If One Had A Crystal Ball ....

[palani]

or is proficient reading tea leaves, he might have seen this one coming.


http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/September/12-tax-1126.html


A federal grand jury in Montgomery, Ala., charged James Timothy Turner, also known as Tim Turner, with conspiracy to defraud the United States, attempting to pay taxes with fictitious financial instruments, attempting to obstruct and impede the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), failing to file a 2009 federal income tax return and falsely testifying under oath in a bankruptcy proceeding, the Justice Department, the IRS, and the FBI announced today.

.
.
.

An indictment merely alleges that a crime has been committed, and a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If convicted, Turner faces a maximum of 164 years in federal prison, a maximum fine of $2,350,000 and mandatory restitution.

[Hatha Sunahara]

I would assume that Tim Turner was teaching people how to pay debts with Accepted For Value (A4V) methods. If the crystal ball works OK, their next target should be Winston Shrout, who does the same thing. I think this is what Johnny Liberty was charged with as well. My assumption could be based on incomplete information.


Hatha

[palani]

The folks in his organization (I know a few .. am not one of them tho) had a theory that the guy representing himself as "Tim Turner" was actually his brother. Hope the feds can get this matter straightened out otherwise there could be a matter of false charges based upon misnomer.

[Glass]

Interesting theory. I stopped listening to those guys once they started calling him President. I see that the charges all relate to the bonds and not to Accepted for Value/A4V/AforV.

It's usually 2 things that get these guys locked up. Bonds or misuse of sight drafts like that EFT thing going around, which is a rebadge of the closed cheque account charge to the treasury account of the strawman. I think that is fraud, certainly the EFT thing seems to be.

Turners was a mix of Bonds and Redemption but his technique is called Setoff. You have something of value over there (Bond registered at treasury) and you tell bill presenter to go and get paid from there. You tell person looking after bond to do a setoff of the bill against your bond. I got all the turner material. I looked at the bonds. There are several types for different purposes. I was quite concerned by the wording of a couple of them.

Winston on the other hand doesn't teach the bond side of things. Doesn't seem to believe in it. He just does a discharge against the SS account. Seems to be the gist of it. There is another element to his work which I don't think people quite grasp and he hasn't made a big thing of it, but I think it's the real reason any of his stuff has worked, if it has worked.

Lets say, Tim Turner tries to do set off against a Bond, which everyone says is worthless. Outcome: It doesn't work. Eventually people come a calling. Winston does the same thing BUT he is setting off against something of substance. I don't think it is the SS account. I think he does what the government does to the people, only he does it to the government. Everytime you break a rule or law you gotta pay a fine or penalty. Well the government breaks the rules all the time and they also, by the rules or law, gotta pay a penalty. I think what he is doing is, he brings the charge against the government when they break the rules. He gets a ruling or a valid claim. He then sets that off against bills he gets. The thing is, the Govt claim against people are usually pretty low. $100 or $1000's of dollars. The Govt on the other hand often faces charges that are $10,000 of dollars each. So you only need 1 or 2 to have substantial funds available to set off your govt bills.

I think that's the difference between these two although Winston doesn't make that clear.

[midnight rambler]

On another note, I think the Montana Freemen were definitely onto something, otherwise Merrill Lynch would have never credited that $70 million dollar deposit to the account they set up.

[palani]

I have used bonds a couple of times. They were for $21 silver which I had no problem acquiring (when silver was $4.50 an oz). I use the bond as an offer (perhaps better said ... a novation ... a substitute for a POSSIBLE debt that might be outstanding. The use of the bond is to set a MAXIMUM limit of payment and to provide a method of receiving that payment (conditioned upon VALIDATION) that involves the provisions of the 1971 TRUTH IN LENDING ACT.

I really see no need for a bond that is so large it is going to attract con men to try to get something out of it by hook or crook (or grand jury). It is only an offer and when it is accepted (i.e., not returned) there is a contract in place.