Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Of Opinion

But the most significant thing about JPMorgan's deal with the Department of Justice may be what it doesn't do. It doesn't resolve the ongoing federal criminal investigations of the bank's conduct in the residential mortgage securities business during the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. That investigation is being handled by federal prosecutors in Sacramento.1

Thomas M. Hefferon directly accused this writer of being invective (of, relating to, or characterized by insult or abuse2) towards Bank of America and MERS. In rebuttal, it was stated in testimony before Congress that Synthetics were legal, which they are, as such is a distinct difference between what is illegal and what is sustainable. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence #802-803 one could never know exactly what words of deception were used by Satan against Eve and subsequently Adam. This writer has no issues with money changers who operate within law. In mans world there is a distinct difference to what law applies, mans or Gods. Attention is directed back to these words of the JPMorgan settlement: It doesn't resolve the ongoing federal criminal investigations of the bank's conduct. Here the writer notes maybe it is not the banks in regards to their own volition (the faculty or power of using one's will.)

1 2

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/lafimhjpmorgan20131019,0,1798321.story http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/invective

that allowed crimes against real property to occur. Could it be that the banks not being an eSquire trained relied upon opinion of the Esquires which hid the fact that counsel advice was hiding the fact that laws applicable to eSign, UETA were being misapplied to bypass real property laws of a state? Squire definition: (A title of dignity next in degree below knight, and above gentleman.), for some actions of banks counsel would not rank to be within a gentlemen gesture. A Covington and Burling opinion letter noted that MERS as designed was in accordance to all applicable laws that dealt with intangible rights. Note that the current United States Attorney General had previously worked for Covington and Burling. This writer agrees that the opinion letter was correct as to how MERS was to operate, however it is not MERS itself that violated the design of MERS. Could it be those esquires that attacked this writer are more interested in protecting themselves from criminal prosecution so that there Friday paychecks remain forthcoming? Could it be many of subsequent esquires to the banks esquires in support of a Friday paycheck have a belief not supported by law? Many do not like the moneychangers but if the money changers actions are in accordance to all applicable laws then whether we like them or not, their existence does have a place in the world.

This writer is under opinion, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and guaranteed by even a higher authority notes that by all appearance the many money changing banks fell to the belief that an opinion rendered by esquire counsel was consistent with all applicable law. Question presents, have not these esquires succumbed to obtaining fees for opinion regardless of whether the opinion follows law. This writer sees the answer to this in the positive as the banks esquires knew what they were doing to generate a Friday paycheck. This writer is also under opinion, now that the cat is out of the bag, that those money changing leaders will hold the lying opinion esquires accountable for their lying actions. As AC would say, never let your alligator mouth overload your humming bird ass. In a polite way, appears that entities have managed to navigate up the sanitary tributary without a lawful means of propulsion. Still waters run deep, as to the illegality that has occurred where many appear to be in deep Dodo. Clearly from this writers perspective, for a bank to upfront settle violations of civil rights allows those subservient esquires responsible to be held for violations of criminal rights. A=Mouth, B=Arse, thus what goes into A equals what comes out of B, thus A-B=C (squawk, squawk, all talk meaning nothing, went the parrot on a perch). One needs to accuse the proper party for justice to prevail.