'Bill of Exchange' INdictments (and Other Similar Items
Larry Becraft
(and other similar items)
Thereafter, the Montana Freemen started issuing drafts and BoEs drawn on a closed bank account. I remember people possessing these Freemen drafts "payable" for millions of bux, and they deposited them in their bank accounts and attempted to use them to pay debts. We all know what happened.
Following this program in 1999 was the “redemption process” started by Roger Elvick, about which I have written elsewhere, as well as an improved version of the “redemption process” promoted by Wrong Way Law. Then, Eddie Kahn and Barton Buhtz started programs advocating that people send creditors (including IRS) “bills of exchange.”
Barton has been indicted and convicted; see Buhtz indictment. So has Eddie Kahn. Barton's indictment states that the first BoE was tendered on August 6, 2001, yet he was not indicted until September 9, 2005, more than 4 years later. Here are some more indictments:
He tendered his BoE on October 15, 2003, but was not indicted
until September 19, 2006, almost 3 years later.
on August 8, 2003, but was not indicted until Dec. 18, 2007,
more than 4 years later.
See last 2 counts. His BoEs were tendered August 13, 2003 and
December 23, 2003, yet he was not indicted until Dec. 8, 2005.
(extract with some pages taken out to create smaller file)
Lahr sent his first BoE on October 3, 2003, and was indicted 4.5 years later on April 8, 2008.
See Counts 6 through 10.
See also Stout indictment.
(argument about names in CAPS)
("give 'em a bond!")
(ask for Account)
("be sure to accept for value")
("take a default")
Mike failed to appear, has a new indictment, and I certainly do not know where he is.
Others have long argued that an accused should "accept for value" indictments charging them with crimes. Ed Atwell was indicted in South Carolina, and before trial, he filed a pleading withdrawing his not guilty plea, and at the same time, filed a copy of his indictment where he wrote "accept for value" across its face. Of course, his indictment was not dismissed and he went to trial representing himself. His cross-exam of all government witnesses consisted of asking a question: "Do you have a claim against me?" In a short trial, he was convicted. He got 51 months jail time at sentencing.
Regarding civil matters, Mike Palma and others bought some Toyotas with these bills. Toyota was not paid and sued. You can read the complaint Toyota filed against them in the below "Affidavit of Truth" file, which has a copy of it. These defendants filed their "Affidavits of Truth" as well as their "notices of non-response". These pleadings did not scare away Toyota or its lawyers; Palma has been jailed for comtempt.
Followers of these various programs get enraged at me, call me names, and otherwise engage in defamation because I analyze these various arguments. I have observed with all of these arguments several common features:
2. Ephemeral "victories": Promoters always use anectdotal evidence that the program works. "Johnny paid his debt with this instrument," or "charges against Johnny were dropped." However, I have looked for evidence of such victories and only have discovered "hot air," and I encounter evidence otherwise; see above. "Proof" consists of claims that cases disappear from court dockets. Each of the above promotions was hyped using similar anectdotal evidence. Look at the indictments for proof of the real results.
3. "Don't talk to lawyers": I went to Phoenix several years ago because some victims of a Ponzi scheme were getting into trouble. A paralegal deeply involved in promotion of this Ponzi always told new victims that lawyers worked for the Queen of England, were members of BAR, and thus should not be consulted. Of course this is nothing but a lie, and having encountered conmen many times who have done the same thing, I have concluded that one of the indicators of a conman is his advice not to talk with lawyers. This advice insures that the victims are all that much better to be screwed. A lawyer could have easily detected this Ponzi and some 65 million bux would not have been lost to the scammers.
Here is a note I received from a man who has watched this nonsense (I deleted his name):
Just do the math, Larry. A guru sets up a seminar and asks for $200 from each person. 50 attend so he collects $10,000. He blathers for 2 days and say he has expenses for travel and a room and some other stuff of $2,000 which is liberal so he goes home with $8,000 and does this 10 times a year and picks up clients along the way. Looks a lot better that actually working for a living.
I am helping a friend to finalize their IRS drama and get back their life from the Beast and we are out of this stuff. I have met one guru about 3 times and when he talks it scrambles my brain but he has followers that are more dedicated than a Muslim Bomber seeking the mythological 85 virgins. As for me I rather have an old pro woman my age, and just watch those who are setting up abusive trusts and god only knows what else to see what happens when they ignore your warnings with actual court cases. I had one true believer of this stuff say that the cases you sent out were not exactly about what he was exactly doing. Well it looks exactly alike enough to land his ass in prison.