Looking for information ...

Post by **Judge Roy Bean** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:58 pm

Some of the defendants in the Dorean scam have been using variations of Shrout's nonsense and the latest docket items in their criminal trial are mind-numbingly absurd.

iamfreeru2 · Post by **iamfreeru2** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:16 pm

The reason I stated "want proof attend a seminar" is because ND made false accusations. It is not taught in any seminar that Winston now teaches or Sam's for that matter, that one should use a TDA account. That was proven to be false years ago. If you can prove they teach this go right ahead and prove it. Just because Winston's UCC-1 make reference to it in 2000 does not mean he teaches it now. The simple fact is ND stated things that are untrue and is not up to me to prove the assertions, but is up to to prove the assertions true.

Yes I know about Winston's BK and the other cases. So what? What does it prove? Nothing.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:01 pm

Yes I know about Winston's BK and the other cases. So what? What does it prove?

Those case, plus the fact (which you admit) that his TDA nonsense was just that, prove he was a moron once. So what proof do you have that he's changed?

Post by **wserra** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:43 pm

iamfreeru2 wrote:Yes I know about Winston's BK and the other cases. So what? What does it prove?

You mean what does it prove that this man with "a powerful understanding of law, banking and politics": (1) filed for bankruptcy, and the financial statement shows that he pigged out on credit cards rather than (for example) had devastating medical bills, (2) lost every federal case in which he was a party, and (3) incurred huge liens for failure to pay taxes? Is that what you mean?

Well, it means that you would likely be better off taking advice from Beavis or Butthead.

Post by **notorial dissent** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:55 am

Info on Treasury direct is available at the Treasury website

http://www.savingsbonds.gov/indiv/myacc ... gacytd.htm

I had intended to include it and got rushed and forgot. It gives a fair overview of the system and what it does. It is currently structured to deal with Treasury Notes, Bills, and TIPS, and apparently savings bonds as well now.

I should have added that there is also a varying degree of UCC nonsense added into the mess just to really complicate the mythology. It doesn’t work any better than the rest of it, and it depends on who is shilling how much and which version they use. It doesn’t change the fact that it is still all nonsense from beginning to end that relies on big words, and lots of legal and pseudo legal jargon thrown around to give it an air of authenticity that the clueless seem to buy part and parcel.

To iamclueless/squared. Just because your pet con artist allows unbelievers to attend his medicine show doesn’t make him any less of a snake oil salesman. He can run all his cant and jargon he wants to, but I/and everyone else for that matter, want to see something in the real world, not apocryphal stories of claimed victories that never happened. There is no legal or realistic basis to any of this nonsense, except that some real terms get tossed into the dross from time to time. As to seminars, I can go to any number of seminars given by any number of serious, earnest, and believing individuals, but it still won’t make the earth flat, the moon made out of green cheese, or Winston Shrout anything but a liar.

wserra, I will plead antiquity of knowledge, when I was working in that end of brokerage I don’t remember even being able to buy treasury paper in less than $10K increments, but that was a long time ago and I will admit I was going by memory here, still it isn’t small change even if it is in $1k increments, so I don’t think any of the sui-ites are going to be qualifying for one regardless.

And true, a BOE, is just another name for a draft, not that that crowd would know or know the difference. The end result being that getting the thing enforced when it was in practical use was difficult, and it hasn’t changed any since then. I don’t know if they are even much used anymore, I can’t imagine why they would be. In any event, there is NO circumstance where an individual can write one against the Treasury for any purpose at any time, and it does come under the Federal fraudulent financial instruments that were passed after Sweitzer and his crowd started using them back in the 70's??? and got busted for it.

As a side note, I find it fascinating that a group of people, most of whom have repeatedly proved that they can’t handle such simple facets of modern life as a checking account or a credit card, seem to find great significance and power in antiquated financial instruments and legal procedures that have no bearing on modern life. Part of it I suspect is the general unfamiliarity of the general populace with some of this stuff so they don’t know they are being taken, but I still do find it fascinating. I’m still not sure what the fascination with outdated legal dictionaries as sacred icons is all about either? Other than they use big antiquated words that they don’t understand, aren’t in general use anymore, and probably have a different meaning now than they did 100 years ago. I realize this is the words have secret meanings and secret significance known only to a select few crowd, but this is getting old.

iamclueless/squared, just what false accusations am I supposed to have made? While I did mention TDA, I did not say he was doing so, I merely said that was one of the names used in various stuff I have seen. You are the expert, what treasury account then are they suggesting they write their drafts against? So I repeat what did I say that was untrue? I do know for a fact, and you have admitted as much, that he did preach it at one time, so if he was wrong then, why would he be right now? Surely you can answer a simple question like that?

Yep, just like he can write drafts off of the Treasury.

Please do let us know, inquiring minds want to know.

Post by **grixit** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 3:29 am

Thing is-- even if it were possible for an individual to spend money from these accounts, isn't that just equivalent to finding a back door into a bank vault? It still requires willingness to steal to go in and help yourself.

Randall · Post by **Randall** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:20 am

iamfreeru2 wrote: If you want to know what is happening get it from the horse

The only thing one gets from a horse does not come from the end you feed.

. · Post by . » Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:59 am

If IamimprisonedinTPhell didn't butcher English as TPs invariably do, he might have said somethng about the other end.

But that would require knowledge of English sayings. It's a pudding/eating of the pudding thing. As in proof is in the.

Will they ever figure out that they're incompetent? That their incompetence, of which the inability to express themselves properly is but one minor indicia, might be why they never prevail?

Probably not. The incompetent are not competent to recognise their own incompetence.

Post by **notorial dissent** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:19 pm

Randall wrote:
iamfreeru2 wrote: If you want to know what is happening get it from the horse
The only thing one gets from a horse does not come from the end you feed.

Which actually is of some value, does my roses no end of good, whereas the variety iamclueless/squared is so in awe of, only acts as a detriment to your life and growth.

Post by **notorial dissent** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:42 am

As a post script, one of the name they are now substituting for TDA is "TREASURY POSTED REGISTERED ACCOUNT." When at first you don't succeed, make up something else and use that until you get smacked in the face enough times that you can't deny it isn't working and then make up something else.

rachel · Post by **rachel** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:02 am

. wrote:If IamimprisonedinTPhell didn't butcher English as TPs invariably do, he might have said somethng about the other end.

But that would require knowledge of English sayings. It's a pudding/eating of the pudding thing. As in proof is in the.

Will they ever figure out that they're incompetent? That their incompetence, of which the inability to express themselves properly is but one minor indicia, might be why they never prevail?

Probably not. The incompetent are not competent to recognise their own incompetence.

Wow!
Make sure you cross every t and dot every i.
I can see you tripping flat on your face over your own urin.

Imalawman · Post by **Imalawman** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:45 pm

rachel wrote:
. wrote:If IamimprisonedinTPhell didn't butcher English as TPs invariably do, he might have said somethng about the other end.

But that would require knowledge of English sayings. It's a pudding/eating of the pudding thing. As in proof is in the.

Will they ever figure out that they're incompetent? That their incompetence, of which the inability to express themselves properly is but one minor indicia, might be why they never prevail?

Probably not. The incompetent are not competent to recognise their own incompetence.
Wow!
Make sure you cross every t and dot every i.
I can see you tripping flat on your face over your own urin.

Placed in bold without comment.

ASITStands · Post by **ASITStands** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:12 pm

Is that like, "ur in Sonoma County" and "im in Marin?"

Post by **LPC** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:44 pm

Imalawman wrote:
rachel wrote:I can see you tripping flat on your face over your own urin.
Placed in bold without comment. :lol:

What if I don't have an urn? Would it be okay if I tripped over my own bowel?

ASITStands · Post by **ASITStands** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:20 pm

I think we need to keep our day jobs. Out attempts at humor are rather lame. Maybe we should call in 'webhick' to rescue us?

Post by **webhick** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 10:36 pm

By request:

gud graamr is import ent: prepposishuns r bad at end ov centensez. teepees downt no nuthin bowt no currekt inglish.

kwestion is this: ow do u trip flat on ur fase? cuz i thot u trip n fawl flat on ur fase. do u trip on your-in? pee pee downt maak u trip it maak u slip. eeven i no dat. ow do u fawl on fase ovr own your-in? ow do u fawl o-vr sumthin? u can trip on ur vow-ell, ell-pee-cee, it wuud b ok wit me. but it mite hurt u a bit.

my inglish gud. c? betterer dan teepees, tu.

Hmmm, sorry guys. I guess I'm not feeling it on this thread.

ASITStands · Post by **ASITStands** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:34 am

Valiant try, but it does get difficult after while.