controlling statement of the law to be applied in reaching your verdict. In a moment, I will explain the elements of the specific federal offenses charged but first here is an explanation of the basic law relating to notes, deeds of trust, and the rights and duties of borrowers and lenders.

When someone borrows money using his or her home as collateral, the borrower typically signs a note and a deed of trust. The note is a promise to repay the loan, usually in monthly installments. The deed of trust transfers the home to a trustee to hold for the benefit of the lender in the event that the borrower defaults on the loan payments. If and when the note is paid off, the deed of trust is reconveyed to the borrower at which point title is then free and clear in the name of the borrower. Rather than a deed of trust, some states allow the use of a mortgage. For purposes of this case, a mortgage and a deed of trust are the same.

When someone borrows money and signs a note, the borrower is obligated to make the payments on the note in accordance with its terms. If a provision in any note or any deed of trust happens to violate some law, it is possible that the particular provision might be unenforceable, such as, for example, a prepayment penalty might be subject to a limitation in a particular state. For some violations, the borrower might possibly even have the right to rescind the loan, meaning to undo the entire transaction, but in undoing a loan, the borrower would then have to give the loan money back. Under no circumstances can the borrower simply eliminate the loan, recover the collateral, and keep the money from the loan.

Within regulatory reserve requirements, banks are allowed to receive deposits from customers and then to use those deposits to make loans to borrowers; banks are also allowed to borrow money from the Federal Reserve Bank and then to use those funds to make loans to borrowers; and banks are free to use their own equity to make loans to borrowers. A borrower’s duty to repay a loan is not affected by any infringement of regulatory reserve requirements.

You have heard evidence that various homeowners involved in our case placed their homes into a family trust with defendants as trustees. Although the word ?trust? is used, a “family trust” is different from a “deed of trust” that typically accompanies a home loan. As I said, a deed of trust is a way to provide collateral for a loan. A family trust, however, is a convenient vehicle for families to hold their property, usually for estate-planning purposes. In this regard, placing one’s home in a family trust allows the trustees in charge of the family trust to exercise the same rights as the homeowner. Doing so, however, does not eliminate any debt owed by the homeowner and the home still remains collateral for the loan to the same extent as before the trust. Putting one’s home in a family trust creates no greater rights in the trustee than were available to the homeowner.

You have also heard evidence regarding ?presentments? made to lenders. Of course, a borrower or his agent or his trustee may send a letter to a lender complaining about aspects of a loan. The lender, however, is not legally obligated to respond to such a letter, at least with respect to any circumstances relevant to this case. Rather, the lender is free to ignore the letters and to stand on its rights under the loan documents unless the loan documents. If the lender then seeks to enforce the loan documents, a court will then have to hear out both sides and resolve any disputed clause or issue. If the lender loses, for example, one or more particular clauses may be found unenforceable. Under no circumstances, however, can the loan and collateral obligations simply be eliminated with the borrower allowed to keep the loan money. Even if a court allowed rescission so that the loan was undone, the borrower would have to return the loan proceeds. Use of the word “presentment” makes no difference. A lender is placed under no greater duty when it receives something called a presentment than when it receives an ordinary letter.

You have heard evidence that the presentments included a notice that defendants would
be appointed as agents or attorneys-in-fact for the lender in the event that the lender failed to respond within a stated time period. In this regard, I instruct you that a letter or notice to a lender stating that if the lender does not respond within a stated time period, it will be deemed to have appointed the sender as its agent or attorney-in-fact may be ignored by the lender. The lender is under no obligation to respond. The lender is free to stand on its contract rights with the borrower. Ignoring such a letter or notice cannot have the effect of lawfully appointing anyone as the lender’s agent or attorney-in-fact. In turn, any reconveyance signed by any such purported attorney-in-fact or purported agent would be unauthorized and invalid. Even if anysuch reconveyance were recorded in the county land records and/or notarized, it would still be unauthorized and invalid. There is nothing in the law of estoppel or laches or estoppel by laches that is different from the law as I have described in these instructions. To appoint an agent or attorney-in-fact, the lender would have to do so expressly and affirmatively, not simply by ignoring a letter. If, however, a lender expressly appoints someone as its agent or attorney-in-fact for a stated purpose, then, of course, that person could lawfully sign for the lender within the scope of the agency.

You have also heard reference to a subrogation and security bond. Under the law, no borrower has the unilateral right to substitute someone else?s promise to pay for his or her own promise to pay. Nor can a borrower unilaterally substitute a bond for his original collateral under the loan. If a lender receives such a bond or proposed substitution in the mail, the lender is free to ignore it, remain silent, and to stand on its original contract rights with the borrower.

You have seen evidence that some documents were notarized. A notarized document is a statement by the notary that the signature on the document was made by the person indicated, i.e., the notarization serves as a degree of proof that the signature is authentic. It does not mean, however, that the document is otherwise legally valid or invalid.

You have seen evidence that some documents were filed with various county land records. The fact that a document appears in the county land records does not mean that it is valid or that the county recorder has approved the document. Put differently, the fact of recording does not add or subtract from its validity or invalidity. It only relates to whether the form of the document is in the proper form for recording.

You have heard evidence that lenders sold various notes to others sometimes in the form of securitization. Unless the original loan documents provided otherwise, the original lender has the right to sell the notes and thereafter, upon notice, the borrower must make payments to the new owner of the loan.

The items called “presentments” and other letters and material received into evidence referred to various statutes and legal authorities. Nothing cited therein and no other provision of law contradicts the law as I have stated it in these instructions. In this connection, you heard reference to the Uniform Commercial Code, which is sometimes called the “UCC.” This is a code adopted as law in all fifty states. There is nothing in the UCC that would alter the lender-borrower law described in these instructions. So too with the federal-reserve system. There is nothing in the federal-reserve system or other banking laws that affects the rights and duties of lenders and borrowers as I state them to you in these instructions. Nor is there anything in generally accepted accounting principles that would modify the law as I state it to you in these instructions.

I'd love to see the objections but they'll probably be regurgitations of the same drivel.

They have until 11/5 to prepare for that hearing.

[nobodyknows]

Exactly what "hearing" are you talking about? I'm a little confused as to the procedure in criminal court. And I assume the statements you pasted that of the prosecution?

[notorial dissent]

I am amazed and impressed at the brevity, clarity, and conciseness of those instructions. It very neatly disposes of all the duo's nonsense in pretty short order and I would say seems to be quite clear as to what is going on. You're right, I would be willing to bet that the sockpuppets will be up in arms???? feet??? whatever over this.

In truth, I had expected this to play out a good deal longer just on the nonsense and stalling that the duo have been prone to, maybe the judge finally reigned them in and said no more. I will bet their summation is going to be entertaining though.

[nobodyknows]

I think it's probably more along the lines of they now realize they can't win. Of course, Kurt says, NOW is strategy is to lose, and says that is what their plan was all along.

[Demosthenes]

10/29/2007 496 First MOTION for Bench Warrant Warrant for Arrest of Subpoenaed Witness Todd Ellis Swanson by USA as to Dale Scott Heineman, Kurt F. Johnson, The Dorean Group, The Oxford Trust, Baylor Trust, Universal Trust Services, William Julian, Farrel J. Lecompte, Jr, Sara J. Magoon, Charles Dewey Tobias. (Attachments: # 1)(Martin, Brigid) (Filed on 10/29/2007) (Entered: 10/29/2007)

10/29/2007 497 ORDER ISSUING BENCH WARRANT FOR SUBPOENAED WITNESS, granting 496 Motion for Warrant as to Dale Scott Heineman (1), Kurt F. Johnson (2). Signed by Judge William H. Alsup on 10/29/07. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/29/2007)

10/29/2007 499 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William H. Alsup: Jury Trial as to Dale Scott Heineman, Kurt F. Johnson held on 10/29/2007. Govt' witnesses: M. Randall; A.W hitecross; M. Abad; and B. Johnson. Defts continue to waive atty/client privilege. Warrant to be issued for Todd Ellis Swanson. Further Jury Trial set for 10/30/2007 07:30 AM. (Court Reporter Sahar McVickar.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2007) (Entered: 10/29/2007)

10/30/2007 500 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William H. Alsup: Jury Trial as to Dale Scott Heineman, Kurt F. Johnson held on 10/30/2007. Govt called witnesses: W. Todd and J. Panibratiouk. Further Jury Trial set for 10/31/2007 07:30 AM. (Court Reporter Sahar McVickar.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2007) (Entered: 10/31/2007)

10/31/2007 501 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William H. Alsup: Jury Trial as to Dale Scott Heineman, Kurt F. Johnson held on 10/31/2007. Govt called witnesses: G. Christianson; T. Spielbauer; L. Heineman; M. Ernst. Further Jury Trial set for 11/1/2007 07:30 AM. (Court Reporter Sahar McVickar.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2007) (Entered: 10/31/2007)

11/01/2007 502 PROPOSED CHARGE TO THE JURY AND DRAFT SPECIAL VERDICT FORM as to Dale Scott Heineman, Kurt F. Johnson, The Dorean Group, The Oxford Trust, Baylor Trust, Universal Trust Services, William Julian, Farrel J. Lecompte, Jr, Sara J. Magoon, Charles Dewey Tobias (Attachments: # 1) (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2007) (Entered: 11/01/2007)

11/01/2007 503 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William H. Alsup: Jury Trial as to Dale Scott Heineman, Kurt F. Johnson held on 11/1/2007. Govt's witness Agent M. Ernst continued. Govt REST. Dfts called witness F. LeCompte. Todd Swanson took the 5th Amendment. Subpoena and bench warrant for T. Swanson are discharged.Further Jury Trial set for 11/5/2007 07:30 AM. (Court Reporter Sahar McVickar.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2007) (Entered: 11/01/2007)

[Judge Roy Bean]

Exactly what "hearing" are you talking about? I'm a little confused as to the procedure in criminal court. And I assume the statements you pasted that of the prosecution?

No, those are the court's proposed instructions and both of the parties in the case have until Monday to prepare for motions and argument before the Judge to modify or adopt them and face what happens when the jurors are subjected to the lecture.

The hearing on Monday takes place without the jury being present and goes to the heart of what is or isn't "legal." I refer you to the oft used but oft misunderstood phrase, "the trier of law is the Judge, the trier of fact is the jury." Jury "education" advocates are very vocal about expanding the role of juries into interpretations of what is or isn't legal. That's yet another debate.

Both sides will be working on their objections and recommended versions this weekend, although Johnson is faced with the daunting task of trying to argue against the reality of legal life in front of a Federal district Judge who has previously ruled that the scam was indeed a scam in the eyes of the law. Since that ruling was not appealed, it still stands.

This is a naturally crucial part of a criminal trial and can lead to paths for appeal. At this nascent point it presents what the Judge is prepared to tell the jury very specifically regarding the law they are to deal with in reaching a verdict. I won't further speculate or offer opinion on what the Court has propounded, except to say it appears to be very concise.

The Dorean faithful will, of course, chalk all of this up to the corruption of the legal system at the behest of the banker conspiracy.

But then again, they will ulitmately pay for their ignorance and reliance on a scam artist, so one wonders how sympathetic we should be.

[nobodyknows]

Thank you for you input Judge. I have no doubt that what K&S did was a scam, I just hope the jury sees it.

[Scott from Vineland]

Demo,
Thanks for posting the most recent filings for those of us who don't have access to PACER. Even if we don't have your riveting play-by-play from the courtroom, at least we can follow along to some degree. I wonder where they ended up finding Swanson? And I wonder how uncomfortable it was for the real attorneys in the courtroom to watch Spielbauer try to justify himself?

[Dr. Caligari]

What's Happing In Your Trial
By the time this post we will probably be at the end of the prosecution's case. After they rest we will have to present our defense. This won't be a long drawn out process maybe a day or two. As I've stated before I am in a strange position attempting to win a trial I would rather lose. Just that intimate revelation of Christ's behavior on the cross was worth the exercise of going through this trial. If that was all it was for I appreciate God changing directions on me and taking me to a place I didn't think I was going. God always has a back story going on in our lives where greater things are happening than we can imagine. There are countless characters in the scriptures where we get the back story but they didn't have it at that time. Like them we see through a glass dimly but if we will trust the Lord the back story will appear in our hindsight. Now the reason I would rather lose this trial is because I am not dissuaded by the lies and propaganda that has wiped out most of my clients. The reason we didn't want the clients involved in our business is because they would make all the errors necessary in their fears to undo the work I was doing. If the clients really knew what I know they would have all come into our trial and blasted the banks and the court for being crooked. My plans have always included this potential betrayal and violent opposition. A guilty plea in the federal system is very well protected by the judge in a way that it always has you making the offer. If you make the offer all they have to do is accept and you're off to their prisons for a rather long time generally. We have been in a constant chess match controlling this particular moment in commerce. I believe Judge Alsup understands that we have this knowledge because he keeps trying to corral us there. Each plea agreement we accepted never had a signature from one making the offer. They always wanted us to sign first. We did but in a commercially safe method. Each of these were refused. In my opening statements I asked the jury to enter a guilty plea on our behalf since we are not able to. The session was paused so that the judge and prosecution could make the offer to us on how they would accept our plea. Their offer was not acceptable so we were forced into a trial. Though this may be a free swing I still don't understand all that God is doing. The eternal treasures are appearing so I am grateful for the course change. If we are found guilty by the jury then I can go before Alsup unhindered by their goal to have me make the offer and await the offer they must now make as part of their usage and customs of trade. If we are acquitted that can be a victory I suppose but at a high price. The other options are a hung jury, mistrial, or a dismissal for various reasons. The political solution, the embarrassment solution, the get rid of the record solution, and who knows how many other dynamics are in the background. I ask you to trust in the Lord I'm trusting in and our enemies will be handed over to us. This device of a trial and criminal prosecution is our remedy and it became the fastest remedy available under the circumstances that availed themselves when we were running Dorean. Many of you have complained to God who is answering your prayers more thoroughly than you can imagine. Know this one thing and take comfort; the trial which is coming to an end is the beginning of your victory no matter the verdict.

[Demosthenes]

I appreciate God changing directions on me and taking me to a place I didn't think I was going.

Federal prison?

[Judge Roy Bean]

I appreciate God changing directions on me and taking me to a place I didn't think I was going.

Federal prison?

I think Johnson knew all along that Club Fed was the ultimate result if he/they didn't get out of the country. But like many schemes, the dim duo's didn't generate the enormous expected profit fast enough.

[neodemes]

No news about the trial but Kurt seems to be mentioned in another thread, near the bottom here:

The current Master is, as they all tend to be, a very busy man.

Darn...wish I had seen that thread before it was locked. I tried to reply to the follow-up thread, but it keeps bouncing me to the index page?

(I just wanted to point out that fuzzy blew his own theory of salvation only occurring while Christ was alive (at least, I think that was his point ) out of the water when he referenced:

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." )

Not to hijack the thread, but the door was opened.

[notorial dissent]

Actually Judge, I think I will disagree with you on this one point. It is my opinion that the gas bag was ONE, not smart enough to see the writing on the wall, and TWO was too egotistical to even consider the fact that he wasn’t going to get away with it. He, like most conmen, was convinced that he was smarter and cleverer than everyone else, he certainly keeps telling everyone how smart he is, and that he couldn’t possibly get caught. I still think he got to believing his own fantasy and refused to believe that it was all coming unraveled, even when they started carting stuff off. The fact that he has maintained the line of fantasy nonsense he has leads me to believe that having failed once, that he could possibly fail this time and therefore that if he just worked at it hard enough it would all go away, it won’t, but he will, for a very long time. I have said it before and I will say it again, Kurt’s ego was his undoing. That and just being generally inept to start with. It really doesn’t matter how much you believe in yourself if you are just plain incompetent to start with.

There may finally be glimmer of awareness that his tower of cards has not only fallen, but has burst into flame. I think at this point even he realizes the trial is all but ended. I think it will be in the jury’s hands by the end of the week, the only question in my mind is can they beat the Jackson jurors on a verdict.