Didn't know that.ASITStands wrote:It was my understanding a book by the same name preceded Hendrickson.
Different garbage by the same name . . .
Maybe not that dumb. The BOEs didn't have to fool the government, only Barton's customers. And only until their check cleared.Allow me to rephrase: "Yeah, I was a thief, but a really dumb thief."
It was discussed in the case, Ray v. Williams, 2005 WL 697041.wserra wrote:Didn't know that.ASITStands wrote:It was my understanding a book by the same name preceded Hendrickson.
Different garbage by the same name . . .
Hmm...the equal application of justice theory - a swing and a miss. A significantly shorter sentence for one of the "original proponents" didn't seem to have a deterent effect on ol' Barton. And since part of sentencing is based on deterence, methinks this wasn't the highlight of the memorandum.Defendants in other jurisdictions charged with similar offenses have not received sentences nearly this lengthy. One of the original proponents of the redemption theory received a
significantly shorter sentence despite the fact that his loss figure was substantially higher.
Ah, but that's because the ebil goobermint got to Todd before he testified. A self-designated "amicus curiae" named Janet Phelan (google her for some amusement) filed this affidavit describing how the AUSA intimidated Todd by asking him beforehand if he was going to testify that the "treasury accounts" really existed. It appears that poor Ms. Phelan had to file this on her own because none of the lawyers would return her calls.notorial dissent wrote:And here all this time I thought Todd was supposed to be exonerating him by proving the evil banking system didn’t exist or some such nonsense.
Seems like having Todd testify for you is more akin to a sure fire way to get yourself convicted
02/11/2008 175 Minutes of Proceedings:Sentencing Hearing before Judge Owen M. Panner as to Defendant Barton Albert Buhtz. See Formal Judgment. Defendant advised of right to appeal. Counsel Present for Plaintiff: William E. Fitzgerald. Counsel Present for Defendant: Lynn Shepard. (Court Reporter Cynthia Thomas-Klosterman) (wk) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
02/11/2008 176 Administrative Correction of the Record: A clerical error pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P 36 has been discovered in the case record referencing document [175] and the Clerk is directed to make the following administrative corrections to the record and to notify all parties accordingly: The court ordered that defendant could remain on pretrial release pending appeal with the added condition that defendant shall not, under any circumstances, advise or enter into consultation with anyone regarding financial or legal matters. By Judge Owen M. Panner (wk) (Entered: 02/12/2008)
OREGON LOCAL NEWS
Medford judge gives 'redemption movement' scammer three years in prison
by Bryan Denson, The Oregonian
Tuesday September 08, 2009, 6:02 PM
A federal judge in Medford sentenced a California man Tuesday to three years in prison for his role in a conspiracy to pass an estimated $3.8 million in false U.S. Treasury instruments.
The government accused self-styled consumer advocate Barton Albert Buhtz, 70, of conducting promotional seminars in which he sold people on the fictitious theory that federal funds are put in secret Treasury accounts as each citizen is born in the U.S.
Buhtz convinced people to join the so-called "Redemption movement" and use "bills of exchange" to access the secret accounts and discharge their debts, according to the U.S. attorney's office for Oregon.
The government alleged that between August 2001 and April 2003, Buhtz conspired with at least four other people to use fake checks drawn on nonexistent Treasury accounts to pay taxes and purchase property, vehicles and other goods and services.
A jury in 2007 found Buhtz guilty of conspiracy to pass false Treasury instruments and multiple counts of passing fictitious financial instruments. He was sentenced in February 2008 to three years in prison. But he appealed, which prompted Tuesday's resentencing.
--Bryan Denson, bryandenson@news.oregonian.com
Kenny, even if what you said wasn't an almost incomprehensible, disjointed rant, you still wouldn't have made any worthwhile points. Check out the prior "redemptionist" threads on this forum, and you'll see what I nean.kennyrazor wrote:The guy got thrown in the slammer b/c he was trying to take a "PRIVATE" offer for settlement and redeem "PUBLIC" funds, persons operating in the public are crazy they will not recognize Private settlement. He was right about the accounts but they are not backed by anything it is just numbers, he shouldn't have contracted to the courts offer to settle in the public. He should have only arrived in the public as the Creditor and remained in honor by acceptance, he at some point ARGUED his case/ and or facts, the facts are on the moon, the courts cannot act on a Private man in honor only his bond, if he bonds/agrees under being jailed then he is allowing that to be his only remedy, since there is nothing to pay with and he was arguing that fact they said ok we agree it's obvious you have nothing to pay with so if you'll just sign here per say you can work off this debt, we will just put you in our warehouse for storage. He was deposed, and was thus removed from office of a private sovereign, and was put into a joiner contract glueing the man to the company employee of the US.
For that, you get a [dis]honorable mention in the Quatloos word salad contest.kennyrazor wrote:The guy got thrown in the slammer b/c he was trying to take a "PRIVATE" offer for settlement and redeem "PUBLIC" funds, persons operating in the public are crazy they will not recognize Private settlement. He was right about the accounts but they are not backed by anything it is just numbers, he shouldn't have contracted to the courts offer to settle in the public. He should have only arrived in the public as the Creditor and remained in honor by acceptance, he at some point ARGUED his case/ and or facts, the facts are on the moon, the courts cannot act on a Private man in honor only his bond, if he bonds/agrees under being jailed then he is allowing that to be his only remedy, since there is nothing to pay with and he was arguing that fact they said ok we agree it's obvious you have nothing to pay with so if you'll just sign here per say you can work off this debt, we will just put you in our warehouse for storage. He was deposed, and was thus removed from office of a private sovereign, and was put into a joiner contract glueing the man to the company employee of the US.
Translation:kennyrazor wrote:The guy got thrown in the slammer b/c he was trying to take a "PRIVATE" offer for settlement and redeem "PUBLIC" funds, persons operating in the public are crazy they will not recognize Private settlement. He was right about the accounts but they are not backed by anything it is just numbers, he shouldn't have contracted to the courts offer to settle in the public. He should have only arrived in the public as the Creditor and remained in honor by acceptance, he at some point ARGUED his case/ and or facts, the facts are on the moon, the courts cannot act on a Private man in honor only his bond, if he bonds/agrees under being jailed then he is allowing that to be his only remedy, since there is nothing to pay with and he was arguing that fact they said ok we agree it's obvious you have nothing to pay with so if you'll just sign here per say you can work off this debt, we will just put you in our warehouse for storage. He was deposed, and was thus removed from office of a private sovereign, and was put into a joiner contract glueing the man to the company employee of the US.