standing fast for liberty. Gal. 5:1
For help and support, call us at (334) 239-8987 or click here to email us.

Political Editorial

Affidavit of Tim Turner on Motion for Acquital







               v.     Case No. 1:12 – CR – 00169 – MHT





     Comes now, James Timothy Turner, by special appearance, before this court requesting a motion for judgment of acquittal be granted in the above styled case. This request is based upon valid lawful cause as outlined in the following affidavit and includes, but is not limited to, prosecutorial misconduct and malicious prosecution.

     As to Count One: Conspiracy to defraud the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

     The government’s presumption that there was a conspiracy was based upon Four (4) basic elements. The First element was that I taught seminars and imparted information to others about how to create false, fictitious and fraudulent financial instruments.

     The second element of the alleged conspiracy was sending correspondence to State Officials demanding that they stop IRS investigations.

      The Third element is based upon placing Maritime/Admiralty liens upon IRS employees.

     The fourth element alleges I told at least one person not to respond to a IRS summons.

       Element one: The Seminars:

       The government’s presumption is that I held seminars to show people how to create false, fictitious and fraudulent financial instruments, namely Private Indemnity bonds and Private Bonded Promissory Notes. The government claims I did this with the knowledge, intent and understanding my actions were a crime. The facts in this case clearly the instruments were not false, fictitious or fraudulent. These instruments were requests for private credit from the U.S. Treasury and offered as an asset to and not an obligation of the U.S. Treasury. This process was an honest effort to help people were hopelessly in debt to the IRS, banks and mortgage companies. The bonds were offered to U.S. Treasury as private asset creditor. The asset is backed by the property and credit of the American People who are not Franchisees of the UNITED STATES, a Municipal Corporation. The assets of the people were used as collateral, without their direct consent, to back the monetary system of the nation. See Senate document 43, 73rd Congress, First Session; Wynhammer v. People, 13 NY 378; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); The instruments were an attempt to offer the private asset to the treasury for 30 years so the treasury could ledger the asset and create bonds of their own to invest at interest which would create revenue for the U.S. Treasury, the IRS, and the Banks. The credit could easily be offset by the revenue earned from the bond offering created by the U.S. Treasury. In our thinking this is a win for everyone involved. It could honorably settle the debt owed and allow the surplus to remain with the U.S. Treasury.

     The government’s allegations were that we were trying to do a corrupt or deceptive act to fool are deceptive someone into giving us money from the U.S. Treasury when in fact it was a request for credit that is lawfully due to the people who are creditors of the nation.

     If, in fact, we wanted to deceive someone, why would we address these bonds directly to the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury who probably knows as much or more about financial instruments than anyone in the nation? We presented an IRS Form 56 authorizing Secretary Paulson, or is designee with fiduciary duties and responsibilities to accept or reject our offer. Pursuant to 63 Am Jur 2d 247; UCC §3– 503(b); 3– 504(c) and 3– 10(b) the Officials of the treasury had a fiduciary duty and legal responsibility to respond to our offer and a nonresponse as required by U CC is a commercial acceptance of the instrument and an obligation to discharge the debt. This is our understanding of those laws cite, state and mean.

         With Mr. Paulson and other officials’ education, training and experience I expected him to follow the law governing these instruments. No notifications were sent.

     The treasury failed in their lawful duties to inform us that they did not accept these instruments. Had the U.S. Treasury officials responded all of this would be a non-issue?

     To add to our confusion several of the debts were, in fact, discharged in the early stages of the process. What were we supposed to think when people around the country were receiving receipts for debts that had been discharged?

     Any reasonable person would have thought the offer was accepted and honored. More than $100 million has been discharged across America.

     How could this be if instruments were false, fictitious or fraudulent? To identify an instruments as false, fictitious or fraudulent.

     There are a few legal or lawful requirements that must be met. The first legal requirement is that the instruments must be issued or purported to be issued by the government or agency thereof. There are several common indicators that an instrument is used by a government. First, it must bear an Authorized Signature by an Authorized Representative of said government or agency. The name and title of the Authorized Representative is on the instrument. Second, the name of the government agency issuing the instrument will be clearly stated on the face the instrument.

     Third, the seal of the government or agency is on the face of the instrument. There are other indicators, but all of the above were on every one of the instruments we researched. None of these indicators are found on the instruments we offered to the U.S. Treasury.

     Financial instruments are issued by a principal whose signature is on the face of the said instrument. It is clearly stated on the face of our instruments in principle/insurer is a private man or woman and not any official or representative of government or any agency thereof. They are clearly issue to U.S. Treasury and not from the U.S. Treasury.

     The second indicator that is required is the instruments must resemble actual instruments issued by government or agency thereof. Pursuant to expert witnesses for prosecution Matthew Johnson and expert witnesses for the defense Dr. Joseph A. Newman, PHD., the instruments in question clearly did not resemble any they have ever examined.

     The third indicator is the language on the instrument. Language must clearly indicate that the instruments were issued by government or agency thereof. They clearly do not state or suggest they were issued by the government or agency thereof. The Instruments clearly state they are private and issued by private individuals.

     Also pursuant to the prosecution’s discovery found it Turner 010517 they knew as of September 15, 2009 the instruments were not fictitious. At this cite an investigative report from the Federal Bureau of investigation proves the instruments could not be fictitious. The report contains the following statements from Sonya Beckwith, an official of U.S. Treasury Bureau of Public Debt. Ms. Beckwith stated, “the promissory notes were not issued by the U.S. Treasury and did not resemble any obligation to U.S. Treasury.” The private credit instruments do not comply with any legal or lawful requirements to be qualified as false, fictitious or fraudulent.

     If the instruments were not valid, why did the treasury not adhere to their fiduciary obligations, the law, or their policy? The U.S. Treasury Office of the Comptroller, Enforcement and Compliance Division issued treasury alert 99 – 10. In this official publication states that he is of the U.S. Treasury to return worthless paper instrument with a Notice of Dishonor.

     The first notice of dishonor to us was an indictment.

Which came about four years after the fact. The U.S. Treasury’s failure to comply with the law and policy, and afterward allow indictment to be issued is tantamount to entrapment. If they had met the lawful obligation of a fiduciary, no indictment would have been issued. As you can clearly see his did not meet any of the legal requirements necessary to be false, fictitious or fraudulent.

     There was never any intent or attempt made to deceive or to do anything corrupt. We were only attempting to help those who were in desperate situations.

       As far as charging money and making large sums of money, no one was ever turned away if they could not pay. Often, 1/3 to ½ of the people attended free. I have even taught a few seminars for free even though they cost me several thousand dollars expense. Much of what I received was given to the people who were in desperate need of help.

     As to Element Two of Count One: Sending correspondence to state officials to stop IRS investigations. I do not deny that a Declaration was sent to 50 State Governors. The declaration that was sent however was not the declaration that was agreed upon by the leaders. There was much debate some of the language contained in the document. Three of the four leaders voted to significantly soften the language and Mr. Sam Kennedy, the author of the document agreed. We signed the signature pages with that understanding, but for some reason Mr. Kennedy decided not to change his document and sent the original. This caused a disagreement between the leadership which among other things, led to the removal of Mr. Kennedy from the group.

     The fact that Mr. Kennedy and myself were having serious difficulties can be verified in prosecutions discovery document Turner 010476, a report from the FBI. As stated, I did agree to send a declaration to the governors. The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of the people to peacefully redressed grievances. The declaration was just that redress of awful grievances.

     The prosecution made claims that this was a violation of the law but never produced a law that was violated by the sending of the declaration. The government’s presumption was based primarily by statements given by FBI agent, Thomas Hetrick. Mr. Hetrick testified at trial that he believed we violated the law by sending the declaration. He also did not state specifically any law violated. Mr. Hetrick admitted that he took an oath to uphold the United States Constitution as an agent of the FBI. He also admitted he had never read the document that he has sworn an oath to uphold. I suggest if Mr. Hetrick and many others who hold government offices would read the Constitution their ideologies and attitudes would likely change. The U.S. Constitution is still the supreme law of the land.

   Agents of the FBI and Department of Justice knew about these details in April or May 2010. They and the prosecution, knows that the sending the declaration was not a violation of the law.

     The Third Element of Count One: The third element was retaliation against officers of the IRS by placing Admiralty/Maritime liens against IRS employees.

     The liens were put in place due to the unlawful actions of the IRS employees. These IRS employees were placing Notices of Liens on the people’s property without going through the lawful protocols of due process in the U.S. District Courts.

     Upon performing a lien search in the district court, we found that no liens or judgments were recorded as is required by law. We raised the issue along with the requirements of the IRS to abide by 15 USC 1692(g) while collecting debts. These lawful and legal arguments were repeatedly ignored by the Courts and the lien process was instituted as a last resort to get lawful remedy. The liens operate pursuant to the commercial maxims and were founded on a Negative Averment Counterclaim brought in the District Court pursuant to the Saving to Suitors Clause at 28 USCA 1333. The liens follow lawful protocol of Admiralty.

     The government prosecutors and agents have not researched nor do they understand Admiralty law. They could not possibly make a lawful determination about the status of the liens pursuant to Title 28 USC 2461 – 2465; US v James Daniel Good; and 26 USCS 7233; the IRS liens must be established by lawful action in the U.S. District Court in order to establish jurisdiction over property.

     The IRS agents were filing Notice of Liens and taking property from the people without lawful liens being established. There were many more violations as well.

     The Negative Averment actions in the District Courts require the IRS to establish their lawful authority to take property with a Notice of Lien when no actual existed.

     A Negative Averment in Admiralty must be answered for the Adverse Party enters default and ultimately default judgment after three notice were sent notifying them they were in default.

     Pursuant to FRCP rule 12(a) 20 days is required to allow an answer. We allowed 21 days plus three days for mailing not including holidays. We then sent three notices of default and a Nihil Dicit which is final judgment in Admiralty. The prosecution has made claims that the liens are bogus or unlawful but have yet to produce any proof of that claim. I suggest the liens were established through lawful process and are valid. Pursuant to US Stat 92 “a Negative Averment if unanswered is taken as true.” Judgment in the Nihil Dicit is considered a lawful judgment. All that has to be proven is the party was served a negative averment and failed to answer. Black’s Law 6th edition; Benedict on Admiralty at Turner 012265 page 14; 28 USCS Rule 55: Harvard Law Review at Turner 012395. This evidence is included in discovery evidence presented by the prosecution. They had prior knowledge that the liens were lawful and correct long before an indictment was issued in this case.

       The Fourth Element of Count One: the allegations are that I told one person not to respond to an IRS Summons. Pursuant to prosecution discovery documents Turner 005943 there are multiple laws cites that states requirement for IRS Summons to be bought through the U.S. District Courts.

     I told the person in question, Felicity, Keough, that if the IRS summons was not from the court she should notify them of the requirement, unless it was from the court she was not required to obey the Summons. IRS agents do not have the power to summons, only according to law. The prosecution had this evidence in their possession long before the indictment was issued. They are making unfounded allegations without proof of claim.

     As to Counts Two through Seven: Aiding and Abetting others to utter, present, offer and attempt to pass false, fictitious and fraudulent financial instruments. This allegation is based upon the government’s claim that the instruments were false, fictitious or fraudulent. As stated above in Count One Element One the evidence clearly shows that the instruments do not meet the legal requirements to be considered false, fictitious or fraudulent. Due to this fact, how can the Aiding and Abetting of Counts Two through Seven be valid? There should be no question that these allegations are false.

       As to Count Eight: Corruptly endeavor to obstruct or impede the due administration of the IRS. Prior to sending the three IRS documents 1099 – OID, 1099A and 1096, I consulted at least three persons who claimed to be enrolled agents of the IRS who were working directly with the IRS agents in Kansas City, Phoenix and California. I saw proof of documentation that the IRS was, in fact, sending refunds. I saw several checks and talked to the people. After spending 2-3 months exploring this, I was convinced that the process was legitimate.

     I paid an enrolled agent of the IRS $600 to make sure my documents were completed properly and put them in the mail. It was explained to me by the enrolled agent of the IRS that after about 6 to 8 weeks I would have to file an IRS form 1040 to receive a refund. During the waiting period I began to hear that the IRS was recalling a few of the refunds. According to some it was because the forms were not completed properly. After considering the information I was receiving I made a conscious choice not to file the 1040 form to receive a refund. IRS agent Susan Tyson verified that it I did not file 1040 under testimony at trial. My actions not request a refund should prove that I had no intent to violate the law. The allegations of the prosecutions are unfounded and absolutely false.

       As to Count Nine: Willful failure to file income tax returns. The evidence will show that I did not file. What it was willful or not would have to consider if I am required to file or believe that I’m required to file. I have done a fair amount of research and study on this issue and truly believe I have reached a legal conclusion that I am not required to file income tax return. I will attempt to explain. The IRS bases much of this requirement filed on alleged contracts such as having bank accounts, driver’s license, residency, employment, voters registration etc. to name a few. Several years ago I learned much about the contracts and noticed that all of them were in the all capital name in the artificial corporate person. I also studied and learned to sign all documents for this artificial person that accommodation and have been doing this for many years. All of this is recorded in the records of this court.

     In my studies I learned that income tax is voluntary unless you are an employee, official, officer, agent, contractor or other such thing that is employed or a franchise of the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. See US v. Odell No.10188, 6th Circuit Court of Appeal (1947); 26 USC 6331(g); 26 CFR 301. 6331(4); see CJS – 19884 Chapter 18; Redfield v. Fisher; Treasury order 150 – 02; and many many more references. To be considered liable for the tax you must have a voluntary agreement or a W-4 form on file with the government and with your employer. See 26 CFR 31 – 3401(g)(3).

     The IRS is required to have delegations of authority publish in the Federal Register to be valid. No published delegation of authority are or can be published by the IRS. The IRS is a debt collection Corporation and is not an agency of the government. See 44 USC 1501; Public Law 94 – 564; Senate report 94 – 1148; page 5967; US Reorganization Plan No. 26; Public Law – 102 – 391. Without these required delegations of authority in the federal registry the IRS cannot legally or lawfully impose any effect on any citizen within the 50 states. See 44 USC 1501.

     All law is based on contract or presumption of a contract. The presumption of the IRS is that I am a taxpayer. I have made several attempts to send letters to the IRS asking them to show me the lawful requirements that make me responsible to file. I really want to know the answer. To date, after many attempts, I have only received threatening letters saying my arguments are frivolous I can show dozens, possibly hundreds, of cites in law that state the reasons that I am not required to file. The IRS has not produced even one of all the states I am required to file an income tax. I have made several trips to IRS offices in Tallahassee Florida, Panama City, Florida and Dothan Alabama to ask them questions. Each time I was insulted and called a “tax protester” even though, at the time, I was paying more income tax than anyone in the office was. My questions were never answered by anyone. Why is it so difficult to get a simple answer? I worked for the government for 10 years and have been in private business for the balance of my working life. I retired in 2005 and stopped filing taxes because I do not believe I’m required. I now realize the law means nothing to the IRS or apparently to the government as well. I may be right but I will be forced to file taxes or be destroyed by unlawful actions of a corporation that is acting with power but without authority. They have the badges and guns so there is a little a lawful American can do in defense of his truly held beliefs that are supported by the law. If anyone can show me my error, I will repent and gladly comply with the law. To date no one has done that although I have made many requests.

      As to Count 10: Making a false statement in a bankruptcy hearing. This charge I don’t even understand. The evidence is clear that no false statement was made. The transcript of the bankruptcy hearing clearly shows no false statement was made. The prosecutions witness, Collier Espy agreed that I made the statements that I claimed I made in court. The defense witness, Jack Mizell, also re-affirmed my statements at the hearing were accurate and true. So how, with all of this evidence and none to the contrary, could I be found guilty of something that did not even happen? The evidence clearly showed that I did not make a false statement of any kind at that hearing.


     I have tried to explain my actions to the best of my ability. I was raised to be and lived as an honorable man all of my life. To hear the prosecutors claimed that I was corrupt, dishonest, and deceitful and taking advantage of people was difficult to listen to. The distortions of the truth and outright lies stated by the prosecutors should be criminal. The evidence that was presented and the evidence that was blocked from the record by the prosecutor, GelFano, would easily prove that I am not guilty of any of these counts. If the jury would have examined the evidence presented they would have clearly seen and they would have found me not guilty of at least seven counts.

     They did not have the courtesy to read it.

     They violated the jury instructions ordered by the Court. That is without question.

     If the additional evidence would have been available I would have testified and used it to prove my innocence of the other accounts. All the proof lies within the discovery evidence provided by the prosecution. I did not have the ability to get all of it into evidence.

     I have always been a man of my word and well respected by those who know me across America. The statements I have made here are true to the best of my understanding, so help me God. I don’t take that oath lightly.

     I don’t know what the outcome here will be. It appears at this point, an innocent man may go to prison. I will be exonerated at some point. It may be when I stand in judgment before the creator, but it will come. On that day, the prosecutors will be found guilty unless they repent. I pray regularly for their souls for they think it is a game to destroy a man’s life. My sentence will end someday, but theirs will be eternal, unless they repent of their evil deeds.

     I will end here with a request that due to all of the issues raised in this affidavit the Court will grant the Motion of Judgment of Acquittal are other just actions as the court deems appropriate in this case.


                                                     James Timothy Turner

                                                     April 2, 2013

           Notarized with seal.





Should America Print its own Script and do away with taxes by all principle paid to state rather than the financial elite?

     Banks steal all principle by filing a 1099A after 90 days from final payment. Banks then enter abandoned principle as income for the Bank on their balance sheet.

     Principle paid to the state eliminates all taxes except for a 1.5% fee for the bank’s expenses of operation. All bank facilities and employees are state assets and operation.

     See Nehemiah 5:1-13, Also Ezekiel 18:13

       Why encourage bankers to violate Exodus 20:15

The following historical story is taken from a radio address given by Congressman Charles G. Binderup of Nebraska, some 50 years ago and was reprinted in Unrobing the Ghosts of Wall Street:

Colonies More Prosperous Than The Home Country

Before the American War for Independence in 1776, the colonized part of what is today the United States of America was a possession of England. It was called New England, and was made up of 13 colonies, which became the first 13 states of the great Republic. Around 1750, this New England was very prosperous. Benjamin Franklin was able to write:

“There was abundance in the Colonies, and peace was reigning on every border. It was difficult, and even impossible, to find a happier and more prosperous nation on all the surface of the globe. Comfort was prevailing in every home. The people, in general, kept the highest moral standards, and education was widely spread.”

When Benjamin Franklin went over to England to represent the interests of the Colonies, he saw a completely different situation: the working population of this country was gnawed by hunger and poverty. “The streets are covered with beggars and tramps,” he wrote. He asked his English friends how England, with all its wealth, could have so much poverty among its working classes.

His friends replied that England was a prey to a terrible condition: it had too many workers! The rich said they were already overburdened with taxes, and could not pay more to relieve the needs and poverty of this mass of workers. Several rich Englishmen of that time actually believed, along with Mathus, that wars and plague were necessary to rid the country from man-power surpluses.

Franklin’s friends then asked him how the American Colonies managed to collect enough money to support their poor houses, and how they could overcome this plague of pauperism. Franklin replied:

“We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps.”

Thanks To Free Money Issued By The Nation

His friends could not believe their ears, and even less understand this fact, since when the English poor houses and jails became too cluttered, England shipped these poor wretches and down-and- outs, like cattle, and discharged, on the quays of the Colonies, those who had survived the poverty, dirtiness and privations of the journey. At that time, England was throwing into jail those who could not pay their debts. They therefore asked Franklin how he could explain the remarkable prosperity of the New England Colonies. Franklin replied:

“That is simple. In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It is called ‘Colonial Scrip.’ We issue it in proper proportion to make the goods and pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power and we have no interest to pay to no one.”

The Bankers Impose Poverty

The information came to the knowledge of the English Bankers, and held their attention. They immediately took the necessary steps to have the British Parliament to pass a law that prohibited the Colonies from using their scrip money, and then ordered them to use only the gold and silver money that was provided in sufficient quantity by the English bankers. Then began in America the plague of debt-money, which has never since brought so many curses to the American people.

The first law was passed in 1751, and then completed by a more restrictive law in 1763. Franklin reported that one year after the implementation of this prohibition on Colonial money, the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployment and beggars, just like in England, because there was not enough money to pay for the goods and work. The circulating medium of exchange had been reduced by half.

Franklin added that this was the original cause of the American Revolution – and not the tax on tea nor the Stamp Act, as it has been taught again and again in history books. The financiers always manage to have removed from school books all that can throw light on their own schemes, and damage the glow that protects their power.

Franklin, who was one of the chief architects of the American independence, wrote it clearly:

“The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament, which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England and the Revolutionary War.”

This point of view of Franklin was confirmed by great statesmen of his era: John Adams, Jefferson, and several others. A remarkable English historian, John Twells, wrote, speaking of the money of the Colonies, the Colonial Scrip:

“It was the monetary system under which America’s Colonies flourished to such an extent that Edmund Burke was able to write about them: ‘Nothing in the history of the world resembles their progress. It was a sound and beneficial system, and its effects led to the happiness of the people.’”

John Twells adds:

“In a bad hour, the British Parliament took away from America its representative money, forbade any further issue of bills of credit, these bills ceasing to be legal tender, and ordered that all taxes should be paid in coins. Consider now the consequences: this restriction of the medium of exchange paralyzed all the industrial energies of the people. Ruin took place in these once flourishing Colonies; most rigorous distress visited every family and every business, discontent became desperation, and reached a point, to use the words of Dr. Johnson, when human nature rises up and assets its rights.”

Another writer, Peter Cooper, expresses himself along the same lines. After having said how Franklin had explained to the London Parliament the cause of the prosperity of the Colonies, he wrote:

“After Franklin gave explanations on the true cause of the prosperity of the Colonies, the Parliament exacted laws forbidding the use of this money in the payment of taxes. This decision brought so many drawbacks and so much poverty to the people that it was the main cause of the Revolution. The suppression of the Colonial money was a much more important reason for the general uprising than the Tea and Stamp Act.”

Today, in America as well as in Europe, we are under the regime of the Scrip of the Bankers instead of the scrip of the nation. Hence the public debts, everlasting interest charges, taxes that plunder purchasing power, with the only result being a consolidation of the financial dictatorship.

There is only one cure for America’s ultimate financial collapse and that is for Congress to exercise Clause 30 of the “Federal” Reserve Act, buy the outstanding shares of stock, shut down this unconstitutional system and sell off their assets to reimburse the people of this nation for this unspeakable theft of their wealth. This is the first installment of postings on this issue, new ones will be put up as soon as manpower allows.

Copyright © 1941 by Congressman Charles G. Binderup

BINDERUP, Charles Gustav, a Representative from Nebraska; born in Horsens, Denmark, March 5, 1873; when six months old immigrated to the United States with his parents, who settled on a farm near Hastings, Adams County, Nebr.; attended the county schools and Grand Island (Nebr.) Business College; engaged in agricultural pursuits near Hastings and Minden, Nebr., and also in the mercantile and creamery business at Minden, Nebr.; elected as a Democrat to the Seventy-fourth and Seventy-fifth Congresses (January 3, 1935-January 3, 1939); was an unsuccessful candidate for reelection in 1938 to the Seventy-sixth Congress and for election as an Independent in 1940 to the Seventy-seventh Congress; organized and was active in the Constitutional Money League of America in Minden, Nebr., until his death; died in Minden, Nebr., August 19, 1950; interment in Minden Cemetery.

Important Caveat

On November 11, 2007, I sent the following e-mail to Professor Farley Grubb, author of  Creating the U.S. Dollar Currency Union,1748-1811: A Quest for Monetary Stability or a Usurpation of State Sovereignty for Personal Gain?, and Benjamin Franklin and the Birth of a Paper Money Economy:

Dear Professor Grubb,

Please find attached a copy of a transcript of a radio address given by Congressman Charles G. Binderup in 1941.

He quotes several times from Benjamin Franklin and Peter Cooper, without giving citations.

When I posted this article on my blogsite, several people asked for citations.

I would like to know whether the Franklin quotes are genuine, and if so, what are the sources.

Yours sincerely

Anthony Hopkins

He replied the following  day:

Dear Anthony,

As far as the exactness of the Franklin quotes the person you should consult (the expert) is Professor J. A. Leo Lemay [// This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it "> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ] English Dept., University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. He is writing the definitive “Life of Franklin” –see his first 2 volumes.

Otherwise, to my ear the quotes seem in the spirit of Franklin but sound a bit paraphrased, even anachronistic (e.g. the reference to bankers seems out of place)…especially the latter quotes in the speech. But I could be wrong. I am not all knowledgeable about every word Franklin spoke. The best would be to check through the indexes of the standard sources on the writings of Franklin during the periods mentioned for the phrases…e.g. see THE PAPERS OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN v. 1-38; or given that the senator was speaking in 1941, one of the older compilations of Franklin’s writings such as A. H. Smyth (1907) THE WRITINGS OF BENJAMIN FRANKLIN v. 1-10. Use the indexes of these to check for key phrases.

Finally, setting the accuracy of the Franklin quotes aside, the passages in the senator’s speech are choked full of exaggerated and outright erroneous history. For example, the Currency Acts if 1751 and 1764 did not [REPEAT--DID NOT] prohibit the colonies from issuing paper money. Read the acts, and then look at what the colonies actually did. That these currency acts were the KEY spark to the revolution is highly doubtful.



Farley Grubb, Professor and NBER Research Associate
Economics Dept.
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

Following Professor Grubb’s suggestion, I e-mailed Professor LeMay, asking him if the quotes were genuine and, if so, what their sources were. Here is his reply:

Dear Anthony,

I apologize for not reading what you sent before. I had just replied to a couple Nazi propaganda efforts that resurrect commonly, and I assumed you were asking about them.

There are, however, a number of strange statements in the quotation, though it reflects some of Franklin’s opinions. Of course the American colonies were generally regarded as partly New England, partly Middle Colonies, and partly Southern colonies. All had poor houses. Philadelphia had a fairly large one. Franklin disapproved of offering charity rather than work to healthy6 people, but he was also a chief founder and first President of the Pennsylvania Hospital (the first in America), which, like almost all hospitals in the eighteenth century, was a charity hospital.

He was an advocate of paper money, and Pennsylvania’s colonial paper money was sound and therefore never prohibited, though New England’s was unsound, inflationary, and finally prohibited (reasonably, it seems to me and probably to Farley Grubb) by Parliament, because it
became nearly worthless — before being prohibited. (It had become a dodge to pay off English creditors, rather than a reasonable medium of value.)

He also did think that America was generally better off than England and that its population was growing faster than England’s. (Thomas Malthus later used Franklin’s data.) That was true because of the available land in America (which, of course, the colonists took from
the Indians) and true in the South because of available land and the slave system. Indeed, Franklin said that the Indians in America lived better than the Irish in Ireland — because the latter were oppressed by the English landlords.

As for the causes of the American Revolution, the colonists had many complaints, but the most fundamental one was taxation without representation.

There are no accurate quotations from Franklin, though sometimes his point of view is reflected in the speech, but sometimes, too, it misrepresents him.

Best wishes,


I also put the words, “scrip”, “prosperous”, “poverty”, and “English bankers” in the search box on an online version of The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, and found nothing corresponding to the purported Franklin quotes in Binderup’s address.

I also went on the online version of The Writings of Benjamin Franklin and found the following article, Causes of the American Discontents Before 1768. In it, Franklin enumerates a number of grievance, including the following:

That on a frivolous complaint of a few Virginia Merchants, nine Colonies were restrained from making paper money, though become absolutely necessary to their internal commerce, from the constant remittance of their gold and silver to Britain. — But not only the interest of a particular body of Merchants, the interest of any small body of British Tradesmen or Artificers, has been found, they say, to out-weigh that of all the King’s subjects in the Colonies.

Thus, taking away from the colonists the right to issue their own money was indeed a grievance, but it was one of many and does not appear in the Declaration of Independence.

I made this point to Professor LeMay, who replied:

Dear Anthony,

Franklin objected to the English acts denying some colonies the right to make money because the Penns used that dodge to turn down the Pennsylvania Assembly bills. The Pennsylvania Assembly charged a small interest on the paper currency it issued, and that financed the
government. Penn (ie, Thomas Penn) scorned the assembly and wanted it at his mercy, so he generally had his governors turn down paper money bills. They said that Parliament would not want them to pass such bills. (They used that dodge rather than say Thomas Penn had forbidden them to do so, and taken out a bond for five thousand pounds that they would do
what he required.) But Parliament did not object to Pennsylvania’s issuing paper money — only to those colonies who issued nearly worthless paper money.

I suspect that had Franklin been in charge of the entire paper currency (as he was, to some degree, in part of 1775 and 1776), he would not have allowed the individual colonies to issue nearly worthless mediums of exchange.

On the other hand, Parliament behaved unreasonably to America in the Stamp Act and following years, and Franklin was a better propagandist than Parliament.

All best, Leo

Hindsight 20/20


Hindsight 20/20


By Bruce Wiseman Thursday, March 19, 2009


Greenspan had been the Fed Chairman for seven years when, in 1994, a bill called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was rewritten by Congress. The new version had the purpose of providing loans to help deserving minorities afford homes. Nice thought, but the new legislation opened the door to loans that set aside certain lending criteria: little things like a down payment, enough income to service the mortgage and a good credit record.

With CRA’s facelift, we have in place two of the five elements of the perfect financial storm: Alan (Easy Money) Greenspan at the helm of the Fed and a piece of legislation that turned mortgage lenders into a division of the Salvation Army.

Perhaps you can see the pot beginning to boil here. But the real fuel to the fire was yet to come.


To understand the third element of the storm, we travel back in time to the Great Depression and the 1933 passage of a federal law called the Glass-Steagall Act. As excess speculation by banks was one of the key factors of the banking collapse of 1929, this law forbade commercial banks from underwriting (promoting and selling) stocks and bonds.

That activity was left to the purview of “Investment Banks” (names of major investment banks you might recognize include Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and the recently deceased Lehman Brothers).

Commercial banks could take deposits and make loans to people.

Investment banks underwrote (facilitated the issuing of) stocks and bonds.

To repeat, this law was put in place to prevent the banking speculation that caused the Great Depression. Among other regulations, Glass-Steagall kept commercial banks out of the securities.

Greenspan’s role in our not-so-little drama is made clear in one of his first speeches before Congress in 1987 in which he calls for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act. In other words, he’s trying to get rid of the legislation that kept a lid on banks speculating in financial markets with securities.

He continued to push for the repeal until 1999 when New York banks successfully lobbied Congress to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. Easy-Money Alan hailed the repeal as a revolution in finance.

Yeah, Baby!

A revolution was coming.

With Glass-Steagall gone, and the permissible mergers of commercial banks with investment banks, there was nothing to prevent these combined financial institutions from packaging up the subprime CRA mortgages with normal prime loans and selling them off as mortgage-backed securities through a different arm of the same financial institution. No external due diligence required.

You now have three of the five Horsemen of the Fiscal Apocalypse: Greenspan, CRA mortgages and repeal of Glass-Steagall.

That was a short time ago.

What now?

Ship American jobs overseas.

Encourage more debt and larger homes and unlimited credit card use. In three years when the jobs are lost, foreclose on real property bought with worthless printing press “bail-out money” so that the elite dictators can eat out the substance of the people.

Attire the apathetic in designer clothing. Take IN GOD WE TRUST off the paper money and in the pledge of allegiance.

There can now be no “wrath of god”. Tornado, hurricanes, volcanos, natural disasters and mass murder are all normal behavior, not manufactured crisis for enslavement. We ascended from animals. Situation ethics is to be worshiped. Who cares?

A slave culture will be complete when there arises a champion liar, Marxist leaning leader.



Jeremiah 18:7-10

King James Version (KJV)

7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.

9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.


Does the Truth Matter Anymore?

"To say that a man lieth is as much to say that he is brave towards God and a coward towards men"  Francis Bacon, On Truth, qouting Montaigne

Country Crossing was marketed to the public as a bigger and better Branson, Missouri. With great fanfare and the investment of millions of dollars its doors opened in December and were locked in January. The doors were locked because Country Crossing, unlike the family entertainment facility in Branson, was first and foremost a casino.  As the issue of the legality of the Houston County regulation purporting to authorize the licensing of “electronic bingo”continued to come up, Commission Chairman Mark Culver repeatedly assured the public the commission had "acted with due diligence." There was no due diligence.  There was only a conspiratorial collaboration to draft a regulation that had one purpose: to grant a government sanctioned monopoly to operate “electronic bingo” in Houston County.




“Let God be true and every man a liar.”
“Vengeance is mine saith the Lord. I will repay.”

The Kansas State Supreme Court has estimated that there are 62 million mortgages in America that cannot be enforced. “MERS” Mortgage Electronic Registration System was created so that its members i.e. JP Morgan, Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc. could steal $2.4 billion in courthouse filing fees. A “wet-ink signature” on a promissory note makes it a negotiable instrument according to the Uniform Commercial Code. Its creation makes legal the mortgage, which the MERS process destroys.


American Governance

View an eye-opening history of America at Jack Slevkoff provides an in-depth comparison of how our country was founded compared to its existence today. He also provides many of the turning points that changed the course from our founding father's vision along with much more "need to know" information. You will not find his presentation in our children's government school history books.

H.R. 2755 to Abolish the Federal Reserve

If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good, makes the bill good, also. The difference between the bond and the bill is the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%, where as the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way. Is it absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency? Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people.” - Thomas Edison

“Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit, and, with a flick of the pen, they will create enough money to buy it all back again. Take this power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit.” - Lord Stamp, Director of the Bank of England, 1940

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit.

We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” - Woodrow Wilson, 1919 (Referring to the Federal Reserve and the transition to a debt-based economy)

“The stock of money, prices and output was decidedly more unstable after the establishment of the Reserve System than before. The most dramatic period of instability in output was, of course, the period between the two wars, which includes the severe (monetary) contractions of 1920-21, 1929-33 and 1937-38. No other period in American history contains as many as three such severe contractions. This evidence persuades me that at least a third of the price rise during and just after World War 1 is attributable to the establishment of the Federal Reserve System… and that the severity of each of the major contractions - 1920-21, 1929-33, and 1937-38 - is directly attributable to acts of commission and omission by the Reserve Authorities… Any system which gives so much power and so much discretion to a few men, (so) that mistakes - excusable or not - can have such far reaching effects, is a bad system. It is a bad system to believers in freedom just because it gives a few men such power without any effective check by the body politic - this is the key political argument against an independent central bank…