Monday, September 17, 2007

It's a Gamble

Trial is set for October 15th, can you believe it? Ask yourself if you were the banking industry that would go to almost any length to retain their fraud, would you gamble? If you think about Mr. Alsup's role in this game he went overboard to try and hide Dorean from the public venue. That was the whole point about the sanctions and criminal referral. Now all of a sudden he's ready to give us a forum. I don't think so. If you read the trial memorandum you'll see this case is full of risk for the puppet-masters and their dirty little secret. Would you place economic retards as sentinels to protect a multi-trillion dollar fraud? Come on people these guys don't gamble. They are used to control at the highest magnitude. Now what will happen when a certain date must arrive judicially but must never arrive economically or politically? This environment is ideal for the retards to devour each other. These few weeks will be very interesting. Don't worry, we have a plan for any situation that can arise. This is where the patience of God pays off. Leopards don't change their spots its been said. Bankers don't gamble is its equivalent. I'm ready to play the cards I'm dealt as the bluff continues.

42 comments:

justice7777777 said...

near the end said...
Hey Conmanbuster; How did you get conned when everything Kurt and Scott did for you was spelled out and in writing.

You did sign the Trust did'nt you.

Also; everything was SPELLED out to the Lenders too; and it was in writing and they signed it.

Come on dude!!!! Can't wait for the trial to begin.

rear-end, you are second in command in the order of the idiots, next to moogie of course.

mogel007 said...

The US government will hit the debt ceiling of 9 trillion by Oct. 1, 2007. Congress asked to lift the ceiling ASAP so it can borrow more money & meet obligations:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/
070919/debt_limit.html?.v=3

you will know them by their fruit said...

SeanJohn1018 said...
I hope every single one of you read this post and realize how retarded all of you are.

While Kurt is living his wonderful, wealthy life probably surrounded by expensive things that he bought to make his life seem like it has value, his three children, one of them being me, Sean Travis Johnson, are living in Arizona working hard to pay their way... The legal way.
You also didn't know that when my dad got into development of his first scheme he went to jail for, he was packing away large amounts of money on a private yacht, while our family was homeless in California, living off the damaged food cans for our dinner which he would bring to us from the Pack & Save grocery store he used to work at.
The fact that he put himself and his own personal wealth before his family, is fucked up. Not to mention the fact that it isn't already extremely fucked up that he was stealing all this money from stupid, manipulatable people just like all of you who get sucked right in to the bullshit of his words.

And as for you dad, I hope you keep brainwashing these followers of yours and succeed to be as wonderful of a man as Hitler, making people believe that your screwed up ideas you come up with are actually helpful. I hope you joke about how you all think you know the law so well, how it's all fucked up, and how you all truly believe that a small group of Californians can change it by breaking the law, in an effort to show the "truth" of your ways.

You also need to stop with all of the "God's the future" crap because you don't know shit about god. God isn't some supremacist who embraces the people who worship him and gives up on who doesn't. The life you live is about you. It isn't about wasting away days of your life praying to something that we believe exists because of stories that formed thousands of years ago. For any sane human being, it is obvious that if you play the game telephone with a group of people and start with a story, it's not going to be told the same way on the other end. So how do you expect everyone from the time when the bible's stories started developing to all tell the truth, as well as, the same stories as everyone else. That right there, is assuming that it isn't human nature to exaggerate.

And even if there was a god who believed that those who stay true to him, stay true to life, or some bullshit like that, he would have told you to stay true to your family and your children in hopes to raise, healthy, smart, beautiful men and women. Mom did an exceptional job of doing that on her own though. So you shouldn't worry too much. Just keep moving along, not paying child support for the 17th year straight now.

Why do you choose to do that? Oh well it's because you love your children so dearly and would do anything to make them happy.... Like not make an effort to be a part of their lives and put the request slip for child support in the paper shredder when it showed up in the mailbox, and decide not to come down to Tucson to see us occasionally because it's too much of a pain in the butt to just follow the rules of a restraining order. My kids just aren't worth the effort or discomfort.


When this trial ends, I'll be "praying to the ol' mighty god" that you sit in a 9' by 9' cell, thinking about how all three of your kids, me, Shannon, and Ethan would enjoy seeing you get strapped up to the fryer seat and watch your flesh crisp up like breaded chicken. I hope you also sit in your cell thinking about how many lives you fucked up, while trying to convince everyone that you believed in honor, integrity, truth, and all that other manipulative sac of shit you say you're about.


And while you're doing that, I'll adopt your religious studies for a quick moment to hope one thing is true in the Christian beliefs. And that is hoping that there truly is hell, so that I can be assured that you'll fall to the deepest of depths, eternally burning in the afterlife as payment for all the twisted things you have done to better yourself while hurting others.




Sincerely,
Sean Travis Johnson

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sean,

It is important that you understand that your father does not represent anything close to a "Christlike" person. You, more than anyone else on this board, know the fruit that your father has produced. But DO NOT take the hurt you have endured at the hands of your father and apply it to God. He (God) is our refuge when we come across people so willingly consumed by evil. He (God) offers a peace of mind that is beyond description.

While your father has currently sold his eternity for money do not let him rob you of a great gift. For all that he has done to harm you, you must not let him do the most damaging thing-destroy your relationship with a caring and loving God.

Don't let him take that from you too!

God warned us about people like your father. He knows the great harm they can create.

May God bless you Sean. And may God bless your father.

mogel007 said...

SOP said: "because as God can destroy the devil any time that He wants to, but chooses NOT to at this particular time."
__________________________________

The Devil & evil have been around for a very long time, evil probably is even co-existant with God from the very beginning, if there is even a beginning. Any scriptural evidence that (1) God can destroy Satan, & (2) That this is even in God's will or desire to do so? When I say destroy, I mean complete extinction of his personality where he ceases to exist.

If the Devil fulfills God's will, why would there be a need to destroy Satan ever?

sopsback said...

If the Devil fulfills God's will, why would there be a need to destroy Satan ever?

becsue god uses evil for good as well.

rember, its god here, to Him, there IS good and evil.

to us, its jsut doing/not doing gods will.

we are not capable of judging. god IS.




also, remver the verse Rom 8:28


"all things must work toghter for good...."



this implies both good and evil, as lest as WE are able to judge good and evil.


it doesnt say just good things work for good does it?

sopsback said...

"becsue god uses evil for good as well."


you are well versed in the story of joseph, correct.

there is a good exmaple of evil being used for ultimate good.

sopsback said...

and all i know is this; as time marches on and becasue of the times we live in, ALL INCORRECT INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE WILL GET WHITTLED AWAY LITTLE BY LITTLE.



meaning if I or anyone else has a false interpretatiin of certain verses, these will get corrected in a hurry as events on earth unfold; ie., forclosure, homelessnes, job loss, possible penesion losses, stcok market crash, depressiion, WWIII, etc., etc.


these will thru suffering erase all false beleifs and replace them with true ones.


when you suffering, or starving or homless, believe me, yo find the truth of god in a HURRY!!!!

mogel007 said...

Fruity said: "While your father has currently SOLD HIS ETERNITY for money do not let him rob you of a great gift."
_________________________________

Wait a second! "Sold his eternity"????? Fruit, are you telling me that people can't repent, people can't change, fathers can't mend relationships, and that you know EXACTLY WHEN SOMEONE IS DAMNED BEYOND ALL POSSIBILITY OF REDEMPTION?????? How ARROGANT is that?

That's got to be the most presumptous & POMPOUS post you've ever made? Congratulations you've even outdone yourself. This is even a new low for you!!!!!

The next thing you'll probably be suggesting is totally throwing out the need for the atonement of Christ.

After all, according to you, the atonment of Christ has no effect or redeeming grace upon Kurt EVER IN THE FUTURE OR EVEN NOW & hasn't helped him in the past either, according to you, since you say, he represents nothing close to a Christlike person.

How ironic is that you close your post with "may God bless your father". How have you EVER BLESSED KURT yourself? If he's sold his eternity, there isn't any blessing possible.

Can't you make up your mind what you truly believe?

"Consumed by evil"--- "Doesn't represent ANYTHING CLOSE to a Christlike person".

Tell me does a Christlike person SHED TEARS after not knowing if they made the right choice or not in certain matters concerning children? Do sincere tears represent penance & something a Christlike person would show which is remorse or the idea that maybe one could have done better than one did in parenting matters? A person with "no conscience" would not shed sincere tears. Maybe you missed that in Dr. Fred's letter. You need to re-read his letter again. You lack reading comprehension abilities.

Fruit, who made you Judge of Kurt? Do you know his innermost thoughts, desires, and intents of his heart? He hasn't even been ajudicated guilty yet of any fraud, ALTHOUGH YOU'VE PASSED SENTENCE ALREADY.

Don't you ever shut up or ever stop judging? LOL

mogel007 said...

"IF you do not beleive so, then the god of whom you beleive IS NOT omnipotent."
__________________________________

I believe God's omnipotence is had through obedience to eternal & divine laws. I'm not so sure there is a law that allows the destruction of a Spirit being, that's why I asked the question.

God certainly can't sin, certainly can't be unjust, certainly can't break a promise. His omnipotence comes through knowing all things and being able to manipulate all laws to his benefit & will.

Does God need to prove his omnipotence through destruction? You pointed out that evil & Satan follows the will of God, hence you've given no purpose for the destruction of evil.

If it was in God's plans to destroy Satan literally, or even in the future, don't you think he would have done it a long time ago? And since he hasn't, the question arises, why?

sopsback said...

f it was in God's plans to destroy Satan literally, or even in the future, don't you think he would have done it a long time ago? And since he hasn't, the question arises, why?



becaseu it is evil taht brings destruction to other evil on earth.


bigger fish (evil) eating the smaller fish (lesser evil)




larger evil countries destroy smaller evil countries.


larger evil people destroy lesser evil people.

good cannot and is incapable of destroying evil on this earth.

thus the saying, what goes around comes around.

you let an evil person do what he wants becsue you know insticnvely, taht he will "get his"

what you dont know, but apply anyway, is that a greater evil will consume this lesser evil.

the "tough guy" on the block is eventually taken down by a tougher guy on the block; not by the meek.

let the evils cancel each other out.

mogel007 said...

"the second time tho, yeshua destroys him completely."
___________________________________

Again, where is the scriptural evidence of that which makes it perfectly clear Satan ceases to exist.

sopsback said...

ok, semantics are needed here.


satan is cast into the lake of fire to be tromented forever and ever.


technially, maybe he is not destroyed, but to the elect he is virtually destroyed.

teh elect will never have contact with him again.

for all intents and pruposes, is satan destroyed, i will let you call that one, as its really not important to the elect.


will god allow him to go bring evil to antoehr planet/universe/galaxy

we can ask yeshua that question when we see HIM.

sopsback said...

good cannot and is incapable of destroying evil on this earth.


without becoming evil themselves.



examle: even tho you may come into you house someday, you see somenone raping you wife, yo grab a gun and kill the rapist.

you have just become a greater evil, whetehr you realize it or not.

you have now destroyed and brought earthly judgement to a lesser evil.

yeshua did not allow us to judge individuals; taht is His job.


"he who lives by the sword, shall perish by it."

sopsback said...

by the way, i would be curious to no who the DC Law frim is taht the uraniums have hired?



maybe the dg can hire them too!

after all, if hock-meds hock-my-gin-and-jam can hire them, then they must be good!

G-FORCE said...

--Ps. 42 "Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the Lord DELIVERS him in time of trouble. The Lord will protect him and preserve his life; he will BLESS him in the land and NOT SURRENDER him to the desire of his enemies." vs 11"I know that you are pleased with me, for my enemy does NOT triumph over me." The truth of present circumstances is ALWAYS overuled by the Truth of the Word of God when we put our faith in Him, as you do. We may have setbacks, but the game is NEVER over until we WIN!

conmanbuster4 said...

Page 670
16 F.3d 670
39 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) P 76,622, 1994 Fed.App. 32P
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Alex G. MERKLINGER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 93-5362.
United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.
Argued Dec. 10, 1993.
Decided Feb. 3, 1994.

Page 671
        Dan Newsom, Asst. U.S. Atty. (briefed), Jennifer L. Webber (argued), Office of the U.S. Atty., Memphis, TN, and Daniel A. Clancy, Asst. U.S. Atty., Office of the U.S. Atty., Jackson, TN, for plaintiff-appellee.
        Patrick F. Martin (briefed) and Rayna Hardee Bomar (argued), Hardee & Martin, Jackson, TN, for defendant-appellant.
        Before: JONES, Circuit Judge; BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge; and WEBER, District Judge. *
        NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge.
        Defendant-Appellant Alex G. Merklinger appeals his conviction on seven counts of various acts of fraud and false statements. We find that the trial court erred in construing the statute that was at issue in one count, and that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction on several other counts. However, we affirm the jury verdict on the remaining counts. This disposition does not affect Merklinger's sentence, and so we remand only in order for the lower court to revise its Entry of Judgment in accordance with this decision.
I. Facts
        At the outset, a brief description of bonding requirements for bidding on government projects is in order. A contractor submitting a bid on a government project is usually required to post a performance bond, which guarantees that the work will be completed at the bid price. Similarly, once a contract has been awarded, the contractor is usually required to post a payment bond, which

Page 672
guarantees that all bills for labor, materials, and equipment will be paid. These bonds are issued by a surety in return for a percentage fee. Because the surety fee is included as part of the contractor's bid, the surety fee is actually paid by the government.
        In this case, according to two written statements signed by Defendant: (1) between September 1987 and April 1988, Defendant signed approximately one hundred "Affidavit of Individual Surety" forms that contained fraudulent asset figures that vastly inflated Defendant's net worth, for the purpose of inducing various government agencies to accept him as surety on government contracts; and (2) on January 4, 1989, knowing that he lacked any ability to pay $2 million, Defendant signed a letter of credit for $2 million, addressed to the officer in charge of construction at the Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, for the purpose of qualifying as a surety on a government funded project.
        Defendant was indicted in February 1992, on eight counts. Counts 1, 3, 5, and 6 charged Defendant with mail fraud and aiding and abetting mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1341, 2. Counts 2 and 4 charged him with wire fraud and aiding and abetting wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1343, 2. Count 7 charged him with making false statements, and aiding and abetting the making of false statements, to an agency of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1001, 2. Count 8 charged him with falsely making guarantee, and aiding and abetting the false making of guarantee, pertaining to bond to an officer of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 494, 2.
        Trial was held in December 1992. The evidence indicated that Defendant attempted to become surety for several projects, and succeeded at becoming surety for at least one project. 1 Defendant testified that, although he signed the two incriminating written statements, they were not true. The jury found Defendant guilty on all counts. The trial court found that the offense charged in Count 7 was a lesser included offense of that charged in Count 8, so it acquitted Defendant of Count 7. The court sentenced Defendant to 37 months on each of the remaining counts, to run concurrently, and to be followed by three years of supervised release, and fined him $6,000. This appeal followed.
II. Discussion
A.
        Defendant asked the trial court to instruct the jury that forgery was an element of Sec. 494, and the court declined to do so. Defendant contends on appeal that this was an error, and that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 494, the statute that gave rise to Count 8, requires an element of forgery. 2 The question presented

Page 673
is one of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. United States v. Brown, 915 F.2d 219, 223 (6th Cir.1990) ("A district court engages in statutory construction as a matter of law, and we review its conclusions de novo."). We agree with Defendant that Sec. 494 requires an element of forgery, and that the trial court erred as a matter of law.
        Section 494 criminalizes the acts of false making, altering, forging, or counterfeiting for the purpose of defrauding the United States. In the present case, no one accuses Defendant of altering, forging, or counterfeiting. Rather, in oral argument, the prosecutor suggested that Defendant's false statements to the government fall within the scope of the term, "falsely makes," as used in Sec. 494. However, the government's implication--that the term, "falsely makes," applies to false statements in a genuinely executed document--betrays a misunderstanding of the historic use of this term. At English common law, the term, "false making," was used as an elucidation of the concept of forgery, and the two terms have been substantially synonymous for centuries. See, e.g., 2 East, Pleas of the Crown, 852 (1803) ("Forgery at common law denotes a false making"); 1 Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown, c. 70, Sec. 2, at 182-83 (1762); 4 Blackstone, Commentaries 247-48 (Christian ed. 1809). See generally Gilbert v. United States, 370 U.S. 650, 655-57, 82 S.Ct. 1399, 1402-03, 8 L.Ed.2d 750 (1962) (explaining English common law understanding of "forgery"); Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103, 121-26, 111 S.Ct. 461, 472-74, 112 L.Ed.2d 449 (1990) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (reviewing the use of the term, "falsely made," in law dictionaries, statutes, caselaw, and scholarly commentaries, all of which establish that the term is an essential element of forgery, and does not embrace false contents of a genuinely executed document). The Gilbert Court noted that federal courts have tended to follow the English common law understanding of forgery when construing the word "forge" under federal statutes. 370 U.S. at 658, 82 S.Ct. at 1403-04. As stated in United States v. Wentworth, 11 F. 52, 55 (D.N.H.1882):
To falsely make an affidavit is one thing; to make a false affidavit is another. A person may falsely make an affidavit, every sentence of which may be true in fact. Or he may make an affidavit, every sentence of which shall be false. It is the "false making" which the statute makes an offence, and this is forgery as described in all the elementary books.
        See also Greathouse v. United States, 170 F.2d 512, 514 (4th Cir.1948) ("The words, 'falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited' in the collocation in which they appeared are ejusdem generis and are usually employed to denounce the crime of forgery. Indeed it may be said that when used in an association of this kind the words 'falsely made' and 'forged' are substantially synonymous.").
        Once one understands that the term "falsely makes" is synonymous with forgery, it becomes clear that there is no language in Sec. 494 that applies to false statements in a genuinely executed document. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Starr v. Mulligan, 59 F.2d 200, 202 (2d Cir.1932) (stating that in all of the cases construing former 18 U.S.C. Sec. 72, the predecessor to Sec. 494, "the fraud was perpetrated by means of forgery. We think it clear that [Sec. 72] must be so limited."); compare Sec. 494 (criminalizing the act of falsely making statements in order to defraud the United States) with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 (criminalizing the act of making false statements to the United States). 3 But see Moskal, 498 U.S. at 106-18, 111 S.Ct. at 464-

Page 674
70 (holding that, as used in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2314, the term "falsely made" applies to genuinely executed securities containing false or incorrect information). 4
        The parties in the present case did not discuss the traditional distinction between falsely making a statement, and making a false statement, and they apparently overlooked Mulligan. Instead, Defendant relied on United States v. Wright, 704 F.Supp. 613, 614 (D.Md.1989), which held that Sec. 494 is not applicable to documents that were not forged. The government cited to another district court case, United States v. Gowdy, 37 F. 332 (E.D.S.C.1889), which came to the opposite conclusion. Rather than choosing between two contradictory district court cases, the trial court in the present case decided instead to rely on United States v. Staats, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 41, 12 L.Ed. 979 (1850).
        In Staats, the Supreme Court construed a predecessor statute to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495, which contained much, but not all, of the language used in Sec. 494 and its predecessors. 5 The

Page 675
Court held that "[t]he instruments referred to in the first part of the section, the false making or forging of which, with the intent stated, is made an offence, probably are forged instruments in a strict technical sense." Id. (8 How.) at 46. However, the Court reasoned that the third clause of the statute--the one pertaining to "transmission or presentation of deeds or other writings to an officer of the government"--had a much broader scope:
The deeds and other writings mentioned are not connected with those in the preceding paragraph, as would have been natural, and almost of course, if intended to describe similar instruments.... The clause, therefore, may well be regarded as providing for a distinct and independent offence,--one essential to the protection of the government against fraudulent claims.
        Id. (8 How.) at 47. Thus, the third clause of the statute applied to genuine instruments containing false statements, as well as to forged instruments.
        The Supreme Court revisited this language in United States v. Davis, 231 U.S. 183, 188, 34 S.Ct. 112, 112-13, 58 L.Ed. 177 (1913), 6 reaching the same result:
Coming to the text of the third paragraph, we think it is at once apparent that its provisions are so comprehensive as to prevent us from holding that they include only documents which are forged or counterfeited and hence exclude all other documents, however fraudulent they may be.... The context of the section reinforces this view, since the contrast between the narrow scope of the first two paragraphs and the enlarged grasp of the third shows the legislative intent, after fully providing in the first two paragraphs for forged and counterfeited documents, instruments, etc., to reach by the provisions of the third paragraph, any and all fraudulent documents, whether forged or not forged.
        In Mulligan, 59 F.2d at 201, the Second Circuit also had occasion to construe the predecessor to Sec. 495. 7 The indictment alleged that the relator violated the statute when, with fraudulent intent, he "uttered and published" false statements to the Civil Service Commission. Id. The indictment did not allege any act of forgery. Id. Relying on Staats and Davis, the court pointed out that:
It has been authoritatively established that the first clause is limited to the false making, that is, the forging, of writings, while the third clause includes not only forgeries, but also writings genuine in execution but false in statements of fact they contain.

Page 676
        Id. The court found, however, that the only clause of the statute that was at issue was the second clause. Id. The court held that the second clause, like the first, applied only to forgery:
But, to bring the relator's conduct within the denunciation of clause 2, that clause must be given an interpretation as broad as that of clause 3 in respect to the false writings enumerated in each. To do this necessitates disregarding the word "such," inserted in the second and omitted in the third clause. The presence of "such" limits the scope of the second clause to such writings as are described in clause 1.
        Id.
        According to the trial court in the present case, the statute at issue in Staats "contained language virtually identical to that in Sec. 494 and its predecessors." J.A. at 25. This statement is incorrect, and the difference in language between the statute construed in Staats, Davis, and Mulligan, and Sec. 494 is of key importance to the present issue. Unlike the predecessors to Sec. 495 that were discussed in Staats, Davis, and Mulligan, the third clause to Sec. 494 and its predecessors has always included the word "such": "Whoever transmits to, or presents at any office or to any officer of the United States, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing...." 8 As per Mulligan, the presence of the word "such" in both the second and third clauses of Sec. 494 "limits the scope of the [clauses] to such writings as are described in clause 1." 59 F.2d at 201. Accordingly, as per Staats, Davis, and Mulligan, these writings only include forged, altered, or counterfeited documents.
        Therefore, the Supreme Court's holding in Staats--that the third clause of the predecessor to Sec. 495 applies to genuinely executed documents containing false statements as well as to forged documents--is not applicable to Sec. 494 or its predecessors. 9 It follows that the trial court erred by applying this aspect of Staats to the present case. 10
B.
        Because Defendant was not accused of forgery, but only of making false statements in documents that Defendant genuinely executed, 11 Count 8, which charged that Defendant violated Sec. 494, should have been dismissed. However, the trial court made a second error in construing Sec. 494, and it happens that the second error repaired whatever damage was caused by the court's first error. This is a situation in which two wrongs did indeed make a right. Even though neither party raises this error as an issue on appeal, we address it sua sponte.
        The jury found Defendant guilty on all counts, including Count 7, which charged Defendant with violating Sec. 1001. The trial court dismissed Count 7, however, holding that Sec. 1001 was a lesser included offense of Sec. 494:
The Sec. 1001 offense requires: 1) a false statement or writing, 2) knowledge of the statement or writing's falsity, and 3) that the false statement or writing regard a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States. The

Page 677
relevant paragraph of Sec. 494 requires: 1) a false writing, 2) knowledge of the writing's falsity, and 3) presentation of the false writing to an office or officer of the United States.... Therefore, as Sec. 1001 requires proof of no fact that is not also required by Sec. 494, it constitutes a lesser included offense of Sec. 494.
        J.A. at 27. However, as discussed in the preceding section, the trial court misstated the elements of Sec. 494. Section 494 applies only to forged, altered, or counterfeited documents, regardless of whether the statements therein are true or false, while Sec. 1001 applies to false statements, regardless of whether the statements are made in a forged or genuinely executed document. The two offenses are, then, entirely separate, and the trial court erred by dismissing Count 7.
        Therefore, the trial court should have dismissed Count 8 and not Count 7. The trial court applied Sentencing Guideline Sec. 2F1.1 in calculating Defendant's sentence for Count 8. See United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, Appendix A (directing courts to apply Sec. 2F1.1 to violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 494). This is precisely the guideline that the court should have applied to violations of Sec. 1001. See Appendix A. This guideline "is designed to apply to a wide variety of fraud cases." U.S.S.G. Sec. 2F1.1, comment (background).
        It follows that Defendant's sentence on Count 8--37 months followed by three years of supervised release--would have been just as appropriate as a sentence for Count 7 had the trial court not erred regarding Sec. 494 at all. Therefore, although we remand for revision of the Entry of Judgment, we find no need to remand for resentencing.
C.
        The trial court granted the government's motion in limine preventing Defendant from introducing evidence to show that he had previously been acquitted of similar charges in a prior case. Defendant contends that he had made admissions to investigators because he was despondent, and that the previous acquittal was relevant to his state of mind. The court ruled that Defendant could present evidence that he had been through previous criminal litigation, but could not mention the verdict, holding that there was no logical connection between the favorable verdict and Defendant's alleged despondency. The court also found that evidence of the favorable verdict could confuse the jury.
        "The exclusion of evidence on the grounds of relevancy is within the discretion of the district court," and a reviewing court will reverse only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Williams, 952 F.2d 1504, 1519 (6th Cir.1991). We find ample basis for the trial court's ruling on this issue, and so find no abuse of discretion.
D.
        Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict. According to United States v. Blakeney, 942 F.2d 1001, 1010 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 881, 116 L.Ed.2d 785 (1992):
The relevant inquiry when reviewing claims of insufficient evidence is "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are accorded the same weight and "the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may support a conviction under federal law." United States v. Frost, 914 F.2d 756, 762 (6th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Gallo, 763 F.2d 1504, 1518 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017, 106 S.Ct. 1200, 89 L.Ed.2d 314 (1986). Therefore, we will reverse a judgment for insufficiency of evidence only if, viewing the record as a whole, the judgment is not supported by substantial and competent evidence. [United States v.] Ellzey, 874 F.2d [324,] 328 [ (6th Cir.1989) ].
        Defendant offers five arguments in support of his claim that the evidence against him was insufficient. The first of these arguments is that the evidence was insufficient as to Count 8 because there was no proof of forgery; we have already explained why we

Page 678
agree. As for the four remaining arguments, one has merit, and so we set aside Defendant's convictions on four of the eight counts, (including Count 8).
1.
        Defendant argues that the evidence failed to show that the alleged victims of mail and wire fraud relied on the mailings and wire transmissions that were the subject of Counts 1-4 and 6. Apparently, the government does not disagree that it did not prove reliance; the issue is whether such reliance is indeed an element of mail and wire fraud.
        To support a conviction for mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341, 12 the government must prove: (1) the existence of a scheme to defraud, (2) which involves the use of the mail, or of wire transmissions, (3) for the purpose of executing the scheme. United States v. Castile, 795 F.2d 1273, 1277-78 (6th Cir.1986). To support a conviction for wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343, 13 the government must prove: (1) the existence of a scheme to defraud, (2) use of wire communications in furtherance of the scheme, and (3) that the scheme was intended to deprive a victim of money and property. United States v. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d 232, 234 (6th Cir.1990).
        Reliance is not an element of either of these types of fraud. Indeed, Defendant expressly recognizes that the mail and wire fraud statutes do not require proof that the intended victim was actually defrauded; the actual success of a scheme to defraud is not an element of either Sec. 1341 or Sec. 1343. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d at 235; United States v. Hathaway, 798 F.2d 902, 912 (6th Cir.1986); United States v. Goodpastor, 769 F.2d 374, 378-79 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 983, 106 S.Ct. 391, 88 L.Ed.2d 343 (1985). This implies that reliance is not an element of mail or wire fraud.
        The authorities cited by Defendant in support of his claim to the contrary are cases in which a private plaintiff alleged mail fraud in a civil suit; while it is true that such plaintiffs must prove reliance in order to recover damages, it does not follow that the government must prove reliance in order to convict a mail fraud defendant. Thus, Defendant's argument is without merit.
2.
        Next, Defendant argues that the government failed to present any evidence that the mail and wire transmissions underlying Counts 1, 3, 4, and 6 were used to further Defendant's scheme to defraud. Rather, he contends, the purpose of the mailings and transmissions, far from promoting the scheme, positively conflicted with it by making it easier to detect. We agree with Defendant regarding Counts 1, 3, and 6, but not with regard to Count 4.

Page 679
        Defendant relies on Castile, 795 F.2d at 1278-81. In Castile, the defendant schemed to burn down his restaurant in order to collect insurance proceeds. The government argued that the defendant's conduct caused the insurance company to mail inquiries to the defendant, which formed the basis for several counts of mail fraud against defendant. The court acknowledged that the government proved the first two elements of mail fraud, namely that defendant did scheme to defraud the insurance company, and that his conduct did cause the insurance company to use the mail. Id. at 1278 (quoting Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8-9, 74 S.Ct. 358, 363, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954) (holding that one "causes" mail to be used where one "does an act with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended.")). However, the court held that the government had not proven the third element, that the uses of the mail by the insurance company were "for the purpose of executing the scheme." Id. The mailings furthered the company's investigation, rather than furthering the defendant's scheme; they were an attempt to procure evidence that would tend to defeat the fraudulent scheme, and so conflicted with the defendant's purpose. Id. at 1279-80. Therefore, the court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for mail fraud. Id. at 1281.
        In the present case, the mailing that formed the basis of Count 1 was a letter from a government official, Navy Contracts Specialist Jane Nishiguchi, requesting more information to aid her in determining whether Defendant qualified as a surety. The wire communication that formed the basis of Count 2 was Defendant's response. The mailing that formed the basis of Count 3 was Nishiguchi's request for more information and for an extension of time to make her determination on Defendant's qualifications. The wire communication that formed the basis of Count 4 was Defendant's granting Nishiguchi's request for an extension of time. The mailing that formed the basis of Count 6 was a letter from Charles Beckner, a co-owner of one of the contractors for which Defendant was attempting to serve as surety, requesting additional information about Defendant from a third party insurance company.
        The two mailings from Nishiguchi were clearly in furtherance of the government's investigation in order to defeat any fraudulent scheme, and so were in conflict with Defendant's scheme. Similarly, the letter from Beckner was part of an investigation of Defendant, and was not in furtherance of Defendant's scheme. That is, these three mailings were no different than the insurance company's mailings in Castile. As per Castile, then, these three mailings cannot properly be used as a basis for charges of mail fraud. Therefore, Defendant's conviction on Counts 1, 3, and 6 must be set aside.
        On the other hand, the two wire transmissions from Defendant to Nishiguchi clearly were in furtherance of Defendant's scheme. Defendant argues that granting the request for an extension furthered the government's investigation. That may be true, but it also kept Defendant's scheme alive insofar as denying the request would probably have resulted in Defendant's being rejected as a surety. Therefore, we affirm Defendant's conviction on Count 4.
        Setting aside Defendant's conviction on three counts does not affect Defendant's sentence. The trial court sentenced Defendant to the same sentence for each of the seven counts on which he was convicted, each sentence to run concurrently. Thus the sentence would remain unchanged even if the panel were to affirm Defendant's conviction on only one count.
3.
        Defendant contends that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant had the requisite intent to deceive. Defendant's claims that he misstated his net worth in his Affidavit of Individual Surety forms inadvertently, that he was merely negligent. It is clear, however, that the jury did not believe Defendant's testimony in this regard, and there was ample evidence presented from which a rational jury could infer fraudulent intent, not the

Page 680
least of which were Defendant's own written statements admitting fraudulent intent. This contention is without merit.
4.
        Finally, Defendant contends that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Beckner actually mailed the letter that formed the basis of Count 6. Because we are setting aside Defendant's conviction for Count 6 on other grounds, this issue is moot. However, even if it were not moot, the contention is meritless. Defendant focuses on the fact that one of the witnesses was not certain whether he received the letter via fax or via mail. Defendant disregards, however, Beckner's own testimony, in which he expresses no doubt that the letter was mailed.
III. Conclusion
        For the foregoing reasons, we set aside Defendant's convictions on Counts 1, 3, 6, and 8, reverse the district court's ruling on Counts 7 and 8, affirm the jury's verdict on Counts 2, 4, 5, and 7, and remand in order for the district court to revise its Entry of Judgment accordingly. Defendant's sentence remains unchanged.
---------------
* The Honorable Herman J. Weber, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
1 There were at least four projects for which Defendant attempted to serve as surety: (1) the Pelham Line Rehabilitation Project for the New York City Transit Authority, with contractor American Bridge Company; (2) the Mississippi River Dredging Project for the Army Corps of Engineers, with contractor Bean Dredging; (3) the Johnson Island Project for the United States Navy, with contractor Cascade Leasing; and (4) the Glenville Illinois project, also for the Navy, with contractor Pyramid Industries of Riverdale. Defendant was successful in this last project, and in October 1987, Pyramid Industries defaulted. Defendant then became responsible for completing the project. Various lawsuits were filed against Defendant and his wife, who declared bankruptcy in June 1990. Their total unencumbered assets were worth about $13,000. Unsecured creditors had claims totaling $5,720,665, apparently relating to the Pyramid default.
The indictment alleges that, between May 1987 and June 1989, Defendant was approved as surety on more than fourteen government contracts having a value of more than $39,000,000, generating fees of more than $885,000. Apparently, this was not proved at trial and is not re-alleged in the briefs on appeal.
2 Section 494 provides:
Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any bond, bid, proposal, contract, guarantee, security, official bond, public record, affidavit, or other writing for the purpose of defrauding the United States; or
Whoever utters or publishes as true or possesses with intent to utter or publish as true, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited; or
Whoever transmits to, or presents at any office or to any officer of the United States, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited--
Shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
The original version of Sec. 494 was passed in 1866, and a substantially identical version was passed in 1872. These two acts were codified at U.S.Rev.Stat. Secs. 5418 and 5479 respectively. In 1909, the two statutes were recodified as a single statute at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 72. The statute took its present form in 1948, when it was revised slightly, and recodified at Sec. 494.
3 Section 1001 provides:
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
4 In Moskal, the Court held that, were it to limit its interpretation of the term "falsely made," as used in Sec. 2314, to exclude genuinely executed documents that are false only in content, it would "not accord with Congress' broad purpose in enacting Sec. 2314--namely, to criminalize trafficking in fraudulent securities that exploits interstate commerce." 498 U.S. at 117, 111 S.Ct. at 470. Finding that it was more important to realize "Congress' general purpose" in enacting Sec. 2314 than it was to apply the common law meaning of the statute's terms, the Court declined to interpret the term, "falsely made," as it is used in Sec. 2314, in the way that it was usually interpreted at common law. Id.
This reasoning is inapplicable to Sec. 494 in the present case. Congress explicitly criminalized the act of making false statements to the United States in a genuinely executed document in an entirely separate statute. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 (quoted in note 3, supra). Thus, no overriding Congressional purpose would be served by interpreting the term "falsely makes," as it is used in Sec. 494, in a manner that departs from its common law meaning.
The Moskal Court also found that three lower courts had previously held that the term, "falsely made," applied to genuinely executed documents containing false statements. Id. 498 U.S. at 115, 111 S.Ct. at 469 (citing United States v. Hartman, 65 F. 490 (E.D.Mo.1894); State v. Shurtliff, 18 Me. 368 (1841); and In re Count de Toulouse Lautrec, 102 F. 878 (7th Cir.1900)). From this, the Court concluded that the term was ambiguous at common law. Id. The Court recognized, however, that most courts have interpreted the term to exclude documents that were false only in content. Id. The dissent in Moskal explained that of these three cases, only Hartman actually discussed falsity of content; the other two involved only documents that were not genuinely executed. Id. 498 U.S. at 128-29, 111 S.Ct. at 476 (Scalia, J., dissenting). It pointed out that the Gilbert Court specifically rejected the few scattered cases like Hartman that have applied the term "falsely made," to genuinely

Page 680
executed documents containing false statements. Id. (citing 370 U.S. at 658, 82 S.Ct. at 1404). See also United States v. Davis, 231 U.S. 183, 189, 34 S.Ct. 112, 113, 58 L.Ed. 177 (1913) (interpreting "falsely makes," as used in predecessor statute to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495, to be synonymous with forgery); United States v. Staats, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 41, 46, 12 L.Ed. 979 (1850) (same). (It is worth noting that Sec. 494 more closely resembles Sec. 495 than it does Sec. 2314).
In light of Gilbert, Davis, and Staats, as well as the overwhelming majority of cases and commentators that have held or assumed that "false making" is substantially synonymous with forgery, we believe that Moskal's understanding of the application of the term, "falsely made," as used in Sec. 2314, is not applicable to other statutes, such as Secs. 494 or 495, where departing from the term's common law meaning would not serve any overriding Congressional purpose. If we were to interpret Moskal more broadly than this, we would have to regard Moskal as implicitly overruling Gilbert, Davis, and Staats, which presumably is something that the Moskal Court did not intend to do.
5 The statute at issue in Staats provided:
That if any person or persons shall falsely make, alter, forge, or counterfeit; or cause or procure to be falsely made, altered, forged, or counterfeited; or willingly aid or assist in the false making, altering, forging, or counterfeiting, any deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, or other writing, for the purpose of obtaining or receiving, or of enabling any other person or persons, either directly or indirectly, to obtain or receive, from the United States, or any of their officers or agents any sum or sums of money;
or shall utter or publish as true, or cause to be uttered or published as true, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, or other writing as aforesaid, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited;
or shall transmit to, or present at, or cause or procure to be transmitted to, or presented at, any office or officer of the government of the United States, any deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, or other writing, in support of, or in relation to, any account or claim, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited;
every such person shall be deemed and adjudged guilty of felony, and being thereof duly convicted, shall be sentenced to be imprisoned and kept at hard labor for a period not less than one year, nor more than ten years; or shall be imprisoned not exceeding five years, and fined not exceeding one thousand dollars.
49 U.S. (8 How.) at 41-42 (quoting the Act of March 3d, 1823, 3 Stat. at L., 771, 772) (numerals and paragraph divisions added). Originally, this Act was codified as U.S.Rev.Stat. Sec. 5421. In 1909, it was recodified as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 73. It was slightly revised when it took its current form, as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495, in 1948.
In United States v. Gowdy, 37 F. 332 (E.D.S.C.1889), the court purported to apply the holding of Staats to Sec. 5479, a predecessor statute to Sec. 494, the statute at issue in the present case. However, the Gowdy court was under the misapprehension that Staats involved the very same statute, the Act of March 3d, 1823. The fact is, Gowdy involved the Act of June 8, 1872, a different statute altogether. As discussed below, the holding of Staats is inapplicable to Sec. 494 and its predecessors.
6 Apparently, the trial court and the parties in the present case missed Davis entirely. The court incorrectly stated that Staats "is the only decision of the Supreme Court interpreting the language contained in 18 U.S.C. Secs. 494 & 495." J.A. at 26. As in Staats, the Davis Court was primarily concerned with construing U.S.Rev.Stat. Sec. 5421, the predecessor to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495, but the Court also mentioned U.S.Rev.Stat. Sec. 5479, which was a predecessor to Sec. 494, the statute at issue in the present case. The trial court in Davis treated Secs. 5421 and 5479 "as embracing only documents which were forged and counterfeited," and not documents that "were merely false and fraudulent, but not forged." 231 U.S. at 187, 34 S.Ct. at 112. The government conceded that the trial court was correct regarding Sec. 5479. Id. Thus, the only issue before the Supreme Court was the trial court's construction of Sec. 5421.
7 As of 1909, this statute was codified as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 73. See supra note 5.
8 (Emphasis added). This explains why, in Davis and Mulligan, the predecessor statutes to Sec. 494 were treated differently than the predecessors to Sec. 495.
9 Interestingly, as of 1948, this holding was no longer applicable to Sec. 495 either. In that year, Congress revised the statute by adding the word "such" to its third clause, thereby effectively overruling Staats as to future applications of the statute to genuinely executed documents containing false statements. At the same time, Congress also passed Sec. 1001, which provided that making false statements with intent to defraud the United States was a separate criminal offense. This section rendered the broad scope of the former third clause of the predecessors to Sec. 495 unnecessary.
10 The case upon which Defendant relies, Wright, 704 F.Supp. at 614, reaches the correct result without going through the reasoning applied here. The Wright court did not address Staats or other cases construing Sec. 495 and its predecessors, but rather relied upon Greathouse v. United States, 170 F.2d 512 (4th Cir.1948), which construed similar language appearing in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2314.
11 Some of the evidence presented at trial suggests that Defendant committed acts of forgery, too, but the government chose not to charge Defendant for these alleged acts.
12 Section 1341 provides:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
13 Section 1343 provides:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
Page 670
16 F.3d 670
39 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) P 76,622, 1994 Fed.App. 32P
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Alex G. MERKLINGER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 93-5362.
United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.
Argued Dec. 10, 1993.
Decided Feb. 3, 1994.

Page 671
        Dan Newsom, Asst. U.S. Atty. (briefed), Jennifer L. Webber (argued), Office of the U.S. Atty., Memphis, TN, and Daniel A. Clancy, Asst. U.S. Atty., Office of the U.S. Atty., Jackson, TN, for plaintiff-appellee.
        Patrick F. Martin (briefed) and Rayna Hardee Bomar (argued), Hardee & Martin, Jackson, TN, for defendant-appellant.
        Before: JONES, Circuit Judge; BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge; and WEBER, District Judge. *
        NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge.
        Defendant-Appellant Alex G. Merklinger appeals his conviction on seven counts of various acts of fraud and false statements. We find that the trial court erred in construing the statute that was at issue in one count, and that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction on several other counts. However, we affirm the jury verdict on the remaining counts. This disposition does not affect Merklinger's sentence, and so we remand only in order for the lower court to revise its Entry of Judgment in accordance with this decision.
I. Facts
        At the outset, a brief description of bonding requirements for bidding on government projects is in order. A contractor submitting a bid on a government project is usually required to post a performance bond, which guarantees that the work will be completed at the bid price. Similarly, once a contract has been awarded, the contractor is usually required to post a payment bond, which

Page 672
guarantees that all bills for labor, materials, and equipment will be paid. These bonds are issued by a surety in return for a percentage fee. Because the surety fee is included as part of the contractor's bid, the surety fee is actually paid by the government.
        In this case, according to two written statements signed by Defendant: (1) between September 1987 and April 1988, Defendant signed approximately one hundred "Affidavit of Individual Surety" forms that contained fraudulent asset figures that vastly inflated Defendant's net worth, for the purpose of inducing various government agencies to accept him as surety on government contracts; and (2) on January 4, 1989, knowing that he lacked any ability to pay $2 million, Defendant signed a letter of credit for $2 million, addressed to the officer in charge of construction at the Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, for the purpose of qualifying as a surety on a government funded project.
        Defendant was indicted in February 1992, on eight counts. Counts 1, 3, 5, and 6 charged Defendant with mail fraud and aiding and abetting mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1341, 2. Counts 2 and 4 charged him with wire fraud and aiding and abetting wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1343, 2. Count 7 charged him with making false statements, and aiding and abetting the making of false statements, to an agency of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1001, 2. Count 8 charged him with falsely making guarantee, and aiding and abetting the false making of guarantee, pertaining to bond to an officer of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 494, 2.
        Trial was held in December 1992. The evidence indicated that Defendant attempted to become surety for several projects, and succeeded at becoming surety for at least one project. 1 Defendant testified that, although he signed the two incriminating written statements, they were not true. The jury found Defendant guilty on all counts. The trial court found that the offense charged in Count 7 was a lesser included offense of that charged in Count 8, so it acquitted Defendant of Count 7. The court sentenced Defendant to 37 months on each of the remaining counts, to run concurrently, and to be followed by three years of supervised release, and fined him $6,000. This appeal followed.
II. Discussion
A.
        Defendant asked the trial court to instruct the jury that forgery was an element of Sec. 494, and the court declined to do so. Defendant contends on appeal that this was an error, and that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 494, the statute that gave rise to Count 8, requires an element of forgery. 2 The question presented

Page 673
is one of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. United States v. Brown, 915 F.2d 219, 223 (6th Cir.1990) ("A district court engages in statutory construction as a matter of law, and we review its conclusions de novo."). We agree with Defendant that Sec. 494 requires an element of forgery, and that the trial court erred as a matter of law.
        Section 494 criminalizes the acts of false making, altering, forging, or counterfeiting for the purpose of defrauding the United States. In the present case, no one accuses Defendant of altering, forging, or counterfeiting. Rather, in oral argument, the prosecutor suggested that Defendant's false statements to the government fall within the scope of the term, "falsely makes," as used in Sec. 494. However, the government's implication--that the term, "falsely makes," applies to false statements in a genuinely executed document--betrays a misunderstanding of the historic use of this term. At English common law, the term, "false making," was used as an elucidation of the concept of forgery, and the two terms have been substantially synonymous for centuries. See, e.g., 2 East, Pleas of the Crown, 852 (1803) ("Forgery at common law denotes a false making"); 1 Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown, c. 70, Sec. 2, at 182-83 (1762); 4 Blackstone, Commentaries 247-48 (Christian ed. 1809). See generally Gilbert v. United States, 370 U.S. 650, 655-57, 82 S.Ct. 1399, 1402-03, 8 L.Ed.2d 750 (1962) (explaining English common law understanding of "forgery"); Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103, 121-26, 111 S.Ct. 461, 472-74, 112 L.Ed.2d 449 (1990) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (reviewing the use of the term, "falsely made," in law dictionaries, statutes, caselaw, and scholarly commentaries, all of which establish that the term is an essential element of forgery, and does not embrace false contents of a genuinely executed document). The Gilbert Court noted that federal courts have tended to follow the English common law understanding of forgery when construing the word "forge" under federal statutes. 370 U.S. at 658, 82 S.Ct. at 1403-04. As stated in United States v. Wentworth, 11 F. 52, 55 (D.N.H.1882):
To falsely make an affidavit is one thing; to make a false affidavit is another. A person may falsely make an affidavit, every sentence of which may be true in fact. Or he may make an affidavit, every sentence of which shall be false. It is the "false making" which the statute makes an offence, and this is forgery as described in all the elementary books.
        See also Greathouse v. United States, 170 F.2d 512, 514 (4th Cir.1948) ("The words, 'falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited' in the collocation in which they appeared are ejusdem generis and are usually employed to denounce the crime of forgery. Indeed it may be said that when used in an association of this kind the words 'falsely made' and 'forged' are substantially synonymous.").
        Once one understands that the term "falsely makes" is synonymous with forgery, it becomes clear that there is no language in Sec. 494 that applies to false statements in a genuinely executed document. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Starr v. Mulligan, 59 F.2d 200, 202 (2d Cir.1932) (stating that in all of the cases construing former 18 U.S.C. Sec. 72, the predecessor to Sec. 494, "the fraud was perpetrated by means of forgery. We think it clear that [Sec. 72] must be so limited."); compare Sec. 494 (criminalizing the act of falsely making statements in order to defraud the United States) with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 (criminalizing the act of making false statements to the United States). 3 But see Moskal, 498 U.S. at 106-18, 111 S.Ct. at 464-

Page 674
70 (holding that, as used in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2314, the term "falsely made" applies to genuinely executed securities containing false or incorrect information). 4
        The parties in the present case did not discuss the traditional distinction between falsely making a statement, and making a false statement, and they apparently overlooked Mulligan. Instead, Defendant relied on United States v. Wright, 704 F.Supp. 613, 614 (D.Md.1989), which held that Sec. 494 is not applicable to documents that were not forged. The government cited to another district court case, United States v. Gowdy, 37 F. 332 (E.D.S.C.1889), which came to the opposite conclusion. Rather than choosing between two contradictory district court cases, the trial court in the present case decided instead to rely on United States v. Staats, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 41, 12 L.Ed. 979 (1850).
        In Staats, the Supreme Court construed a predecessor statute to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495, which contained much, but not all, of the language used in Sec. 494 and its predecessors. 5 The

Page 675
Court held that "[t]he instruments referred to in the first part of the section, the false making or forging of which, with the intent stated, is made an offence, probably are forged instruments in a strict technical sense." Id. (8 How.) at 46. However, the Court reasoned that the third clause of the statute--the one pertaining to "transmission or presentation of deeds or other writings to an officer of the government"--had a much broader scope:
The deeds and other writings mentioned are not connected with those in the preceding paragraph, as would have been natural, and almost of course, if intended to describe similar instruments.... The clause, therefore, may well be regarded as providing for a distinct and independent offence,--one essential to the protection of the government against fraudulent claims.
        Id. (8 How.) at 47. Thus, the third clause of the statute applied to genuine instruments containing false statements, as well as to forged instruments.
        The Supreme Court revisited this language in United States v. Davis, 231 U.S. 183, 188, 34 S.Ct. 112, 112-13, 58 L.Ed. 177 (1913), 6 reaching the same result:
Coming to the text of the third paragraph, we think it is at once apparent that its provisions are so comprehensive as to prevent us from holding that they include only documents which are forged or counterfeited and hence exclude all other documents, however fraudulent they may be.... The context of the section reinforces this view, since the contrast between the narrow scope of the first two paragraphs and the enlarged grasp of the third shows the legislative intent, after fully providing in the first two paragraphs for forged and counterfeited documents, instruments, etc., to reach by the provisions of the third paragraph, any and all fraudulent documents, whether forged or not forged.
        In Mulligan, 59 F.2d at 201, the Second Circuit also had occasion to construe the predecessor to Sec. 495. 7 The indictment alleged that the relator violated the statute when, with fraudulent intent, he "uttered and published" false statements to the Civil Service Commission. Id. The indictment did not allege any act of forgery. Id. Relying on Staats and Davis, the court pointed out that:
It has been authoritatively established that the first clause is limited to the false making, that is, the forging, of writings, while the third clause includes not only forgeries, but also writings genuine in execution but false in statements of fact they contain.

Page 676
        Id. The court found, however, that the only clause of the statute that was at issue was the second clause. Id. The court held that the second clause, like the first, applied only to forgery:
But, to bring the relator's conduct within the denunciation of clause 2, that clause must be given an interpretation as broad as that of clause 3 in respect to the false writings enumerated in each. To do this necessitates disregarding the word "such," inserted in the second and omitted in the third clause. The presence of "such" limits the scope of the second clause to such writings as are described in clause 1.
        Id.
        According to the trial court in the present case, the statute at issue in Staats "contained language virtually identical to that in Sec. 494 and its predecessors." J.A. at 25. This statement is incorrect, and the difference in language between the statute construed in Staats, Davis, and Mulligan, and Sec. 494 is of key importance to the present issue. Unlike the predecessors to Sec. 495 that were discussed in Staats, Davis, and Mulligan, the third clause to Sec. 494 and its predecessors has always included the word "such": "Whoever transmits to, or presents at any office or to any officer of the United States, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing...." 8 As per Mulligan, the presence of the word "such" in both the second and third clauses of Sec. 494 "limits the scope of the [clauses] to such writings as are described in clause 1." 59 F.2d at 201. Accordingly, as per Staats, Davis, and Mulligan, these writings only include forged, altered, or counterfeited documents.
        Therefore, the Supreme Court's holding in Staats--that the third clause of the predecessor to Sec. 495 applies to genuinely executed documents containing false statements as well as to forged documents--is not applicable to Sec. 494 or its predecessors. 9 It follows that the trial court erred by applying this aspect of Staats to the present case. 10
B.
        Because Defendant was not accused of forgery, but only of making false statements in documents that Defendant genuinely executed, 11 Count 8, which charged that Defendant violated Sec. 494, should have been dismissed. However, the trial court made a second error in construing Sec. 494, and it happens that the second error repaired whatever damage was caused by the court's first error. This is a situation in which two wrongs did indeed make a right. Even though neither party raises this error as an issue on appeal, we address it sua sponte.
        The jury found Defendant guilty on all counts, including Count 7, which charged Defendant with violating Sec. 1001. The trial court dismissed Count 7, however, holding that Sec. 1001 was a lesser included offense of Sec. 494:
The Sec. 1001 offense requires: 1) a false statement or writing, 2) knowledge of the statement or writing's falsity, and 3) that the false statement or writing regard a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States. The

Page 677
relevant paragraph of Sec. 494 requires: 1) a false writing, 2) knowledge of the writing's falsity, and 3) presentation of the false writing to an office or officer of the United States.... Therefore, as Sec. 1001 requires proof of no fact that is not also required by Sec. 494, it constitutes a lesser included offense of Sec. 494.
        J.A. at 27. However, as discussed in the preceding section, the trial court misstated the elements of Sec. 494. Section 494 applies only to forged, altered, or counterfeited documents, regardless of whether the statements therein are true or false, while Sec. 1001 applies to false statements, regardless of whether the statements are made in a forged or genuinely executed document. The two offenses are, then, entirely separate, and the trial court erred by dismissing Count 7.
        Therefore, the trial court should have dismissed Count 8 and not Count 7. The trial court applied Sentencing Guideline Sec. 2F1.1 in calculating Defendant's sentence for Count 8. See United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, Appendix A (directing courts to apply Sec. 2F1.1 to violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 494). This is precisely the guideline that the court should have applied to violations of Sec. 1001. See Appendix A. This guideline "is designed to apply to a wide variety of fraud cases." U.S.S.G. Sec. 2F1.1, comment (background).
        It follows that Defendant's sentence on Count 8--37 months followed by three years of supervised release--would have been just as appropriate as a sentence for Count 7 had the trial court not erred regarding Sec. 494 at all. Therefore, although we remand for revision of the Entry of Judgment, we find no need to remand for resentencing.
C.
        The trial court granted the government's motion in limine preventing Defendant from introducing evidence to show that he had previously been acquitted of similar charges in a prior case. Defendant contends that he had made admissions to investigators because he was despondent, and that the previous acquittal was relevant to his state of mind. The court ruled that Defendant could present evidence that he had been through previous criminal litigation, but could not mention the verdict, holding that there was no logical connection between the favorable verdict and Defendant's alleged despondency. The court also found that evidence of the favorable verdict could confuse the jury.
        "The exclusion of evidence on the grounds of relevancy is within the discretion of the district court," and a reviewing court will reverse only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Williams, 952 F.2d 1504, 1519 (6th Cir.1991). We find ample basis for the trial court's ruling on this issue, and so find no abuse of discretion.
D.
        Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict. According to United States v. Blakeney, 942 F.2d 1001, 1010 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 881, 116 L.Ed.2d 785 (1992):
The relevant inquiry when reviewing claims of insufficient evidence is "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are accorded the same weight and "the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may support a conviction under federal law." United States v. Frost, 914 F.2d 756, 762 (6th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Gallo, 763 F.2d 1504, 1518 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017, 106 S.Ct. 1200, 89 L.Ed.2d 314 (1986). Therefore, we will reverse a judgment for insufficiency of evidence only if, viewing the record as a whole, the judgment is not supported by substantial and competent evidence. [United States v.] Ellzey, 874 F.2d [324,] 328 [ (6th Cir.1989) ].
        Defendant offers five arguments in support of his claim that the evidence against him was insufficient. The first of these arguments is that the evidence was insufficient as to Count 8 because there was no proof of forgery; we have already explained why we

Page 678
agree. As for the four remaining arguments, one has merit, and so we set aside Defendant's convictions on four of the eight counts, (including Count 8).
1.
        Defendant argues that the evidence failed to show that the alleged victims of mail and wire fraud relied on the mailings and wire transmissions that were the subject of Counts 1-4 and 6. Apparently, the government does not disagree that it did not prove reliance; the issue is whether such reliance is indeed an element of mail and wire fraud.
        To support a conviction for mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341, 12 the government must prove: (1) the existence of a scheme to defraud, (2) which involves the use of the mail, or of wire transmissions, (3) for the purpose of executing the scheme. United States v. Castile, 795 F.2d 1273, 1277-78 (6th Cir.1986). To support a conviction for wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343, 13 the government must prove: (1) the existence of a scheme to defraud, (2) use of wire communications in furtherance of the scheme, and (3) that the scheme was intended to deprive a victim of money and property. United States v. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d 232, 234 (6th Cir.1990).
        Reliance is not an element of either of these types of fraud. Indeed, Defendant expressly recognizes that the mail and wire fraud statutes do not require proof that the intended victim was actually defrauded; the actual success of a scheme to defraud is not an element of either Sec. 1341 or Sec. 1343. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d at 235; United States v. Hathaway, 798 F.2d 902, 912 (6th Cir.1986); United States v. Goodpastor, 769 F.2d 374, 378-79 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 983, 106 S.Ct. 391, 88 L.Ed.2d 343 (1985). This implies that reliance is not an element of mail or wire fraud.
        The authorities cited by Defendant in support of his claim to the contrary are cases in which a private plaintiff alleged mail fraud in a civil suit; while it is true that such plaintiffs must prove reliance in order to recover damages, it does not follow that the government must prove reliance in order to convict a mail fraud defendant. Thus, Defendant's argument is without merit.
2.
        Next, Defendant argues that the government failed to present any evidence that the mail and wire transmissions underlying Counts 1, 3, 4, and 6 were used to further Defendant's scheme to defraud. Rather, he contends, the purpose of the mailings and transmissions, far from promoting the scheme, positively conflicted with it by making it easier to detect. We agree with Defendant regarding Counts 1, 3, and 6, but not with regard to Count 4.

Page 679
        Defendant relies on Castile, 795 F.2d at 1278-81. In Castile, the defendant schemed to burn down his restaurant in order to collect insurance proceeds. The government argued that the defendant's conduct caused the insurance company to mail inquiries to the defendant, which formed the basis for several counts of mail fraud against defendant. The court acknowledged that the government proved the first two elements of mail fraud, namely that defendant did scheme to defraud the insurance company, and that his conduct did cause the insurance company to use the mail. Id. at 1278 (quoting Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8-9, 74 S.Ct. 358, 363, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954) (holding that one "causes" mail to be used where one "does an act with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended.")). However, the court held that the government had not proven the third element, that the uses of the mail by the insurance company were "for the purpose of executing the scheme." Id. The mailings furthered the company's investigation, rather than furthering the defendant's scheme; they were an attempt to procure evidence that would tend to defeat the fraudulent scheme, and so conflicted with the defendant's purpose. Id. at 1279-80. Therefore, the court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for mail fraud. Id. at 1281.
        In the present case, the mailing that formed the basis of Count 1 was a letter from a government official, Navy Contracts Specialist Jane Nishiguchi, requesting more information to aid her in determining whether Defendant qualified as a surety. The wire communication that formed the basis of Count 2 was Defendant's response. The mailing that formed the basis of Count 3 was Nishiguchi's request for more information and for an extension of time to make her determination on Defendant's qualifications. The wire communication that formed the basis of Count 4 was Defendant's granting Nishiguchi's request for an extension of time. The mailing that formed the basis of Count 6 was a letter from Charles Beckner, a co-owner of one of the contractors for which Defendant was attempting to serve as surety, requesting additional information about Defendant from a third party insurance company.
        The two mailings from Nishiguchi were clearly in furtherance of the government's investigation in order to defeat any fraudulent scheme, and so were in conflict with Defendant's scheme. Similarly, the letter from Beckner was part of an investigation of Defendant, and was not in furtherance of Defendant's scheme. That is, these three mailings were no different than the insurance company's mailings in Castile. As per Castile, then, these three mailings cannot properly be used as a basis for charges of mail fraud. Therefore, Defendant's conviction on Counts 1, 3, and 6 must be set aside.
        On the other hand, the two wire transmissions from Defendant to Nishiguchi clearly were in furtherance of Defendant's scheme. Defendant argues that granting the request for an extension furthered the government's investigation. That may be true, but it also kept Defendant's scheme alive insofar as denying the request would probably have resulted in Defendant's being rejected as a surety. Therefore, we affirm Defendant's conviction on Count 4.
        Setting aside Defendant's conviction on three counts does not affect Defendant's sentence. The trial court sentenced Defendant to the same sentence for each of the seven counts on which he was convicted, each sentence to run concurrently. Thus the sentence would remain unchanged even if the panel were to affirm Defendant's conviction on only one count.
3.
        Defendant contends that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant had the requisite intent to deceive. Defendant's claims that he misstated his net worth in his Affidavit of Individual Surety forms inadvertently, that he was merely negligent. It is clear, however, that the jury did not believe Defendant's testimony in this regard, and there was ample evidence presented from which a rational jury could infer fraudulent intent, not the

Page 680
least of which were Defendant's own written statements admitting fraudulent intent. This contention is without merit.
4.
        Finally, Defendant contends that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Beckner actually mailed the letter that formed the basis of Count 6. Because we are setting aside Defendant's conviction for Count 6 on other grounds, this issue is moot. However, even if it were not moot, the contention is meritless. Defendant focuses on the fact that one of the witnesses was not certain whether he received the letter via fax or via mail. Defendant disregards, however, Beckner's own testimony, in which he expresses no doubt that the letter was mailed.
III. Conclusion
        For the foregoing reasons, we set aside Defendant's convictions on Counts 1, 3, 6, and 8, reverse the district court's ruling on Counts 7 and 8, affirm the jury's verdict on Counts 2, 4, 5, and 7, and remand in order for the district court to revise its Entry of Judgment accordingly. Defendant's sentence remains unchanged.
---------------
* The Honorable Herman J. Weber, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
1 There were at least four projects for which Defendant attempted to serve as surety: (1) the Pelham Line Rehabilitation Project for the New York City Transit Authority, with contractor American Bridge Company; (2) the Mississippi River Dredging Project for the Army Corps of Engineers, with contractor Bean Dredging; (3) the Johnson Island Project for the United States Navy, with contractor Cascade Leasing; and (4) the Glenville Illinois project, also for the Navy, with contractor Pyramid Industries of Riverdale. Defendant was successful in this last project, and in October 1987, Pyramid Industries defaulted. Defendant then became responsible for completing the project. Various lawsuits were filed against Defendant and his wife, who declared bankruptcy in June 1990. Their total unencumbered assets were worth about $13,000. Unsecured creditors had claims totaling $5,720,665, apparently relating to the Pyramid default.
The indictment alleges that, between May 1987 and June 1989, Defendant was approved as surety on more than fourteen government contracts having a value of more than $39,000,000, generating fees of more than $885,000. Apparently, this was not proved at trial and is not re-alleged in the briefs on appeal.
2 Section 494 provides:
Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any bond, bid, proposal, contract, guarantee, security, official bond, public record, affidavit, or other writing for the purpose of defrauding the United States; or
Whoever utters or publishes as true or possesses with intent to utter or publish as true, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited; or
Whoever transmits to, or presents at any office or to any officer of the United States, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited--
Shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
The original version of Sec. 494 was passed in 1866, and a substantially identical version was passed in 1872. These two acts were codified at U.S.Rev.Stat. Secs. 5418 and 5479 respectively. In 1909, the two statutes were recodified as a single statute at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 72. The statute took its present form in 1948, when it was revised slightly, and recodified at Sec. 494.
3 Section 1001 provides:
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
4 In Moskal, the Court held that, were it to limit its interpretation of the term "falsely made," as used in Sec. 2314, to exclude genuinely executed documents that are false only in content, it would "not accord with Congress' broad purpose in enacting Sec. 2314--namely, to criminalize trafficking in fraudulent securities that exploits interstate commerce." 498 U.S. at 117, 111 S.Ct. at 470. Finding that it was more important to realize "Congress' general purpose" in enacting Sec. 2314 than it was to apply the common law meaning of the statute's terms, the Court declined to interpret the term, "falsely made," as it is used in Sec. 2314, in the way that it was usually interpreted at common law. Id.
This reasoning is inapplicable to Sec. 494 in the present case. Congress explicitly criminalized the act of making false statements to the United States in a genuinely executed document in an entirely separate statute. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 (quoted in note 3, supra). Thus, no overriding Congressional purpose would be served by interpreting the term "falsely makes," as it is used in Sec. 494, in a manner that departs from its common law meaning.
The Moskal Court also found that three lower courts had previously held that the term, "falsely made," applied to genuinely executed documents containing false statements. Id. 498 U.S. at 115, 111 S.Ct. at 469 (citing United States v. Hartman, 65 F. 490 (E.D.Mo.1894); State v. Shurtliff, 18 Me. 368 (1841); and In re Count de Toulouse Lautrec, 102 F. 878 (7th Cir.1900)). From this, the Court concluded that the term was ambiguous at common law. Id. The Court recognized, however, that most courts have interpreted the term to exclude documents that were false only in content. Id. The dissent in Moskal explained that of these three cases, only Hartman actually discussed falsity of content; the other two involved only documents that were not genuinely executed. Id. 498 U.S. at 128-29, 111 S.Ct. at 476 (Scalia, J., dissenting). It pointed out that the Gilbert Court specifically rejected the few scattered cases like Hartman that have applied the term "falsely made," to genuinely

Page 680
executed documents containing false statements. Id. (citing 370 U.S. at 658, 82 S.Ct. at 1404). See also United States v. Davis, 231 U.S. 183, 189, 34 S.Ct. 112, 113, 58 L.Ed. 177 (1913) (interpreting "falsely makes," as used in predecessor statute to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495, to be synonymous with forgery); United States v. Staats, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 41, 46, 12 L.Ed. 979 (1850) (same). (It is worth noting that Sec. 494 more closely resembles Sec. 495 than it does Sec. 2314).
In light of Gilbert, Davis, and Staats, as well as the overwhelming majority of cases and commentators that have held or assumed that "false making" is substantially synonymous with forgery, we believe that Moskal's understanding of the application of the term, "falsely made," as used in Sec. 2314, is not applicable to other statutes, such as Secs. 494 or 495, where departing from the term's common law meaning would not serve any overriding Congressional purpose. If we were to interpret Moskal more broadly than this, we would have to regard Moskal as implicitly overruling Gilbert, Davis, and Staats, which presumably is something that the Moskal Court did not intend to do.
5 The statute at issue in Staats provided:
That if any person or persons shall falsely make, alter, forge, or counterfeit; or cause or procure to be falsely made, altered, forged, or counterfeited; or willingly aid or assist in the false making, altering, forging, or counterfeiting, any deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, or other writing, for the purpose of obtaining or receiving, or of enabling any other person or persons, either directly or indirectly, to obtain or receive, from the United States, or any of their officers or agents any sum or sums of money;
or shall utter or publish as true, or cause to be uttered or published as true, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, or other writing as aforesaid, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited;
or shall transmit to, or present at, or cause or procure to be transmitted to, or presented at, any office or officer of the government of the United States, any deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, or other writing, in support of, or in relation to, any account or claim, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited;
every such person shall be deemed and adjudged guilty of felony, and being thereof duly convicted, shall be sentenced to be imprisoned and kept at hard labor for a period not less than one year, nor more than ten years; or shall be imprisoned not exceeding five years, and fined not exceeding one thousand dollars.
49 U.S. (8 How.) at 41-42 (quoting the Act of March 3d, 1823, 3 Stat. at L., 771, 772) (numerals and paragraph divisions added). Originally, this Act was codified as U.S.Rev.Stat. Sec. 5421. In 1909, it was recodified as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 73. It was slightly revised when it took its current form, as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495, in 1948.
In United States v. Gowdy, 37 F. 332 (E.D.S.C.1889), the court purported to apply the holding of Staats to Sec. 5479, a predecessor statute to Sec. 494, the statute at issue in the present case. However, the Gowdy court was under the misapprehension that Staats involved the very same statute, the Act of March 3d, 1823. The fact is, Gowdy involved the Act of June 8, 1872, a different statute altogether. As discussed below, the holding of Staats is inapplicable to Sec. 494 and its predecessors.
6 Apparently, the trial court and the parties in the present case missed Davis entirely. The court incorrectly stated that Staats "is the only decision of the Supreme Court interpreting the language contained in 18 U.S.C. Secs. 494 & 495." J.A. at 26. As in Staats, the Davis Court was primarily concerned with construing U.S.Rev.Stat. Sec. 5421, the predecessor to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495, but the Court also mentioned U.S.Rev.Stat. Sec. 5479, which was a predecessor to Sec. 494, the statute at issue in the present case. The trial court in Davis treated Secs. 5421 and 5479 "as embracing only documents which were forged and counterfeited," and not documents that "were merely false and fraudulent, but not forged." 231 U.S. at 187, 34 S.Ct. at 112. The government conceded that the trial court was correct regarding Sec. 5479. Id. Thus, the only issue before the Supreme Court was the trial court's construction of Sec. 5421.
7 As of 1909, this statute was codified as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 73. See supra note 5.
8 (Emphasis added). This explains why, in Davis and Mulligan, the predecessor statutes to Sec. 494 were treated differently than the predecessors to Sec. 495.
9 Interestingly, as of 1948, this holding was no longer applicable to Sec. 495 either. In that year, Congress revised the statute by adding the word "such" to its third clause, thereby effectively overruling Staats as to future applications of the statute to genuinely executed documents containing false statements. At the same time, Congress also passed Sec. 1001, which provided that making false statements with intent to defraud the United States was a separate criminal offense. This section rendered the broad scope of the former third clause of the predecessors to Sec. 495 unnecessary.
10 The case upon which Defendant relies, Wright, 704 F.Supp. at 614, reaches the correct result without going through the reasoning applied here. The Wright court did not address Staats or other cases construing Sec. 495 and its predecessors, but rather relied upon Greathouse v. United States, 170 F.2d 512 (4th Cir.1948), which construed similar language appearing in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2314.
11 Some of the evidence presented at trial suggests that Defendant committed acts of forgery, too, but the government chose not to charge Defendant for these alleged acts.
12 Section 1341 provides:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
13 Section 1343 provides:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
Page 670
16 F.3d 670
39 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) P 76,622, 1994 Fed.App. 32P
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Alex G. MERKLINGER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 93-5362.
United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.
Argued Dec. 10, 1993.
Decided Feb. 3, 1994.

Page 671
        Dan Newsom, Asst. U.S. Atty. (briefed), Jennifer L. Webber (argued), Office of the U.S. Atty., Memphis, TN, and Daniel A. Clancy, Asst. U.S. Atty., Office of the U.S. Atty., Jackson, TN, for plaintiff-appellee.
        Patrick F. Martin (briefed) and Rayna Hardee Bomar (argued), Hardee & Martin, Jackson, TN, for defendant-appellant.
        Before: JONES, Circuit Judge; BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge; and WEBER, District Judge. *
        NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge.
        Defendant-Appellant Alex G. Merklinger appeals his conviction on seven counts of various acts of fraud and false statements. We find that the trial court erred in construing the statute that was at issue in one count, and that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction on several other counts. However, we affirm the jury verdict on the remaining counts. This disposition does not affect Merklinger's sentence, and so we remand only in order for the lower court to revise its Entry of Judgment in accordance with this decision.
I. Facts
        At the outset, a brief description of bonding requirements for bidding on government projects is in order. A contractor submitting a bid on a government project is usually required to post a performance bond, which guarantees that the work will be completed at the bid price. Similarly, once a contract has been awarded, the contractor is usually required to post a payment bond, which

Page 672
guarantees that all bills for labor, materials, and equipment will be paid. These bonds are issued by a surety in return for a percentage fee. Because the surety fee is included as part of the contractor's bid, the surety fee is actually paid by the government.
        In this case, according to two written statements signed by Defendant: (1) between September 1987 and April 1988, Defendant signed approximately one hundred "Affidavit of Individual Surety" forms that contained fraudulent asset figures that vastly inflated Defendant's net worth, for the purpose of inducing various government agencies to accept him as surety on government contracts; and (2) on January 4, 1989, knowing that he lacked any ability to pay $2 million, Defendant signed a letter of credit for $2 million, addressed to the officer in charge of construction at the Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, for the purpose of qualifying as a surety on a government funded project.
        Defendant was indicted in February 1992, on eight counts. Counts 1, 3, 5, and 6 charged Defendant with mail fraud and aiding and abetting mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1341, 2. Counts 2 and 4 charged him with wire fraud and aiding and abetting wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1343, 2. Count 7 charged him with making false statements, and aiding and abetting the making of false statements, to an agency of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1001, 2. Count 8 charged him with falsely making guarantee, and aiding and abetting the false making of guarantee, pertaining to bond to an officer of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 494, 2.
        Trial was held in December 1992. The evidence indicated that Defendant attempted to become surety for several projects, and succeeded at becoming surety for at least one project. 1 Defendant testified that, although he signed the two incriminating written statements, they were not true. The jury found Defendant guilty on all counts. The trial court found that the offense charged in Count 7 was a lesser included offense of that charged in Count 8, so it acquitted Defendant of Count 7. The court sentenced Defendant to 37 months on each of the remaining counts, to run concurrently, and to be followed by three years of supervised release, and fined him $6,000. This appeal followed.
II. Discussion
A.
        Defendant asked the trial court to instruct the jury that forgery was an element of Sec. 494, and the court declined to do so. Defendant contends on appeal that this was an error, and that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 494, the statute that gave rise to Count 8, requires an element of forgery. 2 The question presented

Page 673
is one of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. United States v. Brown, 915 F.2d 219, 223 (6th Cir.1990) ("A district court engages in statutory construction as a matter of law, and we review its conclusions de novo."). We agree with Defendant that Sec. 494 requires an element of forgery, and that the trial court erred as a matter of law.
        Section 494 criminalizes the acts of false making, altering, forging, or counterfeiting for the purpose of defrauding the United States. In the present case, no one accuses Defendant of altering, forging, or counterfeiting. Rather, in oral argument, the prosecutor suggested that Defendant's false statements to the government fall within the scope of the term, "falsely makes," as used in Sec. 494. However, the government's implication--that the term, "falsely makes," applies to false statements in a genuinely executed document--betrays a misunderstanding of the historic use of this term. At English common law, the term, "false making," was used as an elucidation of the concept of forgery, and the two terms have been substantially synonymous for centuries. See, e.g., 2 East, Pleas of the Crown, 852 (1803) ("Forgery at common law denotes a false making"); 1 Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown, c. 70, Sec. 2, at 182-83 (1762); 4 Blackstone, Commentaries 247-48 (Christian ed. 1809). See generally Gilbert v. United States, 370 U.S. 650, 655-57, 82 S.Ct. 1399, 1402-03, 8 L.Ed.2d 750 (1962) (explaining English common law understanding of "forgery"); Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103, 121-26, 111 S.Ct. 461, 472-74, 112 L.Ed.2d 449 (1990) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (reviewing the use of the term, "falsely made," in law dictionaries, statutes, caselaw, and scholarly commentaries, all of which establish that the term is an essential element of forgery, and does not embrace false contents of a genuinely executed document). The Gilbert Court noted that federal courts have tended to follow the English common law understanding of forgery when construing the word "forge" under federal statutes. 370 U.S. at 658, 82 S.Ct. at 1403-04. As stated in United States v. Wentworth, 11 F. 52, 55 (D.N.H.1882):
To falsely make an affidavit is one thing; to make a false affidavit is another. A person may falsely make an affidavit, every sentence of which may be true in fact. Or he may make an affidavit, every sentence of which shall be false. It is the "false making" which the statute makes an offence, and this is forgery as described in all the elementary books.
        See also Greathouse v. United States, 170 F.2d 512, 514 (4th Cir.1948) ("The words, 'falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited' in the collocation in which they appeared are ejusdem generis and are usually employed to denounce the crime of forgery. Indeed it may be said that when used in an association of this kind the words 'falsely made' and 'forged' are substantially synonymous.").
        Once one understands that the term "falsely makes" is synonymous with forgery, it becomes clear that there is no language in Sec. 494 that applies to false statements in a genuinely executed document. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Starr v. Mulligan, 59 F.2d 200, 202 (2d Cir.1932) (stating that in all of the cases construing former 18 U.S.C. Sec. 72, the predecessor to Sec. 494, "the fraud was perpetrated by means of forgery. We think it clear that [Sec. 72] must be so limited."); compare Sec. 494 (criminalizing the act of falsely making statements in order to defraud the United States) with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 (criminalizing the act of making false statements to the United States). 3 But see Moskal, 498 U.S. at 106-18, 111 S.Ct. at 464-

Page 674
70 (holding that, as used in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2314, the term "falsely made" applies to genuinely executed securities containing false or incorrect information). 4
        The parties in the present case did not discuss the traditional distinction between falsely making a statement, and making a false statement, and they apparently overlooked Mulligan. Instead, Defendant relied on United States v. Wright, 704 F.Supp. 613, 614 (D.Md.1989), which held that Sec. 494 is not applicable to documents that were not forged. The government cited to another district court case, United States v. Gowdy, 37 F. 332 (E.D.S.C.1889), which came to the opposite conclusion. Rather than choosing between two contradictory district court cases, the trial court in the present case decided instead to rely on United States v. Staats, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 41, 12 L.Ed. 979 (1850).
        In Staats, the Supreme Court construed a predecessor statute to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495, which contained much, but not all, of the language used in Sec. 494 and its predecessors. 5 The

Page 675
Court held that "[t]he instruments referred to in the first part of the section, the false making or forging of which, with the intent stated, is made an offence, probably are forged instruments in a strict technical sense." Id. (8 How.) at 46. However, the Court reasoned that the third clause of the statute--the one pertaining to "transmission or presentation of deeds or other writings to an officer of the government"--had a much broader scope:
The deeds and other writings mentioned are not connected with those in the preceding paragraph, as would have been natural, and almost of course, if intended to describe similar instruments.... The clause, therefore, may well be regarded as providing for a distinct and independent offence,--one essential to the protection of the government against fraudulent claims.
        Id. (8 How.) at 47. Thus, the third clause of the statute applied to genuine instruments containing false statements, as well as to forged instruments.
        The Supreme Court revisited this language in United States v. Davis, 231 U.S. 183, 188, 34 S.Ct. 112, 112-13, 58 L.Ed. 177 (1913), 6 reaching the same result:
Coming to the text of the third paragraph, we think it is at once apparent that its provisions are so comprehensive as to prevent us from holding that they include only documents which are forged or counterfeited and hence exclude all other documents, however fraudulent they may be.... The context of the section reinforces this view, since the contrast between the narrow scope of the first two paragraphs and the enlarged grasp of the third shows the legislative intent, after fully providing in the first two paragraphs for forged and counterfeited documents, instruments, etc., to reach by the provisions of the third paragraph, any and all fraudulent documents, whether forged or not forged.
        In Mulligan, 59 F.2d at 201, the Second Circuit also had occasion to construe the predecessor to Sec. 495. 7 The indictment alleged that the relator violated the statute when, with fraudulent intent, he "uttered and published" false statements to the Civil Service Commission. Id. The indictment did not allege any act of forgery. Id. Relying on Staats and Davis, the court pointed out that:
It has been authoritatively established that the first clause is limited to the false making, that is, the forging, of writings, while the third clause includes not only forgeries, but also writings genuine in execution but false in statements of fact they contain.

Page 676
        Id. The court found, however, that the only clause of the statute that was at issue was the second clause. Id. The court held that the second clause, like the first, applied only to forgery:
But, to bring the relator's conduct within the denunciation of clause 2, that clause must be given an interpretation as broad as that of clause 3 in respect to the false writings enumerated in each. To do this necessitates disregarding the word "such," inserted in the second and omitted in the third clause. The presence of "such" limits the scope of the second clause to such writings as are described in clause 1.
        Id.
        According to the trial court in the present case, the statute at issue in Staats "contained language virtually identical to that in Sec. 494 and its predecessors." J.A. at 25. This statement is incorrect, and the difference in language between the statute construed in Staats, Davis, and Mulligan, and Sec. 494 is of key importance to the present issue. Unlike the predecessors to Sec. 495 that were discussed in Staats, Davis, and Mulligan, the third clause to Sec. 494 and its predecessors has always included the word "such": "Whoever transmits to, or presents at any office or to any officer of the United States, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing...." 8 As per Mulligan, the presence of the word "such" in both the second and third clauses of Sec. 494 "limits the scope of the [clauses] to such writings as are described in clause 1." 59 F.2d at 201. Accordingly, as per Staats, Davis, and Mulligan, these writings only include forged, altered, or counterfeited documents.
        Therefore, the Supreme Court's holding in Staats--that the third clause of the predecessor to Sec. 495 applies to genuinely executed documents containing false statements as well as to forged documents--is not applicable to Sec. 494 or its predecessors. 9 It follows that the trial court erred by applying this aspect of Staats to the present case. 10
B.
        Because Defendant was not accused of forgery, but only of making false statements in documents that Defendant genuinely executed, 11 Count 8, which charged that Defendant violated Sec. 494, should have been dismissed. However, the trial court made a second error in construing Sec. 494, and it happens that the second error repaired whatever damage was caused by the court's first error. This is a situation in which two wrongs did indeed make a right. Even though neither party raises this error as an issue on appeal, we address it sua sponte.
        The jury found Defendant guilty on all counts, including Count 7, which charged Defendant with violating Sec. 1001. The trial court dismissed Count 7, however, holding that Sec. 1001 was a lesser included offense of Sec. 494:
The Sec. 1001 offense requires: 1) a false statement or writing, 2) knowledge of the statement or writing's falsity, and 3) that the false statement or writing regard a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States. The

Page 677
relevant paragraph of Sec. 494 requires: 1) a false writing, 2) knowledge of the writing's falsity, and 3) presentation of the false writing to an office or officer of the United States.... Therefore, as Sec. 1001 requires proof of no fact that is not also required by Sec. 494, it constitutes a lesser included offense of Sec. 494.
        J.A. at 27. However, as discussed in the preceding section, the trial court misstated the elements of Sec. 494. Section 494 applies only to forged, altered, or counterfeited documents, regardless of whether the statements therein are true or false, while Sec. 1001 applies to false statements, regardless of whether the statements are made in a forged or genuinely executed document. The two offenses are, then, entirely separate, and the trial court erred by dismissing Count 7.
        Therefore, the trial court should have dismissed Count 8 and not Count 7. The trial court applied Sentencing Guideline Sec. 2F1.1 in calculating Defendant's sentence for Count 8. See United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, Appendix A (directing courts to apply Sec. 2F1.1 to violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 494). This is precisely the guideline that the court should have applied to violations of Sec. 1001. See Appendix A. This guideline "is designed to apply to a wide variety of fraud cases." U.S.S.G. Sec. 2F1.1, comment (background).
        It follows that Defendant's sentence on Count 8--37 months followed by three years of supervised release--would have been just as appropriate as a sentence for Count 7 had the trial court not erred regarding Sec. 494 at all. Therefore, although we remand for revision of the Entry of Judgment, we find no need to remand for resentencing.
C.
        The trial court granted the government's motion in limine preventing Defendant from introducing evidence to show that he had previously been acquitted of similar charges in a prior case. Defendant contends that he had made admissions to investigators because he was despondent, and that the previous acquittal was relevant to his state of mind. The court ruled that Defendant could present evidence that he had been through previous criminal litigation, but could not mention the verdict, holding that there was no logical connection between the favorable verdict and Defendant's alleged despondency. The court also found that evidence of the favorable verdict could confuse the jury.
        "The exclusion of evidence on the grounds of relevancy is within the discretion of the district court," and a reviewing court will reverse only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Williams, 952 F.2d 1504, 1519 (6th Cir.1991). We find ample basis for the trial court's ruling on this issue, and so find no abuse of discretion.
D.
        Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict. According to United States v. Blakeney, 942 F.2d 1001, 1010 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 881, 116 L.Ed.2d 785 (1992):
The relevant inquiry when reviewing claims of insufficient evidence is "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are accorded the same weight and "the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may support a conviction under federal law." United States v. Frost, 914 F.2d 756, 762 (6th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Gallo, 763 F.2d 1504, 1518 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017, 106 S.Ct. 1200, 89 L.Ed.2d 314 (1986). Therefore, we will reverse a judgment for insufficiency of evidence only if, viewing the record as a whole, the judgment is not supported by substantial and competent evidence. [United States v.] Ellzey, 874 F.2d [324,] 328 [ (6th Cir.1989) ].
        Defendant offers five arguments in support of his claim that the evidence against him was insufficient. The first of these arguments is that the evidence was insufficient as to Count 8 because there was no proof of forgery; we have already explained why we

Page 678
agree. As for the four remaining arguments, one has merit, and so we set aside Defendant's convictions on four of the eight counts, (including Count 8).
1.
        Defendant argues that the evidence failed to show that the alleged victims of mail and wire fraud relied on the mailings and wire transmissions that were the subject of Counts 1-4 and 6. Apparently, the government does not disagree that it did not prove reliance; the issue is whether such reliance is indeed an element of mail and wire fraud.
        To support a conviction for mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341, 12 the government must prove: (1) the existence of a scheme to defraud, (2) which involves the use of the mail, or of wire transmissions, (3) for the purpose of executing the scheme. United States v. Castile, 795 F.2d 1273, 1277-78 (6th Cir.1986). To support a conviction for wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343, 13 the government must prove: (1) the existence of a scheme to defraud, (2) use of wire communications in furtherance of the scheme, and (3) that the scheme was intended to deprive a victim of money and property. United States v. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d 232, 234 (6th Cir.1990).
        Reliance is not an element of either of these types of fraud. Indeed, Defendant expressly recognizes that the mail and wire fraud statutes do not require proof that the intended victim was actually defrauded; the actual success of a scheme to defraud is not an element of either Sec. 1341 or Sec. 1343. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d at 235; United States v. Hathaway, 798 F.2d 902, 912 (6th Cir.1986); United States v. Goodpastor, 769 F.2d 374, 378-79 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 983, 106 S.Ct. 391, 88 L.Ed.2d 343 (1985). This implies that reliance is not an element of mail or wire fraud.
        The authorities cited by Defendant in support of his claim to the contrary are cases in which a private plaintiff alleged mail fraud in a civil suit; while it is true that such plaintiffs must prove reliance in order to recover damages, it does not follow that the government must prove reliance in order to convict a mail fraud defendant. Thus, Defendant's argument is without merit.
2.
        Next, Defendant argues that the government failed to present any evidence that the mail and wire transmissions underlying Counts 1, 3, 4, and 6 were used to further Defendant's scheme to defraud. Rather, he contends, the purpose of the mailings and transmissions, far from promoting the scheme, positively conflicted with it by making it easier to detect. We agree with Defendant regarding Counts 1, 3, and 6, but not with regard to Count 4.

Page 679
        Defendant relies on Castile, 795 F.2d at 1278-81. In Castile, the defendant schemed to burn down his restaurant in order to collect insurance proceeds. The government argued that the defendant's conduct caused the insurance company to mail inquiries to the defendant, which formed the basis for several counts of mail fraud against defendant. The court acknowledged that the government proved the first two elements of mail fraud, namely that defendant did scheme to defraud the insurance company, and that his conduct did cause the insurance company to use the mail. Id. at 1278 (quoting Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8-9, 74 S.Ct. 358, 363, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954) (holding that one "causes" mail to be used where one "does an act with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended.")). However, the court held that the government had not proven the third element, that the uses of the mail by the insurance company were "for the purpose of executing the scheme." Id. The mailings furthered the company's investigation, rather than furthering the defendant's scheme; they were an attempt to procure evidence that would tend to defeat the fraudulent scheme, and so conflicted with the defendant's purpose. Id. at 1279-80. Therefore, the court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for mail fraud. Id. at 1281.
        In the present case, the mailing that formed the basis of Count 1 was a letter from a government official, Navy Contracts Specialist Jane Nishiguchi, requesting more information to aid her in determining whether Defendant qualified as a surety. The wire communication that formed the basis of Count 2 was Defendant's response. The mailing that formed the basis of Count 3 was Nishiguchi's request for more information and for an extension of time to make her determination on Defendant's qualifications. The wire communication that formed the basis of Count 4 was Defendant's granting Nishiguchi's request for an extension of time. The mailing that formed the basis of Count 6 was a letter from Charles Beckner, a co-owner of one of the contractors for which Defendant was attempting to serve as surety, requesting additional information about Defendant from a third party insurance company.
        The two mailings from Nishiguchi were clearly in furtherance of the government's investigation in order to defeat any fraudulent scheme, and so were in conflict with Defendant's scheme. Similarly, the letter from Beckner was part of an investigation of Defendant, and was not in furtherance of Defendant's scheme. That is, these three mailings were no different than the insurance company's mailings in Castile. As per Castile, then, these three mailings cannot properly be used as a basis for charges of mail fraud. Therefore, Defendant's conviction on Counts 1, 3, and 6 must be set aside.
        On the other hand, the two wire transmissions from Defendant to Nishiguchi clearly were in furtherance of Defendant's scheme. Defendant argues that granting the request for an extension furthered the government's investigation. That may be true, but it also kept Defendant's scheme alive insofar as denying the request would probably have resulted in Defendant's being rejected as a surety. Therefore, we affirm Defendant's conviction on Count 4.
        Setting aside Defendant's conviction on three counts does not affect Defendant's sentence. The trial court sentenced Defendant to the same sentence for each of the seven counts on which he was convicted, each sentence to run concurrently. Thus the sentence would remain unchanged even if the panel were to affirm Defendant's conviction on only one count.
3.
        Defendant contends that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant had the requisite intent to deceive. Defendant's claims that he misstated his net worth in his Affidavit of Individual Surety forms inadvertently, that he was merely negligent. It is clear, however, that the jury did not believe Defendant's testimony in this regard, and there was ample evidence presented from which a rational jury could infer fraudulent intent, not the

Page 680
least of which were Defendant's own written statements admitting fraudulent intent. This contention is without merit.
4.
        Finally, Defendant contends that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Beckner actually mailed the letter that formed the basis of Count 6. Because we are setting aside Defendant's conviction for Count 6 on other grounds, this issue is moot. However, even if it were not moot, the contention is meritless. Defendant focuses on the fact that one of the witnesses was not certain whether he received the letter via fax or via mail. Defendant disregards, however, Beckner's own testimony, in which he expresses no doubt that the letter was mailed.
III. Conclusion
        For the foregoing reasons, we set aside Defendant's convictions on Counts 1, 3, 6, and 8, reverse the district court's ruling on Counts 7 and 8, affirm the jury's verdict on Counts 2, 4, 5, and 7, and remand in order for the district court to revise its Entry of Judgment accordingly. Defendant's sentence remains unchanged.
---------------
* The Honorable Herman J. Weber, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
1 There were at least four projects for which Defendant attempted to serve as surety: (1) the Pelham Line Rehabilitation Project for the New York City Transit Authority, with contractor American Bridge Company; (2) the Mississippi River Dredging Project for the Army Corps of Engineers, with contractor Bean Dredging; (3) the Johnson Island Project for the United States Navy, with contractor Cascade Leasing; and (4) the Glenville Illinois project, also for the Navy, with contractor Pyramid Industries of Riverdale. Defendant was successful in this last project, and in October 1987, Pyramid Industries defaulted. Defendant then became responsible for completing the project. Various lawsuits were filed against Defendant and his wife, who declared bankruptcy in June 1990. Their total unencumbered assets were worth about $13,000. Unsecured creditors had claims totaling $5,720,665, apparently relating to the Pyramid default.
The indictment alleges that, between May 1987 and June 1989, Defendant was approved as surety on more than fourteen government contracts having a value of more than $39,000,000, generating fees of more than $885,000. Apparently, this was not proved at trial and is not re-alleged in the briefs on appeal.
2 Section 494 provides:
Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any bond, bid, proposal, contract, guarantee, security, official bond, public record, affidavit, or other writing for the purpose of defrauding the United States; or
Whoever utters or publishes as true or possesses with intent to utter or publish as true, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited; or
Whoever transmits to, or presents at any office or to any officer of the United States, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited--
Shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
The original version of Sec. 494 was passed in 1866, and a substantially identical version was passed in 1872. These two acts were codified at U.S.Rev.Stat. Secs. 5418 and 5479 respectively. In 1909, the two statutes were recodified as a single statute at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 72. The statute took its present form in 1948, when it was revised slightly, and recodified at Sec. 494.
3 Section 1001 provides:
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
4 In Moskal, the Court held that, were it to limit its interpretation of the term "falsely made," as used in Sec. 2314, to exclude genuinely executed documents that are false only in content, it would "not accord with Congress' broad purpose in enacting Sec. 2314--namely, to criminalize trafficking in fraudulent securities that exploits interstate commerce." 498 U.S. at 117, 111 S.Ct. at 470. Finding that it was more important to realize "Congress' general purpose" in enacting Sec. 2314 than it was to apply the common law meaning of the statute's terms, the Court declined to interpret the term, "falsely made," as it is used in Sec. 2314, in the way that it was usually interpreted at common law. Id.
This reasoning is inapplicable to Sec. 494 in the present case. Congress explicitly criminalized the act of making false statements to the United States in a genuinely executed document in an entirely separate statute. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 (quoted in note 3, supra). Thus, no overriding Congressional purpose would be served by interpreting the term "falsely makes," as it is used in Sec. 494, in a manner that departs from its common law meaning.
The Moskal Court also found that three lower courts had previously held that the term, "falsely made," applied to genuinely executed documents containing false statements. Id. 498 U.S. at 115, 111 S.Ct. at 469 (citing United States v. Hartman, 65 F. 490 (E.D.Mo.1894); State v. Shurtliff, 18 Me. 368 (1841); and In re Count de Toulouse Lautrec, 102 F. 878 (7th Cir.1900)). From this, the Court concluded that the term was ambiguous at common law. Id. The Court recognized, however, that most courts have interpreted the term to exclude documents that were false only in content. Id. The dissent in Moskal explained that of these three cases, only Hartman actually discussed falsity of content; the other two involved only documents that were not genuinely executed. Id. 498 U.S. at 128-29, 111 S.Ct. at 476 (Scalia, J., dissenting). It pointed out that the Gilbert Court specifically rejected the few scattered cases like Hartman that have applied the term "falsely made," to genuinely

Page 680
executed documents containing false statements. Id. (citing 370 U.S. at 658, 82 S.Ct. at 1404). See also United States v. Davis, 231 U.S. 183, 189, 34 S.Ct. 112, 113, 58 L.Ed. 177 (1913) (interpreting "falsely makes," as used in predecessor statute to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495, to be synonymous with forgery); United States v. Staats, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 41, 46, 12 L.Ed. 979 (1850) (same). (It is worth noting that Sec. 494 more closely resembles Sec. 495 than it does Sec. 2314).
In light of Gilbert, Davis, and Staats, as well as the overwhelming majority of cases and commentators that have held or assumed that "false making" is substantially synonymous with forgery, we believe that Moskal's understanding of the application of the term, "falsely made," as used in Sec. 2314, is not applicable to other statutes, such as Secs. 494 or 495, where departing from the term's common law meaning would not serve any overriding Congressional purpose. If we were to interpret Moskal more broadly than this, we would have to regard Moskal as implicitly overruling Gilbert, Davis, and Staats, which presumably is something that the Moskal Court did not intend to do.
5 The statute at issue in Staats provided:
That if any person or persons shall falsely make, alter, forge, or counterfeit; or cause or procure to be falsely made, altered, forged, or counterfeited; or willingly aid or assist in the false making, altering, forging, or counterfeiting, any deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, or other writing, for the purpose of obtaining or receiving, or of enabling any other person or persons, either directly or indirectly, to obtain or receive, from the United States, or any of their officers or agents any sum or sums of money;
or shall utter or publish as true, or cause to be uttered or published as true, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, or other writing as aforesaid, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited;
or shall transmit to, or present at, or cause or procure to be transmitted to, or presented at, any office or officer of the government of the United States, any deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, or other writing, in support of, or in relation to, any account or claim, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited;
every such person shall be deemed and adjudged guilty of felony, and being thereof duly convicted, shall be sentenced to be imprisoned and kept at hard labor for a period not less than one year, nor more than ten years; or shall be imprisoned not exceeding five years, and fined not exceeding one thousand dollars.
49 U.S. (8 How.) at 41-42 (quoting the Act of March 3d, 1823, 3 Stat. at L., 771, 772) (numerals and paragraph divisions added). Originally, this Act was codified as U.S.Rev.Stat. Sec. 5421. In 1909, it was recodified as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 73. It was slightly revised when it took its current form, as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495, in 1948.
In United States v. Gowdy, 37 F. 332 (E.D.S.C.1889), the court purported to apply the holding of Staats to Sec. 5479, a predecessor statute to Sec. 494, the statute at issue in the present case. However, the Gowdy court was under the misapprehension that Staats involved the very same statute, the Act of March 3d, 1823. The fact is, Gowdy involved the Act of June 8, 1872, a different statute altogether. As discussed below, the holding of Staats is inapplicable to Sec. 494 and its predecessors.
6 Apparently, the trial court and the parties in the present case missed Davis entirely. The court incorrectly stated that Staats "is the only decision of the Supreme Court interpreting the language contained in 18 U.S.C. Secs. 494 & 495." J.A. at 26. As in Staats, the Davis Court was primarily concerned with construing U.S.Rev.Stat. Sec. 5421, the predecessor to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495, but the Court also mentioned U.S.Rev.Stat. Sec. 5479, which was a predecessor to Sec. 494, the statute at issue in the present case. The trial court in Davis treated Secs. 5421 and 5479 "as embracing only documents which were forged and counterfeited," and not documents that "were merely false and fraudulent, but not forged." 231 U.S. at 187, 34 S.Ct. at 112. The government conceded that the trial court was correct regarding Sec. 5479. Id. Thus, the only issue before the Supreme Court was the trial court's construction of Sec. 5421.
7 As of 1909, this statute was codified as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 73. See supra note 5.
8 (Emphasis added). This explains why, in Davis and Mulligan, the predecessor statutes to Sec. 494 were treated differently than the predecessors to Sec. 495.
9 Interestingly, as of 1948, this holding was no longer applicable to Sec. 495 either. In that year, Congress revised the statute by adding the word "such" to its third clause, thereby effectively overruling Staats as to future applications of the statute to genuinely executed documents containing false statements. At the same time, Congress also passed Sec. 1001, which provided that making false statements with intent to defraud the United States was a separate criminal offense. This section rendered the broad scope of the former third clause of the predecessors to Sec. 495 unnecessary.
10 The case upon which Defendant relies, Wright, 704 F.Supp. at 614, reaches the correct result without going through the reasoning applied here. The Wright court did not address Staats or other cases construing Sec. 495 and its predecessors, but rather relied upon Greathouse v. United States, 170 F.2d 512 (4th Cir.1948), which construed similar language appearing in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2314.
11 Some of the evidence presented at trial suggests that Defendant committed acts of forgery, too, but the government chose not to charge Defendant for these alleged acts.
12 Section 1341 provides:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
13 Section 1343 provides:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.Page 670
16 F.3d 670
39 Cont.Cas.Fed. (CCH) P 76,622, 1994 Fed.App. 32P
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Alex G. MERKLINGER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 93-5362.
United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.
Argued Dec. 10, 1993.
Decided Feb. 3, 1994.

Page 671
        Dan Newsom, Asst. U.S. Atty. (briefed), Jennifer L. Webber (argued), Office of the U.S. Atty., Memphis, TN, and Daniel A. Clancy, Asst. U.S. Atty., Office of the U.S. Atty., Jackson, TN, for plaintiff-appellee.
        Patrick F. Martin (briefed) and Rayna Hardee Bomar (argued), Hardee & Martin, Jackson, TN, for defendant-appellant.
        Before: JONES, Circuit Judge; BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge; and WEBER, District Judge. *
        NATHANIEL R. JONES, Circuit Judge.
        Defendant-Appellant Alex G. Merklinger appeals his conviction on seven counts of various acts of fraud and false statements. We find that the trial court erred in construing the statute that was at issue in one count, and that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction on several other counts. However, we affirm the jury verdict on the remaining counts. This disposition does not affect Merklinger's sentence, and so we remand only in order for the lower court to revise its Entry of Judgment in accordance with this decision.
I. Facts
        At the outset, a brief description of bonding requirements for bidding on government projects is in order. A contractor submitting a bid on a government project is usually required to post a performance bond, which guarantees that the work will be completed at the bid price. Similarly, once a contract has been awarded, the contractor is usually required to post a payment bond, which

Page 672
guarantees that all bills for labor, materials, and equipment will be paid. These bonds are issued by a surety in return for a percentage fee. Because the surety fee is included as part of the contractor's bid, the surety fee is actually paid by the government.
        In this case, according to two written statements signed by Defendant: (1) between September 1987 and April 1988, Defendant signed approximately one hundred "Affidavit of Individual Surety" forms that contained fraudulent asset figures that vastly inflated Defendant's net worth, for the purpose of inducing various government agencies to accept him as surety on government contracts; and (2) on January 4, 1989, knowing that he lacked any ability to pay $2 million, Defendant signed a letter of credit for $2 million, addressed to the officer in charge of construction at the Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, for the purpose of qualifying as a surety on a government funded project.
        Defendant was indicted in February 1992, on eight counts. Counts 1, 3, 5, and 6 charged Defendant with mail fraud and aiding and abetting mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1341, 2. Counts 2 and 4 charged him with wire fraud and aiding and abetting wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1343, 2. Count 7 charged him with making false statements, and aiding and abetting the making of false statements, to an agency of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1001, 2. Count 8 charged him with falsely making guarantee, and aiding and abetting the false making of guarantee, pertaining to bond to an officer of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 494, 2.
        Trial was held in December 1992. The evidence indicated that Defendant attempted to become surety for several projects, and succeeded at becoming surety for at least one project. 1 Defendant testified that, although he signed the two incriminating written statements, they were not true. The jury found Defendant guilty on all counts. The trial court found that the offense charged in Count 7 was a lesser included offense of that charged in Count 8, so it acquitted Defendant of Count 7. The court sentenced Defendant to 37 months on each of the remaining counts, to run concurrently, and to be followed by three years of supervised release, and fined him $6,000. This appeal followed.
II. Discussion
A.
        Defendant asked the trial court to instruct the jury that forgery was an element of Sec. 494, and the court declined to do so. Defendant contends on appeal that this was an error, and that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 494, the statute that gave rise to Count 8, requires an element of forgery. 2 The question presented

Page 673
is one of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. United States v. Brown, 915 F.2d 219, 223 (6th Cir.1990) ("A district court engages in statutory construction as a matter of law, and we review its conclusions de novo."). We agree with Defendant that Sec. 494 requires an element of forgery, and that the trial court erred as a matter of law.
        Section 494 criminalizes the acts of false making, altering, forging, or counterfeiting for the purpose of defrauding the United States. In the present case, no one accuses Defendant of altering, forging, or counterfeiting. Rather, in oral argument, the prosecutor suggested that Defendant's false statements to the government fall within the scope of the term, "falsely makes," as used in Sec. 494. However, the government's implication--that the term, "falsely makes," applies to false statements in a genuinely executed document--betrays a misunderstanding of the historic use of this term. At English common law, the term, "false making," was used as an elucidation of the concept of forgery, and the two terms have been substantially synonymous for centuries. See, e.g., 2 East, Pleas of the Crown, 852 (1803) ("Forgery at common law denotes a false making"); 1 Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown, c. 70, Sec. 2, at 182-83 (1762); 4 Blackstone, Commentaries 247-48 (Christian ed. 1809). See generally Gilbert v. United States, 370 U.S. 650, 655-57, 82 S.Ct. 1399, 1402-03, 8 L.Ed.2d 750 (1962) (explaining English common law understanding of "forgery"); Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103, 121-26, 111 S.Ct. 461, 472-74, 112 L.Ed.2d 449 (1990) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (reviewing the use of the term, "falsely made," in law dictionaries, statutes, caselaw, and scholarly commentaries, all of which establish that the term is an essential element of forgery, and does not embrace false contents of a genuinely executed document). The Gilbert Court noted that federal courts have tended to follow the English common law understanding of forgery when construing the word "forge" under federal statutes. 370 U.S. at 658, 82 S.Ct. at 1403-04. As stated in United States v. Wentworth, 11 F. 52, 55 (D.N.H.1882):
To falsely make an affidavit is one thing; to make a false affidavit is another. A person may falsely make an affidavit, every sentence of which may be true in fact. Or he may make an affidavit, every sentence of which shall be false. It is the "false making" which the statute makes an offence, and this is forgery as described in all the elementary books.
        See also Greathouse v. United States, 170 F.2d 512, 514 (4th Cir.1948) ("The words, 'falsely made, forged, altered, or counterfeited' in the collocation in which they appeared are ejusdem generis and are usually employed to denounce the crime of forgery. Indeed it may be said that when used in an association of this kind the words 'falsely made' and 'forged' are substantially synonymous.").
        Once one understands that the term "falsely makes" is synonymous with forgery, it becomes clear that there is no language in Sec. 494 that applies to false statements in a genuinely executed document. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Starr v. Mulligan, 59 F.2d 200, 202 (2d Cir.1932) (stating that in all of the cases construing former 18 U.S.C. Sec. 72, the predecessor to Sec. 494, "the fraud was perpetrated by means of forgery. We think it clear that [Sec. 72] must be so limited."); compare Sec. 494 (criminalizing the act of falsely making statements in order to defraud the United States) with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 (criminalizing the act of making false statements to the United States). 3 But see Moskal, 498 U.S. at 106-18, 111 S.Ct. at 464-

Page 674
70 (holding that, as used in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2314, the term "falsely made" applies to genuinely executed securities containing false or incorrect information). 4
        The parties in the present case did not discuss the traditional distinction between falsely making a statement, and making a false statement, and they apparently overlooked Mulligan. Instead, Defendant relied on United States v. Wright, 704 F.Supp. 613, 614 (D.Md.1989), which held that Sec. 494 is not applicable to documents that were not forged. The government cited to another district court case, United States v. Gowdy, 37 F. 332 (E.D.S.C.1889), which came to the opposite conclusion. Rather than choosing between two contradictory district court cases, the trial court in the present case decided instead to rely on United States v. Staats, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 41, 12 L.Ed. 979 (1850).
        In Staats, the Supreme Court construed a predecessor statute to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495, which contained much, but not all, of the language used in Sec. 494 and its predecessors. 5 The

Page 675
Court held that "[t]he instruments referred to in the first part of the section, the false making or forging of which, with the intent stated, is made an offence, probably are forged instruments in a strict technical sense." Id. (8 How.) at 46. However, the Court reasoned that the third clause of the statute--the one pertaining to "transmission or presentation of deeds or other writings to an officer of the government"--had a much broader scope:
The deeds and other writings mentioned are not connected with those in the preceding paragraph, as would have been natural, and almost of course, if intended to describe similar instruments.... The clause, therefore, may well be regarded as providing for a distinct and independent offence,--one essential to the protection of the government against fraudulent claims.
        Id. (8 How.) at 47. Thus, the third clause of the statute applied to genuine instruments containing false statements, as well as to forged instruments.
        The Supreme Court revisited this language in United States v. Davis, 231 U.S. 183, 188, 34 S.Ct. 112, 112-13, 58 L.Ed. 177 (1913), 6 reaching the same result:
Coming to the text of the third paragraph, we think it is at once apparent that its provisions are so comprehensive as to prevent us from holding that they include only documents which are forged or counterfeited and hence exclude all other documents, however fraudulent they may be.... The context of the section reinforces this view, since the contrast between the narrow scope of the first two paragraphs and the enlarged grasp of the third shows the legislative intent, after fully providing in the first two paragraphs for forged and counterfeited documents, instruments, etc., to reach by the provisions of the third paragraph, any and all fraudulent documents, whether forged or not forged.
        In Mulligan, 59 F.2d at 201, the Second Circuit also had occasion to construe the predecessor to Sec. 495. 7 The indictment alleged that the relator violated the statute when, with fraudulent intent, he "uttered and published" false statements to the Civil Service Commission. Id. The indictment did not allege any act of forgery. Id. Relying on Staats and Davis, the court pointed out that:
It has been authoritatively established that the first clause is limited to the false making, that is, the forging, of writings, while the third clause includes not only forgeries, but also writings genuine in execution but false in statements of fact they contain.

Page 676
        Id. The court found, however, that the only clause of the statute that was at issue was the second clause. Id. The court held that the second clause, like the first, applied only to forgery:
But, to bring the relator's conduct within the denunciation of clause 2, that clause must be given an interpretation as broad as that of clause 3 in respect to the false writings enumerated in each. To do this necessitates disregarding the word "such," inserted in the second and omitted in the third clause. The presence of "such" limits the scope of the second clause to such writings as are described in clause 1.
        Id.
        According to the trial court in the present case, the statute at issue in Staats "contained language virtually identical to that in Sec. 494 and its predecessors." J.A. at 25. This statement is incorrect, and the difference in language between the statute construed in Staats, Davis, and Mulligan, and Sec. 494 is of key importance to the present issue. Unlike the predecessors to Sec. 495 that were discussed in Staats, Davis, and Mulligan, the third clause to Sec. 494 and its predecessors has always included the word "such": "Whoever transmits to, or presents at any office or to any officer of the United States, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing...." 8 As per Mulligan, the presence of the word "such" in both the second and third clauses of Sec. 494 "limits the scope of the [clauses] to such writings as are described in clause 1." 59 F.2d at 201. Accordingly, as per Staats, Davis, and Mulligan, these writings only include forged, altered, or counterfeited documents.
        Therefore, the Supreme Court's holding in Staats--that the third clause of the predecessor to Sec. 495 applies to genuinely executed documents containing false statements as well as to forged documents--is not applicable to Sec. 494 or its predecessors. 9 It follows that the trial court erred by applying this aspect of Staats to the present case. 10
B.
        Because Defendant was not accused of forgery, but only of making false statements in documents that Defendant genuinely executed, 11 Count 8, which charged that Defendant violated Sec. 494, should have been dismissed. However, the trial court made a second error in construing Sec. 494, and it happens that the second error repaired whatever damage was caused by the court's first error. This is a situation in which two wrongs did indeed make a right. Even though neither party raises this error as an issue on appeal, we address it sua sponte.
        The jury found Defendant guilty on all counts, including Count 7, which charged Defendant with violating Sec. 1001. The trial court dismissed Count 7, however, holding that Sec. 1001 was a lesser included offense of Sec. 494:
The Sec. 1001 offense requires: 1) a false statement or writing, 2) knowledge of the statement or writing's falsity, and 3) that the false statement or writing regard a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States. The

Page 677
relevant paragraph of Sec. 494 requires: 1) a false writing, 2) knowledge of the writing's falsity, and 3) presentation of the false writing to an office or officer of the United States.... Therefore, as Sec. 1001 requires proof of no fact that is not also required by Sec. 494, it constitutes a lesser included offense of Sec. 494.
        J.A. at 27. However, as discussed in the preceding section, the trial court misstated the elements of Sec. 494. Section 494 applies only to forged, altered, or counterfeited documents, regardless of whether the statements therein are true or false, while Sec. 1001 applies to false statements, regardless of whether the statements are made in a forged or genuinely executed document. The two offenses are, then, entirely separate, and the trial court erred by dismissing Count 7.
        Therefore, the trial court should have dismissed Count 8 and not Count 7. The trial court applied Sentencing Guideline Sec. 2F1.1 in calculating Defendant's sentence for Count 8. See United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, Appendix A (directing courts to apply Sec. 2F1.1 to violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 494). This is precisely the guideline that the court should have applied to violations of Sec. 1001. See Appendix A. This guideline "is designed to apply to a wide variety of fraud cases." U.S.S.G. Sec. 2F1.1, comment (background).
        It follows that Defendant's sentence on Count 8--37 months followed by three years of supervised release--would have been just as appropriate as a sentence for Count 7 had the trial court not erred regarding Sec. 494 at all. Therefore, although we remand for revision of the Entry of Judgment, we find no need to remand for resentencing.
C.
        The trial court granted the government's motion in limine preventing Defendant from introducing evidence to show that he had previously been acquitted of similar charges in a prior case. Defendant contends that he had made admissions to investigators because he was despondent, and that the previous acquittal was relevant to his state of mind. The court ruled that Defendant could present evidence that he had been through previous criminal litigation, but could not mention the verdict, holding that there was no logical connection between the favorable verdict and Defendant's alleged despondency. The court also found that evidence of the favorable verdict could confuse the jury.
        "The exclusion of evidence on the grounds of relevancy is within the discretion of the district court," and a reviewing court will reverse only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Williams, 952 F.2d 1504, 1519 (6th Cir.1991). We find ample basis for the trial court's ruling on this issue, and so find no abuse of discretion.
D.
        Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury verdict. According to United States v. Blakeney, 942 F.2d 1001, 1010 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 881, 116 L.Ed.2d 785 (1992):
The relevant inquiry when reviewing claims of insufficient evidence is "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are accorded the same weight and "the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice may support a conviction under federal law." United States v. Frost, 914 F.2d 756, 762 (6th Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Gallo, 763 F.2d 1504, 1518 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017, 106 S.Ct. 1200, 89 L.Ed.2d 314 (1986). Therefore, we will reverse a judgment for insufficiency of evidence only if, viewing the record as a whole, the judgment is not supported by substantial and competent evidence. [United States v.] Ellzey, 874 F.2d [324,] 328 [ (6th Cir.1989) ].
        Defendant offers five arguments in support of his claim that the evidence against him was insufficient. The first of these arguments is that the evidence was insufficient as to Count 8 because there was no proof of forgery; we have already explained why we

Page 678
agree. As for the four remaining arguments, one has merit, and so we set aside Defendant's convictions on four of the eight counts, (including Count 8).
1.
        Defendant argues that the evidence failed to show that the alleged victims of mail and wire fraud relied on the mailings and wire transmissions that were the subject of Counts 1-4 and 6. Apparently, the government does not disagree that it did not prove reliance; the issue is whether such reliance is indeed an element of mail and wire fraud.
        To support a conviction for mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341, 12 the government must prove: (1) the existence of a scheme to defraud, (2) which involves the use of the mail, or of wire transmissions, (3) for the purpose of executing the scheme. United States v. Castile, 795 F.2d 1273, 1277-78 (6th Cir.1986). To support a conviction for wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343, 13 the government must prove: (1) the existence of a scheme to defraud, (2) use of wire communications in furtherance of the scheme, and (3) that the scheme was intended to deprive a victim of money and property. United States v. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d 232, 234 (6th Cir.1990).
        Reliance is not an element of either of these types of fraud. Indeed, Defendant expressly recognizes that the mail and wire fraud statutes do not require proof that the intended victim was actually defrauded; the actual success of a scheme to defraud is not an element of either Sec. 1341 or Sec. 1343. Ames Sintering Co., 927 F.2d at 235; United States v. Hathaway, 798 F.2d 902, 912 (6th Cir.1986); United States v. Goodpastor, 769 F.2d 374, 378-79 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 983, 106 S.Ct. 391, 88 L.Ed.2d 343 (1985). This implies that reliance is not an element of mail or wire fraud.
        The authorities cited by Defendant in support of his claim to the contrary are cases in which a private plaintiff alleged mail fraud in a civil suit; while it is true that such plaintiffs must prove reliance in order to recover damages, it does not follow that the government must prove reliance in order to convict a mail fraud defendant. Thus, Defendant's argument is without merit.
2.
        Next, Defendant argues that the government failed to present any evidence that the mail and wire transmissions underlying Counts 1, 3, 4, and 6 were used to further Defendant's scheme to defraud. Rather, he contends, the purpose of the mailings and transmissions, far from promoting the scheme, positively conflicted with it by making it easier to detect. We agree with Defendant regarding Counts 1, 3, and 6, but not with regard to Count 4.

Page 679
        Defendant relies on Castile, 795 F.2d at 1278-81. In Castile, the defendant schemed to burn down his restaurant in order to collect insurance proceeds. The government argued that the defendant's conduct caused the insurance company to mail inquiries to the defendant, which formed the basis for several counts of mail fraud against defendant. The court acknowledged that the government proved the first two elements of mail fraud, namely that defendant did scheme to defraud the insurance company, and that his conduct did cause the insurance company to use the mail. Id. at 1278 (quoting Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8-9, 74 S.Ct. 358, 363, 98 L.Ed. 435 (1954) (holding that one "causes" mail to be used where one "does an act with knowledge that the use of the mails will follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use can reasonably be foreseen, even though not actually intended.")). However, the court held that the government had not proven the third element, that the uses of the mail by the insurance company were "for the purpose of executing the scheme." Id. The mailings furthered the company's investigation, rather than furthering the defendant's scheme; they were an attempt to procure evidence that would tend to defeat the fraudulent scheme, and so conflicted with the defendant's purpose. Id. at 1279-80. Therefore, the court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for mail fraud. Id. at 1281.
        In the present case, the mailing that formed the basis of Count 1 was a letter from a government official, Navy Contracts Specialist Jane Nishiguchi, requesting more information to aid her in determining whether Defendant qualified as a surety. The wire communication that formed the basis of Count 2 was Defendant's response. The mailing that formed the basis of Count 3 was Nishiguchi's request for more information and for an extension of time to make her determination on Defendant's qualifications. The wire communication that formed the basis of Count 4 was Defendant's granting Nishiguchi's request for an extension of time. The mailing that formed the basis of Count 6 was a letter from Charles Beckner, a co-owner of one of the contractors for which Defendant was attempting to serve as surety, requesting additional information about Defendant from a third party insurance company.
        The two mailings from Nishiguchi were clearly in furtherance of the government's investigation in order to defeat any fraudulent scheme, and so were in conflict with Defendant's scheme. Similarly, the letter from Beckner was part of an investigation of Defendant, and was not in furtherance of Defendant's scheme. That is, these three mailings were no different than the insurance company's mailings in Castile. As per Castile, then, these three mailings cannot properly be used as a basis for charges of mail fraud. Therefore, Defendant's conviction on Counts 1, 3, and 6 must be set aside.
        On the other hand, the two wire transmissions from Defendant to Nishiguchi clearly were in furtherance of Defendant's scheme. Defendant argues that granting the request for an extension furthered the government's investigation. That may be true, but it also kept Defendant's scheme alive insofar as denying the request would probably have resulted in Defendant's being rejected as a surety. Therefore, we affirm Defendant's conviction on Count 4.
        Setting aside Defendant's conviction on three counts does not affect Defendant's sentence. The trial court sentenced Defendant to the same sentence for each of the seven counts on which he was convicted, each sentence to run concurrently. Thus the sentence would remain unchanged even if the panel were to affirm Defendant's conviction on only one count.
3.
        Defendant contends that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant had the requisite intent to deceive. Defendant's claims that he misstated his net worth in his Affidavit of Individual Surety forms inadvertently, that he was merely negligent. It is clear, however, that the jury did not believe Defendant's testimony in this regard, and there was ample evidence presented from which a rational jury could infer fraudulent intent, not the

Page 680
least of which were Defendant's own written statements admitting fraudulent intent. This contention is without merit.
4.
        Finally, Defendant contends that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Beckner actually mailed the letter that formed the basis of Count 6. Because we are setting aside Defendant's conviction for Count 6 on other grounds, this issue is moot. However, even if it were not moot, the contention is meritless. Defendant focuses on the fact that one of the witnesses was not certain whether he received the letter via fax or via mail. Defendant disregards, however, Beckner's own testimony, in which he expresses no doubt that the letter was mailed.
III. Conclusion
        For the foregoing reasons, we set aside Defendant's convictions on Counts 1, 3, 6, and 8, reverse the district court's ruling on Counts 7 and 8, affirm the jury's verdict on Counts 2, 4, 5, and 7, and remand in order for the district court to revise its Entry of Judgment accordingly. Defendant's sentence remains unchanged.
---------------
* The Honorable Herman J. Weber, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
1 There were at least four projects for which Defendant attempted to serve as surety: (1) the Pelham Line Rehabilitation Project for the New York City Transit Authority, with contractor American Bridge Company; (2) the Mississippi River Dredging Project for the Army Corps of Engineers, with contractor Bean Dredging; (3) the Johnson Island Project for the United States Navy, with contractor Cascade Leasing; and (4) the Glenville Illinois project, also for the Navy, with contractor Pyramid Industries of Riverdale. Defendant was successful in this last project, and in October 1987, Pyramid Industries defaulted. Defendant then became responsible for completing the project. Various lawsuits were filed against Defendant and his wife, who declared bankruptcy in June 1990. Their total unencumbered assets were worth about $13,000. Unsecured creditors had claims totaling $5,720,665, apparently relating to the Pyramid default.
The indictment alleges that, between May 1987 and June 1989, Defendant was approved as surety on more than fourteen government contracts having a value of more than $39,000,000, generating fees of more than $885,000. Apparently, this was not proved at trial and is not re-alleged in the briefs on appeal.
2 Section 494 provides:
Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any bond, bid, proposal, contract, guarantee, security, official bond, public record, affidavit, or other writing for the purpose of defrauding the United States; or
Whoever utters or publishes as true or possesses with intent to utter or publish as true, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited; or
Whoever transmits to, or presents at any office or to any officer of the United States, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited--
Shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
The original version of Sec. 494 was passed in 1866, and a substantially identical version was passed in 1872. These two acts were codified at U.S.Rev.Stat. Secs. 5418 and 5479 respectively. In 1909, the two statutes were recodified as a single statute at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 72. The statute took its present form in 1948, when it was revised slightly, and recodified at Sec. 494.
3 Section 1001 provides:
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
4 In Moskal, the Court held that, were it to limit its interpretation of the term "falsely made," as used in Sec. 2314, to exclude genuinely executed documents that are false only in content, it would "not accord with Congress' broad purpose in enacting Sec. 2314--namely, to criminalize trafficking in fraudulent securities that exploits interstate commerce." 498 U.S. at 117, 111 S.Ct. at 470. Finding that it was more important to realize "Congress' general purpose" in enacting Sec. 2314 than it was to apply the common law meaning of the statute's terms, the Court declined to interpret the term, "falsely made," as it is used in Sec. 2314, in the way that it was usually interpreted at common law. Id.
This reasoning is inapplicable to Sec. 494 in the present case. Congress explicitly criminalized the act of making false statements to the United States in a genuinely executed document in an entirely separate statute. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 (quoted in note 3, supra). Thus, no overriding Congressional purpose would be served by interpreting the term "falsely makes," as it is used in Sec. 494, in a manner that departs from its common law meaning.
The Moskal Court also found that three lower courts had previously held that the term, "falsely made," applied to genuinely executed documents containing false statements. Id. 498 U.S. at 115, 111 S.Ct. at 469 (citing United States v. Hartman, 65 F. 490 (E.D.Mo.1894); State v. Shurtliff, 18 Me. 368 (1841); and In re Count de Toulouse Lautrec, 102 F. 878 (7th Cir.1900)). From this, the Court concluded that the term was ambiguous at common law. Id. The Court recognized, however, that most courts have interpreted the term to exclude documents that were false only in content. Id. The dissent in Moskal explained that of these three cases, only Hartman actually discussed falsity of content; the other two involved only documents that were not genuinely executed. Id. 498 U.S. at 128-29, 111 S.Ct. at 476 (Scalia, J., dissenting). It pointed out that the Gilbert Court specifically rejected the few scattered cases like Hartman that have applied the term "falsely made," to genuinely

Page 680
executed documents containing false statements. Id. (citing 370 U.S. at 658, 82 S.Ct. at 1404). See also United States v. Davis, 231 U.S. 183, 189, 34 S.Ct. 112, 113, 58 L.Ed. 177 (1913) (interpreting "falsely makes," as used in predecessor statute to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495, to be synonymous with forgery); United States v. Staats, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 41, 46, 12 L.Ed. 979 (1850) (same). (It is worth noting that Sec. 494 more closely resembles Sec. 495 than it does Sec. 2314).
In light of Gilbert, Davis, and Staats, as well as the overwhelming majority of cases and commentators that have held or assumed that "false making" is substantially synonymous with forgery, we believe that Moskal's understanding of the application of the term, "falsely made," as used in Sec. 2314, is not applicable to other statutes, such as Secs. 494 or 495, where departing from the term's common law meaning would not serve any overriding Congressional purpose. If we were to interpret Moskal more broadly than this, we would have to regard Moskal as implicitly overruling Gilbert, Davis, and Staats, which presumably is something that the Moskal Court did not intend to do.
5 The statute at issue in Staats provided:
That if any person or persons shall falsely make, alter, forge, or counterfeit; or cause or procure to be falsely made, altered, forged, or counterfeited; or willingly aid or assist in the false making, altering, forging, or counterfeiting, any deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, or other writing, for the purpose of obtaining or receiving, or of enabling any other person or persons, either directly or indirectly, to obtain or receive, from the United States, or any of their officers or agents any sum or sums of money;
or shall utter or publish as true, or cause to be uttered or published as true, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, or other writing as aforesaid, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited;
or shall transmit to, or present at, or cause or procure to be transmitted to, or presented at, any office or officer of the government of the United States, any deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, or other writing, in support of, or in relation to, any account or claim, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited;
every such person shall be deemed and adjudged guilty of felony, and being thereof duly convicted, shall be sentenced to be imprisoned and kept at hard labor for a period not less than one year, nor more than ten years; or shall be imprisoned not exceeding five years, and fined not exceeding one thousand dollars.
49 U.S. (8 How.) at 41-42 (quoting the Act of March 3d, 1823, 3 Stat. at L., 771, 772) (numerals and paragraph divisions added). Originally, this Act was codified as U.S.Rev.Stat. Sec. 5421. In 1909, it was recodified as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 73. It was slightly revised when it took its current form, as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495, in 1948.
In United States v. Gowdy, 37 F. 332 (E.D.S.C.1889), the court purported to apply the holding of Staats to Sec. 5479, a predecessor statute to Sec. 494, the statute at issue in the present case. However, the Gowdy court was under the misapprehension that Staats involved the very same statute, the Act of March 3d, 1823. The fact is, Gowdy involved the Act of June 8, 1872, a different statute altogether. As discussed below, the holding of Staats is inapplicable to Sec. 494 and its predecessors.
6 Apparently, the trial court and the parties in the present case missed Davis entirely. The court incorrectly stated that Staats "is the only decision of the Supreme Court interpreting the language contained in 18 U.S.C. Secs. 494 & 495." J.A. at 26. As in Staats, the Davis Court was primarily concerned with construing U.S.Rev.Stat. Sec. 5421, the predecessor to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 495, but the Court also mentioned U.S.Rev.Stat. Sec. 5479, which was a predecessor to Sec. 494, the statute at issue in the present case. The trial court in Davis treated Secs. 5421 and 5479 "as embracing only documents which were forged and counterfeited," and not documents that "were merely false and fraudulent, but not forged." 231 U.S. at 187, 34 S.Ct. at 112. The government conceded that the trial court was correct regarding Sec. 5479. Id. Thus, the only issue before the Supreme Court was the trial court's construction of Sec. 5421.
7 As of 1909, this statute was codified as 18 U.S.C. Sec. 73. See supra note 5.
8 (Emphasis added). This explains why, in Davis and Mulligan, the predecessor statutes to Sec. 494 were treated differently than the predecessors to Sec. 495.
9 Interestingly, as of 1948, this holding was no longer applicable to Sec. 495 either. In that year, Congress revised the statute by adding the word "such" to its third clause, thereby effectively overruling Staats as to future applications of the statute to genuinely executed documents containing false statements. At the same time, Congress also passed Sec. 1001, which provided that making false statements with intent to defraud the United States was a separate criminal offense. This section rendered the broad scope of the former third clause of the predecessors to Sec. 495 unnecessary.
10 The case upon which Defendant relies, Wright, 704 F.Supp. at 614, reaches the correct result without going through the reasoning applied here. The Wright court did not address Staats or other cases construing Sec. 495 and its predecessors, but rather relied upon Greathouse v. United States, 170 F.2d 512 (4th Cir.1948), which construed similar language appearing in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2314.
11 Some of the evidence presented at trial suggests that Defendant committed acts of forgery, too, but the government chose not to charge Defendant for these alleged acts.
12 Section 1341 provides:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
13 Section 1343 provides:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:02 am Post subject: Dorean Latest Missives

Thursday, April 12, 2007
The end is near (03-20-07)
We have come to that place where delays are harder to come by. Whether by the final revelation (coming) method or by trial the accusation of bank fraud is going to be settled. Based on the unfolding of trial preparation I could not be happier with how things have gone. If one is willing to suffer they can confront the tyrant. Scott and I trained in Christ for suffering we’ll get that privilege. The only way they could win is to scare us into a surrender. It worked on others but not on us. Knowing how close our remedy is pursuing us is getting exciting. I have never been bound by the ignorance on this blog or in the courtroom. Thank the Lord I have always been able to see my way clearly on the subject matter. The last important battle now is for evidence. The government’s favorite tool is to disallow any exonerating evidence and to have a trial irrelevant to the true facts. A mere piece of controlled propaganda. I’ve been preparing for this weapon for two years. They will not be able to help themselves falling into the traps I’ve laid for them to raise the precluded evidence. Once the subjects are breached by the prosecution they are open game. A trapper must know the behavior of the prey to be successful. A seven-month trial for securities fraud is very revealing if you keep your eyes open. The stakes were not high then. I was a young man who could do the time, did not have the interest of thousands of clients, an industry at risk, or a great wife. I am glad to have had the training then to benefit now. That is the wonder of living in Christ. All things work together for good for those who are called according to His purposes. Things will rapidly be changing so pay attention.

NEED: I no longer have copies of the radio show I did with Alex Merklinger and the gentleman in Washington D.C. Also the TV interview on Fox News. If any of you have a copy, link, or access I will need these as evidence. Your help is appreciated.


Current Address:

Kurt Johnson 13177081
Federal Detention Center
5675 8th St. Camp Parks
Dublin, CA 94568
posted by whistleblower at 4:45 PM 4 comments



( ) Denotes Alex Merklinger’s involvment as a broker with the Dorean group.

mogel said...
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:40 am Post subject: Alex Merklinger interview

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kurt Johnson & Scott Hineman – Dorean Group - selected transcript

Scott: Researched UCC, banking – got into this from an investigative standpoint – was always able to come current or reinstate, didn’t come from a position of poverty - truly believed there was an issue to explore – 5 ½ months later I ended up with free and clear title to my home – last I heard from World Savings before this recent lawsuit, was a letter March 2004 saying “happy anniversary, your payments will be this number starting July 1, ’04” and I refused that contract offer and have not heard from them since, until there is the lawsuit now. They expected me to re-contract with them – they quit sending billing statements in Jan ’03. Curious that it was several months down the road when they wanted to start payments again. I had two loans, two notes – 1st loan was $325K and 2nd was $95K – 4 months after reconveyance was done, World Savings sold that note to some 3rd party debt collector, and I ran them through the conventional validation of debt and I haven’t heard from them in a couple of years, year and a half – the first is what they’re trying to come after at this point.

Alex Merklinger: How many conveyances have you successfully completed?

Scott: 1200 or 1300

Alex: this is working right now almost on a daily basis

Scott: that’s correct – we had a little bit of an interruption with the FBI seizure of documents – had to find our equalibrium again – people often say “the banks didn’t do the reconveyance therefore its not valid, whole substitution of trust was done illegally” – we have done enough research, and its on-going with the help of some real pros, we’ve dug up even more dishonor in the system. But we get to where we get to with the reconveyance based on the law. The agency, we have demonstrable evidence that you can be appointed agent for someone through their silence and law and statue backs that up.

Alex: have you had a lot of flack from the banks?

Scott: we had the FBI come in [laughter]. The banks are starting to put affidavits into the county recorders office making the public notice, which is really where it ought to be – everything we do is done with plenty of notice, plenty of honor, we give them a bond and we do what we say we’re going to do. The idea that they can insist that an obligation is due while they’re holding a bond is really an impossibility at law. Our administrative side butrusses that argument, collecting the foreign judgement, if you will, which estopps the banks entirely from bringing action into court – that’s a process that we employed about 2 months ago.

Alex: let’s talk about the FBI raid.

Scott: Kurt was down in LA and we don’t think that was an accident that they came in while he was out. I’ve always instructed our people to keep the doors locked. On this day it was open. A guy pops his head in and says, “FBI.” And I really thought it was a joke at first and then I saw all these people rush in and corral all my people into the back. The agents went down the line asking people to identify themselves and a few of us would not identify ourselves. A few people didn’t know how to handle themselves and they identified themselves and they were allowed to leave.

Alex: why would you not identify yourselves, and why would you not have to do that?

Scott: its my understanding that these guys are coming in and attacking a fiction. The warrant on its face did not have a proper seal and so they’re coming in improperly. It was the same with the warrant that was at my house. And the one used to seize our checking account balances. They expect us to be sureity for these all-caps people and what their asking for essentially is somebody to bond the action. We’re not interested in being sureity for the fiction. We know they’re there simply to incite and indict and we weren’t going to be party to that.

They didn’t come in with a cease and dissest or injunction, they just came to grab up records – it was a Which-Hunt.

Alex: at any time were they not polite, not gentlemanly?

Scott: No, for the most part they were pretty respectful – they were forceful. They wouldn’t let us make telephone calls – I wanted to call Kurt to tell him to go get our money, but by the time that happened they had already gotten it.

Alex: why wouldn’t they allow you make phone calls? Is that legal?

Kurt: It comes down to controlling the environment – they’re all running around in flack-jackets because they’re doing stuff that most people would get shot for – and that’s just the way they are and that’s not going to change – what pissed me off is that they used my copy machine to make copies, so they’re cheap bastards, too. [Laughter] We’re learning to collect their dishonor, so its working out pretty good for us.

There was a company by the name of Mike Barnet and company, when they got raided it was just a bunch of shell companies that he controlled jockeying money around and they didn’t have any kind of process and they had a few million dollars . Then they [FBI] went over to Redwood Trust in New York and they found basically a ponzi scheme. They came here and found 175k documents that prove we do exactly what we say we do.

And they didn’t get all the evidence and so we made sure to submit it to the court. They didn’t get the letter of credit that backs our bond and I thought that was important so we filed that in court within a couple days on top of our memorandum of law and our business plan.

Alex: they said you’d get your documents back in a month – its been a month – have you gotten them back?

Kurt: We’re not going to get ‘em back. I think quite frankly they all have stains on their lips from the banker’s butts. We even had one FBI agent tell one of our clients that the banks are too big to fight and that’s why we did it. You know what? Nobody told me that they were too big, ‘cause a bully that has to steal your money has no power.

(Alex: How many clients have the FBI approached and tried to strong-arm them or put pressure on them or scare ‘em? )

Kurt: Well that’s the next tactic and hopefully our clients are paying attention and aware. They’ve got our client list and they’re going to try and convert our clients into hostile witnesses. They’re going to do it by lying to the clients and making up different things. I’ve already been down this road, I’m way ahead of them – our policy is clients can say anything they like, we have nothing to hide. We just want to know who’s damaging us commercially and we have remedies. Get a copy of their business cards.

Scott: We suggest you ask the agent to put their questions in writing and then you can give them a thoughtful response – you stay in honor and we can become involved at that point. The client does not have to answer question unless its under court order.

Alex: What has transpired in the business since all this happened?

Kurt: We have about a dozen clients that have been spooked out of their rights. One client in particular I want to address tonight, Sheldon Mitchel (sp?) – the government went Boo and they crapped themselves. For the most part the results from the clients has been outstanding. We’re talking to them, we’re on conference calls, we hold press conferences inviting the media in and the FBI – nobody showed up

Scott: we had a meeting about 250 strong with Farrel LeCompte and CCR in Las Vegas, and I was really humbled by that experience – to get a standing ovation is very humbling – we’re not in this for that, that’s not why we’re here and you asked about the business and its actually increased – the population at large who is educated in such matters says hey, there’s these guys where the FBI went Boo and they said up yours and we’re pushing back to expose them for the liars, cheats, thieves and cowards that they are.

They went before the grand jury and couldn’t get an indictment – they said go get more evidence – Mathew Earnst in Concord and the FBI put in a sealed affadavit – apparently he has some first hand knowledge of our business – and then he got 3 warrents to collect evidence – then they just want to control evidence so they can control the indictment – its nothing new, its been their tactic for a couple hundred years by now – we keep submitting truth and they keep rejecting it – we submitted our business plan including affadavit of law on agency and we submitted our memorandum of law on entitlement rights and the UCC in application to mortgage documents with a copy of our letter of credit which backs our bond as notice to court and you think the court would be interested in evidence about what we rely on, what our business intention is – heck they’re attacking our business, you would think the business plan would be appropriate evidence.

US attorney James Keller was so appalled by that he put in a motion to strike and got his boss and another associate Kevin V. Ryan and Emoy Choy or Chow or whatever her name is to join him on this motion to strike, and Judge Brazil, the jury tamporer that he is, decided that he would strike everything – and this is just a notice to the court of evidence they missed – and so he not only struck it, he said if its not out of his courthouse in seven days he would destroy it – I think destroying evidence is pretty much evidence of the intent of these people – we’re dealing with it – we filed a notice of appeal on that yesterday – business plan, I think that’s relevant to what Dorean is and who Dorean claims to be, it included the memorandum of law on agency which is 800 cases which justify my position, then we had a memorandum of law on entitlement rights written in a flow-chart format which shows how the rights flow and transfer through the documents in accordance with the UCC and we tried to keep it at the Romper Room level so that people could look at it and understand it – and so I thought that was relevant – and since the contract is what the whole thing centers around, so understanding the rights of the contracting parties would be relevant.

One of the claims that shoots out there is that my bond isn’t worth the paper its printed on, and so I thought it would be relevant to show I have a letter of credit for 150 million dollars and so I submitted that as evidence. They opened up evidentiary files when they gave us the case numbers of 0570050, 52 and 53 – I had a hostile entry into an evidentiary hearing – the FBI came in hostilly and opened up an evidentiary hearing and then they don’t want me to participate, so sorry – I participated. And the judge was furious and he wants that evidence out of there ‘cause god forbid we ever prove we relied on the law.

Alex: can he [the judge] effectively do that?

Kurt: Well, we just noticed him on appeal so we’ll find out, but we resubmitted the evidence in another fashion that he can’t destroy. I gotta tell ya, Judge Alsup is a political hack and Judge Brazil is nothing more than a jury tamperer. I would be impressed with the office if it stayed within its office, but when, if I can be polite, Jackass who puts on a robe and steps outside his authority, these guys don’t impress me – they still got butt-stains on their lips from kissing the bankers butt – we’re taking them head-on and we’re collecting evidence and maybe the next grand jury indictment won’t be ours.

Scott: If he had a basis of law for destroying evidence, he didn’t supply it in his motion to strike. One of the things that we understand is that is an extraordinary move for him to take that he’s going to threaten to shred all the documents if we don’t pick them up in about four days – that’s extraordinary

Kurt: You know that they’re worried because they’re behaving very very strangely. I feel like they grabbed a porcupine and they’re trying to figure out how to let it go because we have relied on the law, we have developed our company around the law – and you know I went to prison for 5yrs 8months for securities fraud and I’m not going to talk about the guilt or innocence or whether there was corruption in that or not – but hey, if you can dish it out, lets see if you can take it. I learned about securities fraud – I know about it – I would say that I’m an expert in that arena - I wanted to know how somebody could put me in jail for 5 yrs 8months and so I studied on the subject. In the study it turns out the banks are doing what I was accused of – so either apologize to me because its public policy to rip people off or send them to jail.

Alex: you’re fighting on two fronts - the court system which obviously is bought and paid for, just as the FBI said the bank’s are a lot bigger so we’re going to support them – the banks and the courts – is there any precedent set for something like you’re doing?

Kurt: No, there isn’t. I think there’s been plenty of people who have conceptually understood that there’s fraud in the mortgage industry, and I think its kind of a divine moment, if I can put it that way, in history because the current mortgage system is peaking in its greed right now and lust over its booty, and it happens to be peaking right as Fannie Mae is under scrutiny for their accounting debacle. The big story is the 11 billion dollars in accounting descrepencies and I’m saying the entire company of the GSE for 2 trillion dollars is a mortgage scheme, if I could use that word [laughs] – it’s a mortgage scheme to defraud the American public as a co-op between the government and the bankers and the entire thing is a fraud and needs to be totally re-vamped. Is it irony that Dorean is making the kind of noise that it is at a time when its imploding? Maybe not.

Alex: when this comes down, you will be setting a precedent in law.

Kurt: They’re not going to get away with it. We’re just two guys who are dumb enough to not give a care about our life, we believe in standing by the truth to our deaths – we don’t get bullied, we don’t get knocked around and because of that we’re making progress against the tyrant. But the real power is the people – if you ever wake up to your rights and understand what we’re talking about, it don’t take very many to say we ain’t taking your crap no more before everybody starts getting scared.

(Alex: a woman just starting the process was asked on camera why she was involved with this fraudulent land transaction – they are putting pressure on people from all different avenues )

Kurt: Poker analogy – these guys don’t have good cards, they’re just trying to bluff you out of your rights – the reason we set up our structure the way we did is so that you guys can buy a champion very cheap who wants to come in and is not afraid of these guys and we’ll take ‘em on. It is not going to be a wimp who moves the banking system that is profiting almost 10 trillion dollars – that’s a lot of money – there’s no motivation for them to fix it and the only way its going to get fixed is for somebody to come in and cost them more money than its worth, and then once that happens, if the whistle blower can survive all the ridicule and all the absolute idiots…

I mean we had a reporter by the name of Todd Aldrich from Orlando and he was dense as a box of rocks interviewing us today – he could not get past his own preconceived notions and presumptions to even legitimately investigate a story. And this is somebody who is going to write his opinion which is really an editorial as proper investigation and this is what people are going to have to sift through. We are trying to get on programs and in the media as a voice of reason – I don’t care if people get scared and don’t want to work with us, go away – we’re not here to save 80 million mortgages, we’re here to deal with a few people who want to stand for their own rights and for their own estates and love their kids enough to fight for their future – those are the ones we want to help – the rest of you can go listen to idiots like that Todd Aldrich

Scott: and the BBB guy [laughter]

Kurt: when I called the press conference in South Carolina, there was one local BBB president named John Trudeau who was reported or quoted as saying that I was “enhancing my criminal enterprise” and he did show up and that was it – he was invited, the FBI was invited, local radio and television was invited – but John wouldn’t go on camera and I went over and introduced myself to Mr. Trudeau and said “Hi I’m Kurt Johnson and I understand you think I’m a criminal” – he said, “oh I never said that” and I said “oh that’s funny because that’s how they quoted you.

But a principle who has knowledge of an agent’s misstatement has the duty to retract them and if he doesn’t then he buys them and so he said he’d look into it. These are the kinds of honest guys who are out there throwing out their opinions – and I gotta tell ya, their economic sense, they can’t even balance their checkbooks – these guys don’t know anything, they operate on presumption – and it’s a wonderful life where you can eat milk and cookies and believe in fairy tales because they tell you “Oh, of course the bank loaned you money.” I mean attorneys are saying, “Of course they loaned you money” – Come on, I’m a little deeper than that!

That was the argument of the guy out of Wisconsin – “You got a house” – and they don’t want to look at the transaction – I brought up this metaphor when I was with you last time – I invite you to my church and we make a contract where you think you’re going to join my choir next Sunday and I take you out back and say welcome, don’t put the robe on, I want you to strip, I’m actually running a strip club in the back. We got a deal… That’s the logic behind it.

The deal was based on fraud and now you’re making me do something that’s totally bad for me because you hid the material facts. Paying for a house three times over after you’ve already paid for it is bad for you. And its just like being in a strip club when you thought you were joining a choir.

Alex: who are you going after, the entire system, the federal reserve, what?

Kurt: Actually, we’re not really going after anybody – we’re trying to be a business that functions in a commercial arena that addresses a contract that we believe is fraudulent – does that change the banking system? Well, maybe if they get tired of losing mortgages and not getting away with the fraud then maybe they’re going to figure out a way to change it – but our agenda is not to create a new banking system – I would love to be in front of Congress and assist them in helping to come up with a system, but until I get that invitation, that’s not on my agenda – my agenda is you contract with me to provide a service, I need to be as knowledge as I can, as persistent as I can, as tenacious as I can to get a job done which is to remove an invalid lien on an assets of the family estate trust so that your benefitiairies can prosper – and I try to keep it that simple – if that changes the world, fantastic – if it doesn’t I hope it changes your life – I’ve had the opportunity to do it 2000 to 3000 times now, and if I can deliver those people through the Red sea that’s fine, I don’t have to deliver the 80 million

(Alex: you’ve had about 1200 who’ve completed the process – inclusing the 150 I have in the hopper, have any of those been unable to be successfully eliminated? )
NOTE a copy of this statement is on audio tape if needed.

Kurt: out of 3000 there’s probably half a dozen we were not able to do our process on, but for the most part everybody else is within our process and functioning fine – we’re hearing that a few county recorders are stamping VOID over our documents, and that’s an interesting legal determination from a non-legal authority, and we’ll deal with that.

The biggest thing we run into is not any resistance to our documentation because its really well based on law, and the presumption of people scares them – you got $10 clerks who can’t comprehend how we can have agency for the bank and be the people who were trustees on the family estate trust because they presume that would be an impossibility having no knowledge of our contract that we had between the bank and ourself – its just presumption that’s causing all the problems, and that’s why if we tenatiously defend our position then presumption is going to lose – truth will win out

Alex: we sure hope so

Kurt: its going to, Alex – or I’m going to die trying – I just read a nice little scripture out of the wisdom of Surac (sp?) saying “stand for the truth till the death, and the lord will fight for you” – that’s good enough promise for me

Alex: these other companies that you mentioned, have they been closed down?

Kurt: Yes, they do have cease and desist orders and arrest warrents

(Alex: As you said from the beginning, you are open and honest and there is a paper trail of everything that you’re doing and that’s why when the FBI came in there were no arrest warrents and no cease and desists)

Kurt: We told everybody on the public record what we were going to do and when we were going to do it – notice is everything in an admirality jurisdiction – we’ve been in that jurisdiction for a lot of years, when you tell somebody how you’re going to do it, when you’re going to do it and how it’s going to happen to them, what you’re relying on and then they remain silent and then they want to come back and complain later? Doesn’t work that was in the real world – the only way you can convict me is to have a which hunt and a corrupt little jury trial

Scott: one of the things that we discovered back in August of ’04 is the first word that we were being investigated by the FBI – and when we discovered that there was somebody poking their nose up under our tent, we gave them a call – and we called Joseph Fettison (sp?) down in South Carolina and said we understand that you’re investigating us – if you’ve got some questions we’re here to answer them – and he was shocked to hear from us – and he took our number and we said we would cooperate with you if you’re not just here to kiss some political butt – we gave him our number, our attorney’s phone number and funny thing, we never heard from him.

The guy from the Sacramento Bee came here, which I applaud him for doing that, Dale Kassler, he came here when all the media was invited and asked a question that I thought was importatant – “Most people that have their offices raided and money taken go underground, how come you guys haven’t?”

Kurt: and the judge called us a crook

Scott: the answer is because we’re not crooks and what we’re doing has law supporting it – we’re not on fantasy island here, we’re not an island unto ourselves – if you did the research, we’ll be providing the research to the population at large – this is very serious right now and we understand that so we don’t want to make too light of it, but we do know that there will be some level of victory for everybody

Alex: what are the next step that you are about to undertake now?

Kurt: We want to cooperate with any grand jury anywhere – we’ll bring all the evidence against the bankers, we’ll bring all the evidence against political hack Judge Alsup, we’ll bring evidence against this jury tamperer Wayne Brazil – I’m not going to take this crap – you guys on the grand juries, get out there and do your job – you are the power for the people – we’ll bring all the evidence – we’ve got nothing to hide – you have our vow that we’ll cooperate

We have the dog on a leash, we’re taking him where we want him to go

Scott: we’re actually taking them places they’ve never been

Alex: can you share any of that with us?

Scott: No

(Alex: what do you think the steps are going to be? the ground that they [the judiciary] stands on is usually based on dishonesty and not based in law)

Kurt: if we resist these cowards that are so afraid of the bankers that they are willing to throw away justice – if we resist them for awhile, some of the good people are going to show up and then maybe we’ll get some proper adjudication – but I’m not going to wait for that – all of our legal strategies and our company is designed to make the entire judiciary obsolete – we can do that through certain administrative processes and collecting the evidence and finally codifying it that if we end up in court the only descretion he has is to dismiss – that’s the only judge I trust right now until one shows up who is going to be honest and look at the contract in accordance with the law and not give the bankers any credit and slack and presumption – cause that’s what they’re giving them

I just had a case in New Jersey where the judge just threw 10 years of presumption into his ruling and I’m in front of him next week so I’m going to attack him on his presumption right out the gate – but these guys are baboons and I’m not going to trust them with my business – and we’re preparing and moving everyone through our collatoral estopple process and that will protect us against the judiciary

Scott: some good news – there was an appearance that I attended telephonically for some clients and I guess I did a good job because there was an order to vacate signed by the judge and the attorneys on the other side backed off - it was Chase bank case number 042009-CA-G Marion County Florida court – JP Morgan on their own motion to vacate the final judgement forclosure and cancel sale – they threw in the towel and backed out

We’re learning how to adapt into a corrupt system – you learn each time and force them to listen by the way you bring it in – but for the most part the goal is to keep everybody out of court, because these guys are all attached to the bankers in some fashion or another – and quite frankly its negligence on the part of our legislators and congress – these guys need to fix the system, they know what’s wrong with it and they’re letting the judiciary through their processed corruption, reverse legislate and protect a broken system – that’s just their game and until somebody embarrases them off the position – and that’s where people getting a little bit of political clout, and people like yourself allowing the word like this to get out to the point of embarrassment that’s when they’ll fix the system – the banks are lining their pockets on the lies of everybody else and they’re not taking the opportunity to see the problem and to fix it

(Alex: of the 1300 people who have had the reconveyance, how many have been challenged to the point of stopping making payments to the lender and have title insurance etc. and are able to sell the property if they want to?)

Kurt: the title insurance is the level of commercial extortion that we’re at right now, and the title companies being owned by most of the lenders are refusing to insure our titles because they don’t understand what we’ve done and they are presuming that they do understand and that its fraudulent and no good – there’s internal memo’s and alerts in trade publications about what terrible criminal we are, and ultimately its going to take us shutting down this FBI situation and taking on the title companies head-to-head on a couple of issues where its too expensive for them to continue to extort us in the commercial arena – and we’re getting to that – also we have one title company that does understand what we’re doing and is cooperating and that may open up some doors for us real soon - the current status is that we’re kind of at a stalemate with the reconveyance and the title companies fighting against it - there’s a remedy that if the stalemate ends there I can convert that into money – and if I can convert that into money it will be more than the value of your house – we have another couple hundred moves up our sleeve

(Alex: is there any points that people should be concerned about if they are thinking about coming into the process? We’re going to be fighting the big boys but we have point of law on our side and we will win? )

Kurt: the biggest fear is that they are going to yank us up and turn us into criminals and that would be from the clients point of view or ours. When I got 3 trillion dollars worth of fraud, the last thing I want is to go head-to-head with someone who can expose it, even in the criminal case – and they want to hang that over our heads like we’re gonna go somewhere on it – but if they brought a criminal case against me for bank fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud that would be the dumbest ass move that they could make because they can’t bring fraud charges against me without exposing the bank fraud that I can totally unravel – its kinda that nice catch 22 – heads I win and tails I win or heads I lose or tails I lose – I don’t know what they are gonna do with it - it’s a nice scary game and quite frankly I think it’s a game of plausible denyablility that the government is trying to throw themselves out there as “we did what we could or we didn’t understand” and just try and bluff everybody out – but I think we’ll survive it and the clients will end up ultimately with a victory – we have a tyrant who’s trying to protect a private special interest group and its against the American people – we can champion the cause and we can go at it – I’m not afraid of these guys

Every bully I met was a coward in real life – these guys just tried to bully us into an evidentiary hearing – but when I started throwing evidence at them, they didn’t want it – why is that? Because I’m not afraid to give them evidence all of a sudden they don’t want it? I send all my paperwork to the judge everyday hardcopy – we implemented this 2 weeks after the search warrant – we figure if you want to know our business, lets give it to you – they reject it now – Judge Earnst refuses to accept it

(Alex: is there any other legal recourse that Dorean has against, I hesitate to say corrupt judges, but against judges who don’t follow the letter of the law? )

Kurt: this is the problem – this is an all or nothing battle – we went before judge Alsup with an attorney and I think it was a decoy that God planted into our own because my attorney totally misrepresented us – he wanted to ride his own big horse into glory and he wrote his own brief and over our objection he said this is the way I can get your arguments in after I survive a 12-B-6 - we relied on him, he has 26 years litigation experience – he got his head handed to him, $10k sanction – he dismissed all cases saying if this is a crappy argument then we don’t want to participate in it – Judge Alsup, the political hack that he is, decides to undismiss our cases and put in an 8 page dicta order about what terrible guys we are and we’re not even supposed to be in the court – it was dismissed without prejudice which means we can bring it back in – and in order for him to issue that order we at least have to get due process which is notice, opportunity to be heard and he went and had this epiphany of dicta all by himself and that order becomes the new propaganda that spreads to all the bankers and its not even a final order, we’ve already got a motion to reconsider in his court – I don’t know what he’s gonna do with it because he never gave us due process – and how is he gonna enforce an order that he never gave due process for – if he doesn’t fix it and give us an opportunity to be heard then the court of appeals is going to kick his ass sooner or later and if not them then the Supreme Court because you cannot in our American system for the moment issue orders against people who have never been in your court – when I was out of his court he brought me back in all by himself without letting me know – and that to me is a political ass kisser and a political hack – and he’s gonna have to be honest and do his job right or its gonna come back and bite him in the ass – that order that he put out is a propaganda piece – he’s chastising a company that doesn’t exist because he took misrepresentation from our lawyer and internet sites and evidence interpreted through World Savings lawyer and then he took his own presumptions and made up a wonderful order that makes him look like a total ass – and then that spreads around and every little corporate bank lawyer who can’t figure out how to deal with us all of a sudden thinks that’s an important piece of evidence to throw into every transaction and we get copies of that damn order 50 times a day and its not even final – we filed a motion to reconsider and we haven’t heard from the court on that – he just put out a huge propaganda piece and now he has to reconsider and bring it back? They embarrassed themselves because they’re fools

Alex: except they’re the ones with big sticks – you by right and by law and by every positive thing there is, have it hands down – you’re putting your own bodies in front of the guns because you know what the truth is and you know what the facts are – the problem is are the other sides going to play fair? Will they be honest, straightforward and operate with integrity?

Kurt: Absolutely not. Otherwise Judge Alsup wouldn’t have entered into this arena as a political hack – he has no intention of being fair, honest or moral – the only thing I can do is trap him with his own bad behavior – there’s that story of Hamen in the book of Ester – Haymen was a high mucky-muck politician who didn’t really like a guy named Mortakai who the king was indebted to – he hated him so much he built a gallows that was 70 ft. high and he wanted to hang Mortakai from it – the problem was he was so corrupt he ended up hanging himself from that thing – and that’s the problem with these guys, they can’t see past the banker’s ass their kissing and because they don’t see that they don’t see the pitfalls that we’re laying for them because they’re so corrupt, and we’re catching them in our traps and that’s all we can do

Alex: of all the other companies, are there any that you know of that do not have cease and desist orders?

Kurt: I’m not aware of any and this is how our company started – we started like the consumer – somebody help us we got an idea, we are not experts and we want to talk to someone who knows what they’re talking about – there was a few companies at that time that had clients and we ended up hiring a guy we thought would be good – after we realized we already knew what he knew and more, then we tried to resolve the problem out of necessity of our own needs – we developed the legal process and we didn’t want to market anything – we had developed a service and wanted to go to a mortgage elimination companies that already had clients that they couldn’t deliver for and we wanted to serve them, one had 2700 clients and said let us just do your clients – they had all the money to pay us what we were willing to work for but they didn’t want to do it – they didn’t want to lose control and they didn’t want to let go of the lie that they were embracing, they were just like the bankers – then we went to the other guy and he wanted to enrich himself too much – we realized working with these guys was just like working with the bankers and that’s the only reason we started our customer service positions and our legal department and this whole company

As the consumer, we found out from a business perspective that the marketplace was void of any integrity and any reliable service – my dad taught me if you can fill a void you can make money – we’re not perfect businessmen or gentlemen, but we try to do the best we can to keep our word and do the things we say we did, and there is 175k documents that the FBI have that prove we do what we say we do – if we’re crooks I should be long gone, take all the money and run – I ain’t got time for this crap

Scott: they only took $178 bucks, if we were real scammers we would have millions and be long gone – 2.4 million was seized in Redwood trust account

Kurt: they stopped a wire from going off-shore in Mike Barnett’s case, Barnett and associates

(Alex: when I first met you guys I saw the integrity and honesty and that’s why I liked you guys and that’s why I elected to work with you )
This is on audio tape if needed.
Kurt: everything that happened here is a revelation of things I said a year and a half ago – I expected the government to be the meddler into the bankers business sooner or later – the bankers are like “you caught me being a thief, I’m gonna call the police” [laughter] – I’m not impressed with the bankers because if they gotta steal from you they’re wimps – they’ve put this elaborate system together because they can’t make anything on their own, they have to steal it from you – that means you got the power and when the people stand up and say we’re not going to take this any more, the bankers are going to have to change – that’s all it comes down to is bluff

Alex: who is the fight against, is it the federal reserve system, is it the federal government – who is the kingpin behind this fraud that is being perpetrated on people?

Kurt: I think, as the bible puts it as purgamy – a bad marriage between the government and the bankers to defraud the people of their assets – you gotta look at it from a logical point of view – the bankers sold a bill of goods to the government to lead us to this current bankruptcy we’re involved in, the federal reserve act – and that’s fine, right wrong or indifferent, it was sold – that horse has been beat many times by better men than us – so the federal reserve system had a new temptation that the old national banking system didn’t have and that is the right to convert notes into legal tender – the mortgage industry being very antiquated and very precise as to legal rights is a contract based on notes – it was only a matter of time before that temptation moved them into a place that they weren’t designed for – the have to operate what they call ultra-vires (sp?) outside of their normal contracts and charters in order to enter this arena – and that temptation to convert your promissory note into cash was too irresistible – when the credit card frenzy took off in the early 70’s and late 60’s that’s when the bankers started moving into the mortgage industry and then it was in the late 80’ and early 90’s that they moved away from even the basic semblance of a fair deal by creating this frenzy in the secondary mortgage market and when they exploded with this new securities market that’s when it went absolutely hog-wild.

Now bankers will completely misrepresent the true elements of ownership into the secondary market and that’s why I say the entire secondary market which is 3 trillion dollars for Fannie Mae’s portion – that entire thing is a fraud – it’s a conversion away from the people of their original assets – what’s funny is the mortgage contract is tops maybe 40 pages and it used to be about 8, but because of the bankers honesty there was legislation and lawsuit that created the other pages – everyone thinks the banks are so wonderful, but all their contracts are created by litigation and bad behavior – and so the 40 pages should still be 200-400 pages in full disclosure because when the banks convert your note into their own asset and then enter into the secondary securities market as the issuer of a new security, they know how to put out those kind of contracts because all the contracts are 200 to 400 pages and their called master pooling agreements, pooling agreements, master holding agreements, buy and sell agreements – all those things you can find on the SEC web pages on Edgar, you can find them on the FDIC – they know how to put those kind of reports out when its their own asset, but when they’re stealing it from you they got to hide that stuff so they can’t be honest - that lack of disclosure is what I’m pissed off about and what we’re attacking.

Alex: won’t you be bringing to light what the federal reserve is all about?

Kurt: I don’t know if that’s going to be the end result – the federal reserve system never had any assets or resources and certainly everything they create comes out of the promise of the people through their government in submitting bonds to get the currency – but we’ve entered into a promise based economy and its been our generation and our grandparents and great grand parents generation that have had to deal with this. I think its already exposed – I don’t know that what we’re doing is actually going to change the system and I don’t even know if that’s the right thing for our economy at the moment, but I think there’s a couple options for resolution – one is, the federal reserve is the central bank we got, lets at least use it for the people instead of a small group of families – go ahead and do the mortgages the way you always do them, just let us participate in the profits – that’s one choice, the other is at least full disclosure so at least people can “agree” to be ripped off – and then there are some other variables and hodge- podge things the government can do in the middle, but that’s not my job – that’s what we hire the congress for – these guys need to get off their butts and figure out how to fix it. But stealing from the people and then profiting 3 to 4 times over in the secondary market as thieves, that’s not acceptable… and if it is acceptable, then I want to be apologized to for going to prison for 5yrs 8months – I should’ve just become a banker and I would have been okay.

Alex: have any of your clients had to go to court with their reconveyance?

Kurt: we haven’t had any go to court on the reconveyance – we’ve had 60 or 70 litigations and sometimes the client needs to participate, for the most part we try to keep them out of it but that’s not always possible – JP Morgan case, we participated in that case and we got a victory – who knows why JP Morgan/Chase decided to tuck tail and run – they don’t want that truth to get out so they do it on their own motion – they vacated their own final judgement and they canceled their own forclosure sale and they did it without any explaination but it was after we filed our documents

I was in court last week, and the bank had no standing, no entitlement rights to sue, and we proved that, the judge is going to take it under consideration and get an order but its plain black and white – he doesn’t have any choice but to rule in our favor and he would lose on appeal in 15 minutes if he doesn’t do it – when the judge has no descretion, they’re actually pretty good – its only when I have to deal with their presumptive descretion that I get in any trouble – my goal as a legal tactic is not to give the judge any descretion and I’m safe [laughter]

It’s a big task to move 3000 people through a sausage mill and we’re doing it as fast as we can – we’ve hired a few more people to do it

(Alex: one of my people said the EF Trans course was one of the best he’d ever been to )

Scott: we agree, that’s why those guys are working with us

Kurt: we felt education would be a big help in protecting our clients from the bluff scenerios which will become more rampant now that the FBI is emboldened by the public propaganda mill that’s been going on – I cannot protect you from a bluff because it requires you to stand up – I can protect you from the on-rush of illegal assertions but I can’t protect you from a bluff, only you can do that

Alex: what do people learn about the banking system, what people can do, what our rights are?

Kurt: we talked to this reporter today, Todd Aldrich, and he represents what the average person is, which is dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to understanding our financial affairs – he was so presumptive that he couldn’t even listen to us, and he was irate because we picked on his preconceived notions – you’re not going to figure this out on your preconceived notions

You grew up with a parent who told you that when you go to the bank you borrow money – you grew up with a banker who told you that you borrowed money – the common sense point of view is bogus – you need to get past that and the only way to do that is through education – analyze what your rights are from the UCC – analyze what happened when you did the transaction – analyze what the bank did with your promissory note – analyze what happened after the transaction – when you’re knowledgeable and comprehensive on the subject there is no way you’re going to be bluffed because you realize that you’ve always had a full house and they’ve always had bad cards – that is the purpose of the three card monty or shell game - as long as I have you playing my game you’re never going to find the assets, but a smart guy knows the card is sitting on the other side of the table and just goes right to it

(Alex: what can we all do to support, to let the courts and the press know that we know what’s going on and that we are demanding positive and honest reporting coming back to the general public? )

Kurt: I think that when a person understands their own rights, that’s the beginning of the end for the thieves because its only the bluff that accomplishes it most of all – otherwise its going to take a show of force and then the people are going to say what’s the force about? And that’s the danger for the government and they’re not going to do a show of force over mortgages – once you’re informed that’s the beginning of you standing up, once you stand up you’ll be able to ask some simple questions – like you go down to your bank and say “I’d like to see my promissory note” and the banker can’t deliver it? And then “do you mind if I see your accounting ledger? I just want to see how the transaction looked on paper”

Alex: would they allow people to do this?

Kurt: you’re party to the contract, why are you not entitled to the evidence of how the transaction went? And they’re a fiduciary and they have a responsibility – it only takes a couple questions to find out that somebody is not being honest – they’ll tell you the truth by the way they lie to you

(Alex: have any of the clients been evicted?)

Kurt: we’ve had probably a half a dozen evictions in our client base – being fair, two of them I feel really bad about because of our participation in it – the others there was nothing I could do except join them in the fight late and give them an opportunity to come back and win – all six of them still have remedies that we are working on and ultimately I think we will win, but it was part of our naievity in the beginning that we thought the banks would respect what we’ve done and the government would respect what we’ve done since it was all based in law, and so people stopped making their payments and some people just couldn’t afford payments and that’s not our policy – its our policy that you continue to make administrative overpayments until we can take you to collatoral estopple

With those situations we had a few casualties and we’re addressing that and doing the very best we can to rectify it – in all those cases there is a reconveyance on the property and if it has any legal merit, which we believe it does, anything that happens past that point, once we prove it ultimately will become reversible through a quiet title action or reversible through a writ of ejectment and we’ll prove that once we prove our case – we can drag everybody over the finish line because we did our job in the public record and they don’t change or delete the public record – the evidence is there and all we have to do is prove that its valid and its an automatic non-descretionary win – that’s when we go into court and the judge has no descretion but to grant it – and if you want you’re property back you’ll get it, if you don’t want you’re property back you’ll get 2-3-4x’s your money

In Pacific Mutual vs. Cleopatra Halsup is a US Supreme Court case that deals with conversion – compensatory damages are 4x’s and punative damages are 200x’s – it doesn’t pay to be a thief

Scott: process hasn’t changed much, we added a back end collator estopple that ties a nice bow around the administrative process – we learned in the Alsup debacle that the courts weren’t going to be honorable, they didn’t want to hear from guys like us and truth didn’t matter and it was really more of a political agenda – we put people into a family estate trust and we’re the trustees and that gives us a fiduciary position on the property – we get a chosen action assignment and we get a revocation of power of attorney which goes to the bank in our presentment – we have a treatment of the note by a CPA – the banks have a certain time to respond [10 days] – when the banks default into our remedy, we retitle as agents for them – after we reconvey the property the clients continue payments – the way the payments stop is we put in a notice of fault and then notorial protest and collect a foreign judgement which is simply an officer of the state issuing a certificate of protest which is evidence of default by another party that has standing in that jurisdiction – if we have to go to court the notary can actually go on our behalf because he has an afadavit from us and he can speak to the facts since he actually participated in the process – at that point when we collect the collatoral estopple the client can stop making payments and we can look to go for the re-finance – if they need to get their credit cleaned up they should be doing that in the process and there’s a place they can go to get their credit scrubbed as well

(Alex: is there any clients who have gone through it ultimately? Because I know some people who have gone through the process with Dorean, cleared everything and then sold their house – no problems, no recourse, no nothing )

Scott: yeah – the people that have sold their houses, I haven’t received a single bit of papaerwork on those houses – we’ve been talking about the people who went out and refinanced, we have about a half a dozen of those – but we really haven’t talked about the people that have sold their homes and moved on – there’s at least a dozen, there may be more, I’m not keeping up on that – but that’s another way to get paid

We don’t take much on the front end – we get paid when we proform

Kurt: if you’re a banker, I’d be afraid of the Dorean Group [laughter] – this is really a great time to be participating – the meeting in Vegas was a humbling experience for me – an army of people who really get it – that are not gonna be bullied – I’m glad you brought up EF Trans – Dan Bennum (sp?) Troy and Terry – those guys have been a real asset and blessing to us – Dan comes to us with a great base in the UCC and banking – even if you’re a fence sitter, I still recommend that you go through it – go get educated – education is freedom – it helps you make your decisions in an educated manner – you’re not surprised by the offensive from the other side

If clients have enough courage and education, they don’t need us – they can handle their own affairs – there’s new tactics we’re bringing out that people can impliment and in probably two weeks they can have the banks out of the way

Alex: I’ve had Dan on the show, and I’ve never met a man with more information at their fingertips

Kurt: yeah, he’s scary that way – he’s a little intimidating to be around

(Alex: we’re becoming a magnet now because we’re championing the cause, drawing some brilliant minds to the table – we don’t have all the answers and we’re just as excited to learn them as everybody else – we’re not two guys in a garage, I think that’s the biggest mistake the government makes – they presume we had criminal intent and we just set this up for monetary gain – that misperception is the dumbest mistake they can make because they don’t understand what we’re coming with – and we also have all that fiduciary backround and we also asked to have that fiduciary relationship with the client which is important because it is paramount to the banking transaction that we’re addressing – its repleat in our system – the government acts as our fiduciary – United States vs. Mitchell – the government has a long standing trust obligation – a fiduciary relationship normally exists with respect to such monies or properties unless congress has provided otherwise – everything is a trust relationship

We had the FBI take $178 grand of our money – that’s a trust relationship – so we ask our fiduciary to pay our bills and they dishonor us – we’re gonna be suing Gordon C. McDonald the FBI agent for breach of fiduciary duty because he won’t pay our bills – we set you guys up as clients because there is power in the fiduciary relationship, it permeates our government, the banking system – we’re taking one of the most powerful parts of our legal system and applying it to the transaction )

(Alex: all they had was search warrant that wasn’t even legal, how can they seize the money in your account and have no responsibility for it? )

Kurt: that’s a bluff too – they’re the government, sure they can take the money – but they’re government and my fiduciary - they have two duties – he has to work on my behalf and he can’t enrich himself – the protection that I have is if you’re gonna take my money you have to have a criminal conviction or you have to give me just compensation and since you have neither one of those things, you’re my fiduciary – if I walk away and abandon my trust which most people do then its your fault, you got bluffed – we didn’t do that – we wrote cite drafts against our assets and they dishonored them now we can sue them for breach of fiduciary duty and then they will want to let go of that money very quickly – everybody should handle their affairs that way

Scott: we started getting those overdraft charges and isufficient funds charges down at the bank and so we wrote the bank a cite draft [laughter] and the bank couldn’t figure out what to do with it either – I told them what to do with it, and our fiduciary isn’t doing his job – now we have two fiduciaries not acting right

Kurt: this is a real problem for Bank of America – I hope nobody big in that company is listening because they’re gonna be scared when I tell them what’s going on – Bank of America is my fiduciary and they had my money - they appointed a successor trustee called Gordon C. McDonald FBI agent – when I paid my overdraft protection drawn on a cite draft from my successor trustee, now if it gets dishonored then my prior trustee becomes liable because he handed my money to an incompetent – there’s damage there – so if the fiduciary dishonors my overdraft protection payments to Bank of America, then B of A becomes liable for 4x’s for the conversion of all the money that was taken – if it gets paid they lose, if it doesn’t get paid they lose

An insurance investigator in Utah is saying the bond isn’t worth the paper its printed on and the courts are going to arrest me and he’s full of crap – we invited him down and offered our memorandums of law, whatever we can do to help you and he said, “we don’t want law, we want questions answered” and I’m wondering what kind of questions you have that law won’t answer – they’re making up stories – they’re commiting to a lie

Scott: they are going to hope we don’t remember them – we’re taking names, we’re collecting evidence – we’re going to get to you, trust me – I dream good dreams

Kurt: we’re going to get to their assets

Alex: I think we, the American public is going to win

Kurt: I think we have a fighting chance this time – people are listening – the Tom Schaff books – the bluff isn’t going to work for much longer – there’s a documentary by Open Door documentaries – its just an expose on the subject matter – people’s interest is peaking

Scott: its my understanding that a couple of senators want to talk to us at some point –

(Alex: if someone is ready to refinance, how long until collatoral estopple is in place? )

Scott: we’re moving as much as 30 to 50 clients a day through the process – its an additional 45 days to move them to collatoral estopple

Alex: Stacy emails and says “we received an actual copy of our promissory note with the stamp on it for the first time in 2005 - we’ve refinanced 7x’s in the last 15 years and never have we received a stamped copy before – of course it was a stamped copy, but the revelation of what the Dorean Group and G. Edward Griffen have told us is absolutely true – our house is in the process since 1/21/05 – we got the first set of documents and we are waiting for our quit claim deed – we look forward to completing the process and owning our home free and clear

Kurt: you can do it wrong seven times but the one time you do it right makes all the difference – we don’t even really want this job to tell you the truth – but this gnaws on me

Scott: the collatoral estopple has worked on a couple of occasions

Kurt: we will be putting out a monthly newsletter from us – clients, listen to raidio shows like this – look for us on TV – go to the training – get the truth any way you can – we’re not the only source – we’ll do our best to be consistently speaking because there is a lot of crap – the next announcement you’ll probably hear from us if “FBI drops case against Dorean…”
1:25 AM
mogel said...
http://www.mysteriesofthe
mind.com/Archives/2004/
archives200412.htm

(Click on Thursday December
23 – Kurt Johnson Replay –
3 Hours 19 Minutes)
an audio copy of this interview is available if needed.

Hi little Bro,

It was great to visit with you and to meet Carol. Wish we had had more time. We will.

I'm starting to accumulate a lot of info regarding Mind Development, Golf Power and the Golf Power Minute. I will also draw up a formal assignment of your 25% interest in all the varied divisions and classes. In the meantime, let it be know to all parties that you, Brian McCarthy, now own a 25% interest in all the different applications of the Mind Development processes. These include, but are not limited to, the original Mind Development Program and the various advanced programs using the methods, Sales Development, The Golf Program Program (class), The Golf Power Program (radio show), The Golf Power Minute (radio show) and the Surniak Golf Clubs (based on my percentage of ownership).

Your 1% interest in the high yield programs is separate and apart from the interest in the above mentioned programs. At this point, we have our first trade completed and should start to receive our pay-out next week. As soon as we have the exact figures and schedule, I'll let you know. We have six different trades we are currently working and hopefully can successfully complete at least one other at a higher yield. Again, I'll keep you informed each step of the way.

Please keep in touch and don't hesitate to ask any questions or share ideas and comments.

Look forward to getting together again soon.

Best to you both.

Alex
MILLENNIUM RADIO NETWORK - Executive Summary


1999 proved to be the most volatile and exciting in the history of the radio industry. Major companies and networks were created, grown and bought up, creating even larger conglomerates. At the top of the heap, at least at this point, is Clear Channel Communications, Inc. of San Antonio, Texas. A family owned company, Clear Channel owns more than 840 radio stations and at least three of the top five shows on radio: The Rush Limbaugh Show, Dr. Laura and Coast-to-Coast, the former Art Bell Show.

Advertising revenues are at an all-time high surpassing more than $15.5 Billion. Monthly revenues have risen for more than 86 consecutive months. Some companies have had growths exceeding 50% for the past year.

In 1996, Business News Network, a major radio network, contracted with American University in Washington, DC, to conduct a survey to find out what the listening public was looking for in radio broadcasting. Research indicated that the majority of listeners were interested in talk shows that featured positive thinking, alternative health, motivation, success, parapsychology, a different slant on politics and spiritual enlightenment. To date, no network or show offers all these topics.

In 1973, Alex Merklinger broadcast a weekly, 51/2-hour radio show on KOA in Denver, Colorado. Topics included all those mentioned in the American University report and, as a result, this show became the most listened to radio program for its time period. Alex Merklinger’s show was the primary reason KOA became the top station in its market, a position it has never relinquished.

In 1997, Alex Merklinger began broadcasting two radio shows on several stations in Colorado. His Mysteries of the Mind was a three hour, five day a week program that incorporated all of the desired topics put forth by American University. The other was The Golf Power Show, broadcast every Saturday morning for two hours, which dealt with the mental aspect of golf. Both shows became the fastest growing new shows in the markets where they were aired. One station, KRDO in Colorado Springs, had an audience growth of 1,100% for the time period the golf show was aired.

In December of 1997, Mr. Merklinger took both shows international over the Talk America Radio Network. These shows were broadcast via satellite around the country and over the Internet around the world. Within five months it was reported at the annual National Association of Broadcasters convention that the shows were two of the fastest growing new shows in the country. However, as a result of a lack of contract fulfillment by the network, Mr. Merklinger exercised an option to leave.

After negotiating with two of the largest networks in the industry for more than 6 months, in late 1999 Alex Merklinger decided to form his own communications network and offer the public the type of programming they desired. The name of the new network is Millennium Radio Network (MRN). In less than a month, top people in the industry, including some of the most popular program hosts in the country, gave their commitment to join the new organization.

MRN has put together a unique marketing and sales plan whereby the program hosts, personnel and stockholders will enjoy an above average return on investment.

The plan called to initially broadcast only Alex Merklinger’s two shows, which have already proven their audience appeal. With a reduced program schedule it will enable the new network to build a faithful audience, a strong affiliate base and a secure financial foothold. As the network grows, more quality programs will be offered the public.

Alex Merklinger’s Mysteries of the Mind was first aired on June 26, 2000, and his Golf Power Show followed on the 1st of July. Since their launching both shows have begun to build a faithful audience. Mr. Merklinger has begun negotiations with a major sports network to offer The Golf Power Show to their 425 affiliates. Also, final preparations are being completed for another network to carry The Golf Power Show on their 150 stations.

A major affiliate relations company has approached Mr. Merklinger to produce a 90-second vignette on Golf Power. This vignette is to be known as The Golf Power Minute and will be aired at least twice daily on each station that carries it. Presently it is anticipated that at least 600 stations will run this show. Each of the daily airings will have only one sponsor and if one sponsor elects to carry the show completely it will be called, as an example, The Nike Golf Power Minute.

With continued top programming it is anticipated that an affiliate base of at least 100 affiliated stations can be reached within the first year for Mysteries of the Mind, and 150-200 stations for The Golf Power Show. This anticipated growth, along with another proposed program, will, again, make both of Alex Merklinger’s shows two of the fastest shows on radio.

MRN is looking for an investment of up to $1,000,000 to continue its planned growth and to buy out the initial stockholders. This amount will enable the network to be free of the immediate pressures of having to sell advertising time while building a strong affiliate base. The following business plan and projections spell out, in detail, marketing and operating concepts and expected returns.

The vehicle for raising the desired funding is through Corporate Debentures. The debentures are for a period of five years and will return an annual interest rate of 15%. In addition to an above average interest rate, the debentures will have a yield enhancement feature. The debentures will share in 20% of the profits of the Company until they realize a real return of 100% of the investment per year. This program has been designed so that investors may use discretionary funds or utilize funds already in the Individual Retirement Accounts, and therefore not have to make new contributions.

Any questions should be directed to the person who supplied this business plan.




TABLE OF CONTENTS




Executive Summary
Table Of Contents 3
Mission Statement 4
Background 4
The Concept 6
The Plan 6
Building An Audience 7
Mysteries of the Mind 8
The Golf Power Show 9
Getting Started 10
Affiliate Offer 10
Sales and Marketing 10
Competition 12
Estimated One Time Expenses 12
Projected Monthly Expenses 12
Additional Projected Expenses 13
Income Potentials 13
Starting Team 14
Addendum 19
Satellite Services 20
BroadcastAmerica.com 20
Affiliate Agreement 21
A. G. Merklinger’s Resume’ 22
Partial Guest List for Mysteries of the Mind Attachment
Partial Guest List for The Golf Power Show Attachment





MILLENNIUM RADIO NETWORK


MISSION STATEMENT:

It is the intent of the principals of Millennium Radio Network to fill a niche within the communications industry while becoming one of the most successful and influential networks within the broadcasting industry. This goal will be achieved by presenting information and entertainment to a wide variety of listeners on subjects that are riveting, insightful and current. Top people within the broadcast and business fields are ready to join the corporation and aid in accomplishing the intended goals.

BACKGROUND:

In 1996, Business News Network contracted with American University in Washington, DC, to conduct a survey to determine what the American public was looking for in radio programming. Research indicated that the general public was looking for talk shows featuring alternative health, positive thinking, motivation, success orientation, methods to establish more effective communication and spiritual enlightenment. To date, there is no network offering these topics on a national basis.

The radio industry is in a state of flux and growing at an unprecedented rate. In the January 2000 issue of Fortune Magazine, it was reported that the 12 largest public radio companies have grown at the rate of 151.5% in the previous 12 months while the S & P grew at only 19%. A mad scramble is now taking place in which a few companies are attempting to buy up and control the entire radio industry, and they are succeeding. Clear Channel, who already owned more than 492 stations and who recently bought Jacor Corporation, just bought AM-FM Corporation, the second largest station owner in the U.S. This means, before required divestiture, that Clear Channel presently owns more than 900 stations.

The Catholic Radio Network (CRN) in 1999 raised more than $55 Million with stated plans to purchase 60 stations in the largest U.S. cities. Their plan, or at least their desire, is to secure the biggest names in talk radio, including Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura Schlessinger, and feature conservative and family value topics. Currently there are more than 1,300 evangelical Protestant radio stations in the country and the planned CRN network seeks its share of the stations’ available donations.

Advertising revenues are at an all time high. The Radio Advertising Bureau claims that in December, 1999, revenues had risen for the 86th consecutive month and would reach to more than $15.5 billion. Some companies have had revenue growth exceeding 50% and there is no end in sight.

The consolidation move by many network owners is both self-defeating and dangerous. This consolidation is self-defeating in that it limits competition and, therefore, stifles creativity and content growth. It is dangerous because it leads to program and creative control. The tendency is for corporate owners to project their own political and social agendas.

Like many industries, the radio industry is boxed in thinking they are only in the radio industry and not in the communications industry. Unless the major networks start expanding outside this box of just radio broadcasting, and get into the communications business, they will be left behind and become obsolete.

In 1973, Alex Merklinger, founder of Millennium Radio Network (MRN), pioneered a show covering many of the previously mentioned topics on KOA in Denver, Colorado. The show aired every Saturday night from midnight to 5:30 AM and elevated the station from third place in the market to number one, a position it has never relinquished. At the time, because of the power of the 50,000 watts signal and its ability to reach all parts of the country as well as several provinces in Canada and the northern states of Mexico, the show became the most listened-to program in the country for its time period.

As a lead-in to starting his Saturday night show, Alex did two twelve-hour marathons and, as a result, was offered a syndicated show by CBS in New York. In those days, technology did not enable broadcasting from locations other than the main studio and because Alex Merklinger had recently left New York City with no desire to return, he declined the offer. After a year of broadcasting on KOA in Denver, outside business activities became too time and energy consuming, so he canceled his show.

Early in 1997, Mr. Merklinger began broadcasting two shows from two radio stations in the southern Colorado. Mysteries of the Mind, which aired three hours daily, was broadcast on KRRU in Pueblo and KXRE in Colorado Springs, covering the topics outlined in the American University report plus other timely and stimulating subjects. The format was listener call-in and included special guests speaking in their specific areas of expertise. This program became the fastest growing radio show in Colorado

The other program, The Golf Power Show was broadcast on KRDO , an all sports station in Colorado Springs and KRRU in Pueblo. Alex and guests discussed the game of golf in general and the mental aspect in particular. This program became the most popular for the time period in Colorado. According to Arbitron, the radio industry rating service, KRDO had an audience increase of 1,100% for the last rating period in which the show was broadcast.

In December of 1997, Alex Merklinger took his Mysteries of the Mind and The Golf Power Show national and international over the Talk America Radio Network. In less than five months, at the 1998 National Association of Broadcasters convention in Las Vegas, both shows were recognized as two of the fastest growing new shows on radio. This growth was achieved despite very limited exposure and no support from the network. In June of 1998, due to lack of contract fulfillment by the network, Mr. Merklinger exercised his option to leave the network.

Within a matter of weeks after his departure from the Talk America Radio Network, two of the industry’s largest networks offered Mr. Merklinger a contract to air his two shows. After six months of negotiations, at the very point of signing, Alex decided not to accept the offer. The reasons for declining both offers were varied but the final decision was based on the opportunity to form an independent communications network.

Using the same format that proved so successful in the past, Mysteries of the Mind began broadcasting on the 26th of June 2000 and The Golf Power Show launched its inaugural program on the 1st of July. Almost immediately both shows began building a loyal listening audience.

In essence, a radio network, in this case MRN, produces radio programs and then makes them available, usually via satellite, to stations throughout North America. This is accomplished when the program signal is sent, either by telephone line or ground satellite feed, to a satellite uplink system which then beams the program signal over all of North America to be picked up by interested stations.

MRN has put together one the most exciting packages of programming available on radio and brought together a team of some of the best people in the communications industry.


CONCEPT

The radio industry in North America is comprised of approximately 16,000 stations. All forward thinking program directors are always looking for the next Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura or Art Bell. Under normal circumstances, these programs only come along once in a decade, not because programs are unavailable, but because most program directors are set in their old ways of thinking and not listening to the needs and wants of the market.

A window of opportunity is open for a communications network to offer the public the type of programming wanted and needed. According to SRDS Radio Advertising Source, in August, 2000, there were more than 3,000 successful radio stations in the country that were not aligned with any specific network. MRN has contacted more than 50 of these stations and found that all were very interested in carrying the offered programming. Even those stations aligned with another network would broadcast a program that will build their audience numbers. This need for top quality programming is looking to be filled and will be filled by someone. MRN is in a position to fill this need.

The success of any program is the size of its listening audience. Usually the problem is not a case of too few available listeners but, rather, the inability of a given radio station to let listeners know of their programming.

THE PLAN

MRN is not only prepared to offer a unique programming format that is different from anything available today, but has come up with a plan to broadcast to the greatest number of people within the shortest period of time.

Initially, MRN is offering the two proven shows; Alex Merklinger’s Mysteries of the Mind (MOM) and The Golf Power Show (GP). As the popularity and financial success of these two shows grow, the network will introduce other proven programs until a full complement of programming is offered for re-broadcast. Estimated time to reach full schedule is within the first eighteen months.

In addition to offering the two shows via satellite to all stations in North America, both shows are being simulcast on the Internet for worldwide listening. When the shows were broadcast on the Internet before listeners throughout North America, Europe and even several groups in Russia listened to Alex Merklingers Mysteries of the Mind program. With this history, it is anticipated that a similar listening audience will be established within a short time. MRN has begun to create a communications network that will reach the greatest number of people possible worldwide. This objective will be achieved several different ways.
An agreement has been reached with Equity Radio Network whereby MRN has purchased satellite time on SatCom C5, Transponder 23 and is broadcasting Alex Merklinger’s two shows. (See addendum for specifics) This specific satellite and transponder is the one used by every major radio station in the country and all major networks. 6,500 of the major stations throughout the US pick up the signal broadcast by SatCom C5.

The newest and fastest growing segment of international communication is the Internet. There are more than 75 million people in the US alone who regularly use the Internet for news and information gathering. This number is growing at the rate of 3,000,000 per week and has no signs of slowing up. It is imperative that any futuristic thinking communications company use the Internet as part of its broadcast platform.

The largest Internet provider, BroadcastAmerica.com, is already under contract and is broadcasting both of MRN’s shows live over the Net. MRN has negotiated a contract whereby there is no direct cost to the network but plays one ad per hour during the newsbreak in exchange for the broadcast. MRN has a total of 30 banner ads it can sell to advertisers at an average rate of between $500 and $1,500 per month per banner.

MRN is planning to broadcast live video pictures from the network’s facilities in real time over the Internet. Plans are to make it possible for Internet listeners worldwide to call a local number and speak directly on the air and become part of the broadcast. The Internet provider will also offer an archive of past shows so listeners may download and hear them over their computer at their leisure. This service will also provide a source for historically accurate records.

The concept of live audio feed over the Internet, although comparatively new, is an absolute necessity to reach a worldwide audience. As already experienced, many people who can’t hear the programs on a local radio station will listen to them via this medium.

For maximum exposure, it is imperative that any successful company have a wide exposure on the Internet. MRN has already contracted an internationally awarded web master, Jane Rock (see addendum), to build and maintain a web site for MRN on the Internet. Each radio program will be featured with its schedule and guests on the web site and then linked to other web sites for supporting data. Web sites can be viewed on Millenniumradionetwork.com, Mysteriesofthemind.com and Golfpower.org. Sites are updated weekly.

Each of the broadcast vehicles will put MRN further into the forefront of broadcast communication. In the short time since MRN announced plans to broadcast live on the Internet, audio and video, many leading talk shows have begun to implement the idea.

It is also planned that MRN will broadcast on a second, newer, satellite as well as over short wave band. This will enable virtually every radio station, and every person in North America and around the world to receive the network’s programming.

BUILDING AN AUDIENCE

As most industry insiders know, the most difficult part in reaching a potential audience is getting airtime. MRN clearly recognizes this. Being a new network, even with proven shows like Mysteries of the Mind and The Golf Power Show, MRN expects there may be a lag time until a substantial number of stations begin to carry its programming. Once the market learns Alex Merklinger’s two shows are again available for broadcast, the network’s popularity will create its own momentum and gain a greater market share.

Of the original 47 stations (see addendum) that carried Alex Merklinger’s two shows over the Talk America Radio Network, more than half have already been contacted and all indicated a desire to again sign on and carry them. It is further expected that an additional 25 stations from within the top 50 stations such as KOA in Denver, KABC in Los Angeles, KOB in Santa Fe and WGN in Chicago, will sign on within the first year. Based on previous experience, the number stations carrying both shows should exceed 100 in the first eighteen months.

The American listening audience is looking for something different than what is being offered today. At a time when newspaper readership is nose-diving and people are leaving the major TV networks by droves, it is the radio stations offering the previously mentioned content that will capture the publics’ attention. A prime example is The Art Bell Show and its fantastic growth. Remember this show is broadcast in the middle of the night. The industry is waiting for something different to be offered.

So, how to increase the maximum exposure of MRN’s programs? In the US radio market, because of the cost to broadcast a full complement of programs, many dual licensed stations, meaning both an AM and FM license, broadcast the same programs on both stations. This is called simulcasting and is done in order to save money and maintain both licenses. Any station which is off the air for a specific period of time will have its license canceled by FCC. So, even though one station may be nothing more than a lost leader, the station owner will continue to broadcast over both the FM & AM stations in order to maintain its license.

In many instances, one of the stations is losing money or, at best, breaking even. Mindful of this situation, MRN has devised a plan to offer to buy the airtime of these secondary stations. Advertising sales figures can amount to substantial income for both the station owner and MRN. In addition, it enables MRN to reach an established audience almost immediately. MRN has already contacted 25 of these simulcast stations and almost all of the stations were anxious to make an arrangement to sell airtime of their secondary station.

It is estimated that at any given time there are between 700 - 900 simulcast stations around the country. Many of these stations are in smaller markets but still provide a potential audience of 15,000 to 25,000 listeners per station. These stations provide MRN with an opportunity to build a strong audience and affiliate base in a very short period of time. It would be reasonable to plan on recruiting 50 of these stations, spread evenly around the country, within the first 18 months of operation. Later, up to 200 or more stations could be recruited, enabling MRN to become one of largest networks within a short period of time.

MRN recently contracted with WRMN-AM in Chicago to carry its Mysteries of the Mind show. The potential audience in this area is between 3.5 and 5 million people. After the first month of broadcast, MOM has become one of the most popular in the area.

Through its association with WRMN-AM, MRN has been approached by the affiliate relations company for One-On-One Sports, the largest sports network in the country, to handle the placement of The Golf Power Show. It has also been requested that Alex Merklinger produce a daily 90-second vignette on the mental aspect of golf. This program, The Golf Power Minute, will be offered free to all stations in North America and will open an entree for each station to carry the longer, weekly golf show.

MYSTERIES OF THE MIND:

Alex Merklinger’s Mysteries of the Mind seeks to present information and entertainment to a wide variety of listeners on subjects such as arcane knowledge, spiritual cosmology, the unexplained and curious, insightful political topics, health and alternative healing techniques, success and human potential among others.

Through the quest for truth in whatever subject may be explored, the hosts and staff of the program endeavor to bring to its audience uplifting and enlightening information, the goal being to inspire spiritual growth and a hunger for knowledge in the lives of those reached.

Mysteries of the Mind approaches the enigmas of our lives and the universe with a fresh, open- minded perspective. The format has a dual emphasis: first, to explore why this knowledge possibly does not make it to mainstream media for consideration by the public at large, and, second, to provide listeners with ways to use this knowledge in their quest for the “holy grail” of spiritual truths in their lives.

While other talk show hosts are connected with their subjects as observers or interviewers, Alex Merklinger has personal experience in most of the areas presented and knows many of the guests on a personal basis. This makes his show unique and extremely interesting to a broad spectrum. Whether the subject is spiritual enlightenment, psychic surgery, ancient and secret societies, personal achievement and success, a fresh approach to today’s politics or the secrets to optimum performance, Mr. Merklinger has studied and taught these subjects for more than forty years.

The show offers, through special guests and the latest information, unique perspectives on current political events affecting our lives, the latest in alternative health and healing procedures and natural and supernatural changes affecting our planet. The show also addresses current topics such as UFO’s, crop circles, advanced technology and newly revealed archeological finds that are proving the Bible and mans origins. Although many subjects are quite ponderous, the show keeps the delivery light and entertaining to those with less inquiring minds.

Every Friday, Alex is joined by his wife, Ardeth, when they broadcast together bringing a refreshing and lighthearted touch as they bounce his pragmatic approach to subjects off her rather romanticized outlook. Ardeth Merklinger has had her own encounters with UFO’s since childhood; Alex still waits for a piece of hardware as proof of their existence. These gentle clashes of opinions offer the listener insight into the special relationship these two share as they interact with each other, their guests and callers.

In short, Mysteries of the Mind offers a new and exciting show every day of the week and has built a large, faithful audience.

THE GOLF POWER SHOW:

Since its inception, the concept of Golf Power has captured the interest of the sports world. First conceived in 1976, the Golf Power program was the first to focus on the mental aspect of the sport and teach what and where the elusive state known as the “Zone” is and how to enter it at will. The concepts opened the way for a spate of mental programs and sports psychologists. Even though the concepts and techniques were written about in practically every sports magazine, including Sports Illustrated and Golf Magazine, no one has completely understood how or why the concepts work. To date, no program has enjoyed the success of the Golf Power process.

In the United States alone, there are more than 25 Million “heavy” golfers who will try anything and buy anything to improve their game. A “heavy” golfer is anyone who plays between 15 and 300 rounds a year. This dedication and enthusiasm makes for a very loyal listening audience.

The Golf Power program is the brain child of Alex Merklinger, long recognized as one of the leaders in the human potential and motivational industry, and is actually just one application of the concepts taught in the Life Training Seminars through Mr. Merklinger’s Institute For Human Potential. The Golf Power Show is the only one that teaches the mental aspect of sports in general and golf specifically.

When the Golf Power program was first offered to the public, almost half the professionals on the LPGA Tour and more than 20 on the PGA Tour were students of the program. Donna Caponi, in the five weeks following having taken the course, broke all earning records of any female golfer in history and attributed her success to the Golf Power program. The most outstanding male PGA Tour player was Chip Beck, who was only the second man to score a 59 in tournament play. He said the techniques he learned in the Golf Power program were the same as the ones he used in shooting his record tying round.

As a result of the success in the field of golf, the techniques and concepts have also been taught to bowlers, including the US Olympic Bowling coaching staff, skiers, professional and amateur baseball players, Olympic track and field athletes and tennis players, among others. The concepts have universal applications and will aid adherents in reaching their ultimate potential in any activity.

While broadcasting The Golf Power Show, one radio station, KRDO in Colorado Springs, increased its audience share by 1,100% for the 7:00 to 9:00 AM period during one rating period. On a national basis, the popularity of The Golf Power Show, growing entirely by word of mouth, became recognized as one of the fastest growing new shows on radio. As a result of the show’s popularity, there have been numerous attempts to copy it, but with no success.

Since its initial broadcast on the 1st of July 2000, The Golf Power Show has begun to build a large and faithful audience and been approached by the country’s largest sports network’s affiliate group to handle station recruitment and for Alex Merklinger to develop a daily golf vignette: The Golf Power Minute.

GETTING STARTED

Since initial funding was received, studio renovations have begun and all requisite equipment bought. Additional personnel are ready to begin immediately upon funding.

Contact has already been made with all stations that previously carried Mr. Merklinger’s two shows and many have indicated their desire to begin carrying one or both of the shows as soon as possible. Most major market stations are ready to air MRN’s programming as soon as a stronger, clearer signal is available. Plans are to install a satellite system to send the programming directly to an u-link facility: Equity Radio Network.

Upon funding, an affiliate relations company will begin contacting all the top stations in the country and offer the programming. As MRN’s affiliate base grows, interest in the programs will also grow so, that at the end of the first year after funding, it is anticipated that there will be a minimum of 100 stations broadcasting Mysteries of the Mind. With the interest in The Golf Power Show it is anticipated that at least 250 stations will carry the program after the first year.

Should Mr. Merklinger pursue the production of The Golf Power Minute it is anticipated that at least 600 stations will carry this program.

It must be remembered that in addition to national radio stations carrying the programming, all shows will be broadcast simultaneously worldwide over the Internet. MRN’s streaming partner, BroadcastAmerica.com, the largest Internet up-linking company, reported that after only two months of broadcasting the shows had the largest increase of listeners via the Internet; a 1000% increase in a five week period. A beginning market of this magnitude is critically important to national and international advertisers such as Ford, General Motors, Mercedes Benz, Dell Computers, Wilson Sporting Goods and Nike Golf.

AFFILIATE OFFER

The standard way to get stations to carry programs is through the barter method. This means that programs are being offered at no charge to the local stations which in turn will broadcast the network’s 7 minutes of national advertising. The local stations retain the other 8 minutes of advertising time for local sale. Stations may elect to tape programs for re-broadcast at another time. This, also, is standard in the industry.

Many top programs being aired today, such as Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura and Howard Stern, are sold to the affiliate stations for a combination of cash and barter. In many instances, the cash outlay amounts to many thousands of dollars per month in the bigger markets. At this time, it is not anticipated that MRN will charge for any of its programs.

SALES AND MARKETING


The success of any service organization lies in its ability to establish an effective means of selling and marketing its product(s). MRN has put together a sales and marketing program unequaled in the industry. The uniqueness and directness of the sales and marketing program will enable the staff to become some of the most successful in the industry. Sales and affiliate people are top in their field and are ready to start upon funding.

The limited number of available advertising contracts does not require a large sales force. A standard contract within the industry is for 13 weeks and usually offers one 30 second spot per hour. The available number of 30 second spots per hour is only 14, so the number of contracts from Mysteries of the Mind and The Golf Power Show, combined, is only 28. Customized sales contracts can be arranged, such as 60-second spots. All contracts are pre-paid so there is no waiting period for payment.

In addition to establishing its own sales and marketing force, two of the nation’s largest media sales organizations, CBS Radio Sales and Katz Radio, both based in New York City, have been contacted to determine the cost of handling advertising sales. In both cases, there was great interest in working with MRN and both gave assurances that sales would be above average. Both organizations charge a 40% commission on their sales.

Overall cost and efficiency of sales will have to be determined in each case.

The network will also have a team to recruit and service affiliated stations. When MRN is in a financial position, it will hire an in-house service agent to work with the affiliate relations company. Attached are two proposals from affiliate relations firms and their proposed costs.

When MRN begins to add programs in addition to Mysteries of the Mind and The Golf Power Show for broadcast distribution, the advertising revenues will be disbursed between MRN and the show hosts as follows: MRN retains 7 minutes of advertising time which equates to 14-30 second spots. The program host will receive 21/2 minutes of advertising time while MRN keeps 41/2 minutes. This formula will enable the program host to earn an above average income and is the reason MRN will be able to attract the top talent in the industry. This formula will also enable MRN to earn a substantial amount of income (see projections).

Until MRN is in a stronger financial position and the original investment is repaid, all revenues derived from Mysteries of the Mind and The Golf Power Show through advertising sales will be retained by the corporation.

It is MRN’s plan to contract with the industry’s top program hosts to broadcast their shows on our network. As a result of the unique financial arrangement described above, MRN’s hosts will be in a position to earn a substantial income, i.e. based on 2-1/2 minutes of available advertising time per hour, equating to 5-30 second spots, at a beginning rate of $500 per spot, the host would enjoy a potential income of $12,500 per week for each hour of daily broadcast time. Broadcasting an hour a day, five days a week, this figure extends to $650,000 annually for a daily one-hour show.

This revenue formula breaks with present industry standards where hosts either buy their time or are employed by the specific network. MRN’s concept enables a host to earn substantially more than they could under standard arrangements. It is further recognized that the most popular hosts on radio, i.e. Rush Limbaugh, Art Bell, Howard Stern and other “top 5” broadcasters, earn amounts in the millions of dollars but, even so, under MRN’s formula they would earn more than they earn at present.

In addition to working with standard industry marketing and PR people, MRN plans to trade radio advertising time for advertising space in a multitude of commercial vehicles, including television, magazines and newspapers. These additional advertising venues can be shared with key advertisers. It is very important, especially in the beginning months, to get the network’s name and programs before the listening audience. The more people who are aware that Mysteries of the Mind and The Golf Power Show are on the air, the greater the listener response will be and the faster the affiliate base will grow.

COMPETITION

There are several local and regional golf shows, but none offer the information or format of The Golf Power Show. The only show comparable to Mysteries of the Mind is Coast-to-Coast with Michael Seigel, which is broadcast in the middle of the night. The major difference is that Seigel is an interviewer and Alex Merklinger speaks from personal experience. In many cases, he enjoys long time friendships with his guests. With the aforementioned plan to build a strong affiliate base, MRN has the opportunity to become a major force in the broadcast industry within a few years.










































ESTIMATED ONE TIME EXPENSES


OFFICE BUILD OUT 25,000
FF&E 5,000
BACK-UP GENERATOR 1,500
BROADCAST EQUIPMENT (SEE NOTE) 60,000
COMPUTER SYSTEM 5,000
PHONE SYSTEM 3,000
PRINTER SUPPLIES 500


TOTAL ESTIMATED ONE TIME COSTS: $100,000



PROJECTED MONTHLY EXPENSES:

SATELLITE TIME 10,000
INTERNET CHARGE 500
PHONE CHARGE 1,000
STUDIO/OFFICE 1,500
UTILITIES 500
PRINTING 500
POSTAGE 350
EQUIPMENT LEASE 500
TRAVEL/ENTERTAINMENT 1,500
ACCOUNTING 500
MEDICAL INSURANCE 2,500
OFFICE EXPENSES 500
CONTINGENCY 1,000

SUB-TOTAL: $20,850

PERSONNEL:
PRESIDENT 8,500
PRODUCER 3,500
ENGINEER 3,500
SALES MANAGER 3,500
AFFILIATE RELATIONS
GOLF POWER– Executive Summary


In 1975 Alex Merklinger created a program known as Golf Power. The concepts were the first that taught athletes how to enter that elusive state known as the “zone” and enabled them to perform at peak performance. The techniques were featured in articles in Golf Magazine, Fore, Associated Press and appeared in Sports Illustrated and many other sports publications. As a result, the sporting world became inundated with a plethora of sport psychologists offering techniques promising enhanced performance.

Interestingly, no one has yet achieved the fantastic results of the techniques developed by Alex Merklinger. No program, other than Golf Power, exhibits an understanding of the working relationship between the mind and the brain. No other program knows what or where that elusive state known as the “zone” is located or how to enter it at will. The Golf Power satisfies all those questions.

Alex Merklinger has long been recognized as one of the founders of the human potential movement and has worked in the area of mental development for more than forty years. He has developed programs for industry, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, gifted children, personal development, sales and executive training and many others. Since developing the Golf Power program, Alex Merklinger has created programs for tennis, skiing, bowling, trained the Olympic bowling coaching staff and professional and amateur athletes in many major sports.

In 1997, Alex Merklinger started broadcasting a radio program titled The Golf Power Show in Colorado Springs and Pueblo, Colorado. In less than four months, The Golf Power Show built a loyal audience and had a listener increase of 1,100% during one rating period. As a result, the show was taken nationally, broadcasting over the Talk America Radio Network. Growth on a national scale was equally as impressive and grew from an affiliate base of 15 stations to 57 in five months with no help from the network. As a result of lack of contract fulfillment by the network, Alex Merklinger exercised an option to leave the network and after negotiating with two other networks decided to form his own network.

Since broadcasting The Golf Power Show over the Millennium Radio Network, a worldwide audience has been steadily building and both shows are recognized as the premiere shows in the areas where they are broadcast. Since launching the Golf Power show in 2000, Alex Merklinger has negotiated with two major sporting networks to offer the show to their affiliates. One has 425 affiliated stations and the other has 150. To date no decision has been reached.

The larger of the two networks has suggested that Alex Merklinger produce a 90-second vignette on the concepts taught in the Golf Power program. To be known as The Golf Power Minute, it will be aired a minimum of twice daily on each affiliate. It is anticipated that at least 150 stations would carry the vignette within the first year.

Rather than accept a national advertiser for The Golf Power Minute, it has been decided that it would be more economically feasible to promote the Golf Power course. This decision was derived at because within a matter of months most of the nation’s 30 million golfers will have heard the show and the special offer for the course at least several times.

The Golf Power, Inc., is looking to raise $1,500,000, in units of $12,000, through the sale of 25,000 shares of common stock to complete the steps explained in this summary. A second tier investment, through the sale of Corporate Debentures, will provide the necessary funding to expand the implementation of the business plan on a worldwide basis immediately. This second tier investment will be used to promote the products and purchase television time to run the planned promotions and Infomercial in the US and Japan. Initial contact has been made with a company that places Infomercials on Japanese television and stations throughout the Far East. If this approach is pursued, a joint venture would be formed whereby the partner would place the Infomercial on television stations throughout the Far East.

The forthcoming projections were reduced to a return of just 2% within the first two years and only from US sales. This figure was used to make the proposal realistic. The reader can project his own percentages to see the ultimate potential.

The Golf Power program has been the only program of its type to receive the endorsement of the PGA of America for the continuing education of its members. Just recently, Alex Merklinger heard from a representative of the LPGA who requested he help putting a program together teaching mind/body coordination for it’s members. This support from the PGA Tour’s ruling body and the LPGA’s ruling body is a tremendous coup and will attract tremendous attention. A representative for Golf Magazine has also indicated that a major article on Golf Power is planned for the magazine.

In the following projections all sales figures, for the fist two years, are based on a discounted sale price of $59.95 for the Golf Power Training Program. No projections were included for sales of the Surniak Golf Club line.

The concepts taught in the Golf Power course fit perfectly with the Far Eastern mentality and sales percentages should be much higher in this part of the world than any other. Golf Power focuses on the mental aspect of the game and incorporates concepts taught in the martial arts as well as energy and visualization techniques.

Another point is that no one else has ever developed a program that enables a golfer to enter the “zone” or reach his ultimate potential. This is truly an opportunity for someone to be at the right place at the right time. With the right team members and the endorsement of one world’s top players, the potential revenues are inestimable. Industry experts believe that with the proper endorsement and the proper promotion that as many as 10% to 20% or more of all golfers would purchase the program.

A New Mexican corporation was formed in November of 2001. It is the intent of the Corporation that upon funding a manufacturing and distribution center would be set up in Nevada to escape paying the 8% New Mexico tax.
MERKLINGER COMMUNICATIONS GROUP
PRESENTS

THE GOLF POWER MINUTE


THE ONLY DAILY 2-MINUTE VIGNETTE DEALING WITH THE MENTAL ASPECT OF GOLF!

CONCEPTS EVERY GOLFER IS SEEKING TO MASTER: THE ZONE, ENERGY, PRE-SHOT ROUTINE, VISUALIZATION, “WILL” OVER “CHANCE”, ETC.

NO OTHER PROGRAM LIKE IT!

A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROGRAM 5 DAYS A WEEK!

REACH EVERY GOLFER IN YOUR MARKET AREA!

MOST SERIOUS GOLFERS AGREE THAT GOLF IS 10% PHYSICAL AND 90% MENTAL!

THE GOLF INDUSTRY HAS NOT HAD A RECESSION IN MORE THAN 20 YEARS!

35 MILLION GOLFERS IN THE USA PLAYING ON MORE THAN 12,000 COURSES!

ONLY ONE STATION PER MARKET WILL BE LICENSED TO CARRY THE GOLF POWER MINUTE!

ONE NATIONAL AD WILL BE PLACED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE VIGNETTE LEAVING THE BEGINNING AND ENDING FOR LOCAL SPOTS.

LICENSED STATION WILL RECEIVE AN EXCITING BONUS FOR CARRYING THE GOLF POWER MINUTE!

NO ONE UNDERSTANDS THE MENTAL SIDE OF SPORTS AS COMPLETELY AS ALEX MERKLINGER! ALEX MERKLINGER HAS A WEEKLY 2-HOUR SHOW, THE GOLF POWER SHOW, THAT IS CONSISTENTLY A MOST LISTENED TO SPORTS PROGRAM.

Please take the time to read a forth-coming letter describing in detail the offering to air The Golf Power Minute.




PO * Box 4548 * Santa Fe, NM 87502 * 505-757-3000 * email
GO TO HELL DOREAN IF THE FBI WANTS ME I HAVE A TAPE WITH YOU AND MERKLINGER. I WILL TELL THE JURY WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR. CONVICTED

neodemes said...

Contrary to a number of views expressed regarding both eternal damnation and the fate of Satan -

Rev. 20:
7When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God's people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

~~The Swami~~~ said...

Conmanbuster, are we suppose to be impressed that you are some kind of behind the scenes, expert investigator, that is out to save all of mankind? Because I'm not. And judging by several e-mails I've received..............many others aren't either. You think the FBI doesn't know about that diatribe you posted. Who are you..........the New Nancy Drew? Congratulations shit for brains...........you can copy and paste. As for your PI skills, I say the following:

‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›
‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›
‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›
‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›
‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›
‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›
‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›
‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›
‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›
‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›
‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›

~~The Swami~~~ said...

Sean Travis Johnson says:

When this trial ends, I'll be "praying to the ol' mighty god" that you sit in a 9' by 9' cell, thinking about how all three of your kids, me, Shannon, and Ethan would enjoy seeing you get strapped up to the fryer seat and watch your flesh crisp up like breaded chicken.


THEN SAYS THIS:

And while you're doing that, I'll adopt your religious studies for a quick moment to hope one thing is true in the Christian beliefs. And that is hoping that there truly is hell, so that I can be assured that you'll fall to the deepest of depths, eternally burning in the afterlife as payment for all the twisted things you have done to better yourself while hurting others.


SEAN,YOU SHOULDN'T WANT YOUR WORST ENEMY TO GO TO HELL........MUCH LESS YOUR OWN FATHER.






THEN SEAN SAYS THIS:

Sincerely,
Sean Travis Johnson


SINCERELY? SINCERELY?????? WELL, AT LEAST HE'S NOT HOLDING A GRUDGE......? Is he serious? What? I don't even hate my ex wife this much and she wanted to stab me while I WAS ASLEEP!!!!!!!!! Sean.........CHILL OUT MAN!!!!!!! Once your Dad has passed on...........YOU WILL NOT FEEL THIS WAY!!!!!!!!!! YOU....... won't enter the kingdom of Heaven with this hate in your heart and inability to forgive.

conmanbuster5 said...

HOW A CON MAN WORKS, HOW A CON MAN GOES TO JAILALEX MERKLINGER BROKER AND AFFILIATE OF THE DOREAN GROUP. LIFE TIME CON MAN.
Sorry it has taken me this long to write back but I have been going flat out and have been going through a lot with our daughter in Florida. She, Saucy, is the one who has been so sick with cancer: her 4th bout with it. GOD willing she'll beat it this time, too.

So sorry to hear that your injury is more permanent that originally expected. I know how much flying meant to you: remember I'm one of those guys too. Oh, a quick question, although I should know the answer: because I've had a heart attack, will it preclude me from passing my physical? I just don't recall. I know I couldn't get my commercial but what about a private? Also, how about you: can you maintain a private ticket?

Brian, thanks so very much for the kind words you always share with me. I'm so happy the course has meant so much to you. The wonderful reports I get from people make it all worthwhile. Over the years I have gotten such satisfaction from teaching the course I couldn't begin to tell you. One good thing: it's just starting for you. The more you practice the stronger your abilities will become; and much broader, too.

Sorry to hear about your run in with the bullies. They are just a bunch of clowns anyway. If you're game, I would like to use one of the generators for my house. I have even spoken with my local phone guy and he said go for it. We're on a small private system and they are great. I wouldn't announce it but could use it. The same goes for the heating concepts you have. I can help get the word out on that and it would help a lot of people around the country/world. So, my friend, the next move is yours.

Regarding you "small" investment. If you are serious I'll make you an offer you can't or shouldn't refuse. Only is your serious.

As you may remember, I've worked in the financial world for many years. Not full time any more but over many years. I have been working on four transactions and will never do any others. Each of them, if they all go through, will net me personally at least 600M and up to almost 1B. One is finalized, two will close this week and the fourth will take about a month. If you want, I'll "sell" you a 1% interest in all revenues that are received for the 100K. Let me know and we'll talk about.

In the meantime dear friend, keep in touch and let me know how I can help you and your different endeavors. GOD Bless and take care.

alex Merklinger
Hi little Bro,

It was great to visit with you and to meet C. Wish we had had more time. We will.

I'm starting to accumulate a lot of info regarding Mind Development, Golf Power and the Golf Power Minute. I will also draw up a formal assignment of your 25% interest in all the varied divisions and classes. In the meantime, let it be know to all parties that you, Brian McCarthy, now own a 25% interest in all the different applications of the Mind Development processes. These include, but are not limited to, the original Mind Development Program and the various advanced programs using the methods, Sales Development, The Golf Program Program (class), The Golf Power Program (radio show), The Golf Power Minute (radio show) and the Surniak Golf Clubs (based on my percentage of ownership).

Your 1% interest in the high yield programs is separate and apart from the interest in the above mentioned programs. At this point, we have our first trade completed and should start to receive our pay-out next week. As soon as we have the exact figures and schedule, I'll let you know. We have six different trades we are currently working and hopefully can successfully complete at least one other at a higher yield. Again, I'll keep you informed each step of the way.

Please keep in touch and don't hesitate to ask any questions or share ideas and comments.

Look forward to getting together again soon.

Best to you both.

Alex Merklinger

MIND DEVELOPMENT SEMINAR


The Institute for Human Potential offers a totally unique approach in aiding individuals to achieve optimum levels of fulfillment in their personal and public lives. The techniques presented in the MIND DEVELOPMENT SEMINAR are the most advanced concepts available in the field of human potential and personal development. These techniques are the result of more than 35 years of research and development and have been successfully taught to more than 250,000 people.

Outwardly, the immediate results from taking the class are an expansion of awareness, more effective communication with all people, more energy in daily living, an ability to better cope with and solve the everyday problems and an inner peace and happiness than was before realized.

The most dramatic changes occur with the implementation of an improved self-image and the ability to establish and achieve more important personal goals. These changes happen as the individual begins to realize the uniqueness and perfection that is within and the knowledge of their purpose in life awakens.

Graduates of the MIND DEVELOPMENT SEMINAR lead happier, healthier, more productive lives. They are better able to deal with the stress of everyday life and use problem-solving techniques that heretofore have only been known by the initiated few.

Regarding the techniques taught in the seminar, one national publication said, “The course teaches how to develop the inner strength, confidence and peace of mind everyone needs to project a positive image of him/herself and to succeed at most anything they wish to do. We have only touched the surface of what can be achieved practicing these methods. We see this as the greatest scientific breakthrough of the century.”
MYSTERIES OF THE MIND:



Alex Merklinger’s Mysteries of the Mind seeks to present information and entertainment to a wide variety of listeners on subjects such as arcane knowledge, spiritual cosmology, the unexplained and curious, insightful political topics, health and alternative healing techniques, success and human potential among others.

Through the quest for truth in whatever subject may be explored, the hosts and staff of the program endeavor to bring to its audience uplifting and enlightening information, the goal being to inspire spiritual growth and a hunger for knowledge in the lives of those reached.

Mysteries of the Mind approaches the enigmas of our lives and the universe with a fresh, open minded perspective. The format has a dual emphasis: first, to explore why this knowledge possibly does not make it to mainstream media for consideration by the public at large, and, second, to provide listeners with ways to use this knowledge in their quest for the “holy grail” or spiritual truths in their lives.

While other talk show hosts, such as Art Bell, are connected with their subjects as observers or interviewers, Alex Merklinger has had personal experience and involvement, making his show unique and extremely interesting to a broad spectrum. Whether the subject is spiritual enlightenment, psychic surgery, ancient and secret societies, personal achievement and success, a fresh approach to today’s politics or the secrets to optimum performance, Mr. Merklinger has studied and taught these subjects for more than forty years.

The show offers, through special guests and the latest information, unique perspectives on current political events affecting our lives, the long hidden meanings of humanity’s spiritual teachers, the latest in alternative health and healing procedures and natural and supernatural changes affecting our planet. The show also addresses current topics such as UFO’s, crop circles and advanced technology. Although many subjects are quite ponderous, the show keeps the delivery light and entertaining to those with less inquiring minds.

Every Friday Alex and his wife, Ardeth, broadcast together, bringing a refreshing and lighthearted touch as they bounce his pragmatic approach to subjects off her rather romanticized outlook. Ardeth Merklinger has had her own encounters with UFO’s since childhood; Alex still waits for a piece of hardware as proof of their existence. These gentle clashes of opinions offer the listener insight into the special relationship these two share as they interact with each other, their guests and callers.

Once a week, Lisa Thiesse bring her “Quickening News” updates on the latest social and natural happenings from around the world and her insightful commentary on how these changes affect humanity.

In short, Mysteries of the Mind offers a new and exciting show every day of the week and has built a large, faithful audience.


THE GOLF POWER SHOW:



Since its inception, the concept of Golf Power has captured the interest of the sports world. First conceived in 1976, the Golf Power program was the first to focus on the mental aspect of the sport and opened the way for a spate of mental programs and sports psychologists. Even though the concepts and techniques were written about in practically every sports magazine, including Sports Illustrated and Golf Magazine, no one has completely understood how or why the concepts work. To date, no program has enjoyed the success of the Golf Power process.

In the United States alone, there are more than 20 Million “heavy” golfers who will try anything and buy anything to improve their game. A “heavy” golfer is anyone who plays between 15 and 300 rounds a year. This dedication and enthusiasm makes for a very loyal listening audience.

The Golf Power program is the brain child of Alex Merklinger, long recognized as one of the leaders in the human potential and motivational industry, and is actually just one application of the concepts taught in the Life Training Seminars through Mr. Merklinger’s Institute For Human Potential.

The Golf Power Show is the only one that teaches the mental aspect of sports in general and golf specifically. Golf Power is the only known program that teaches the golfing audience about that elusive state known as the “zone”, where it is and how to enter it at will.

When the Golf Power program was first offered to the public, almost half the professionals on the LPGA Tour and more than 20 on the PGA Tour were students of the program. Donna Caponi, in the five weeks following having taken the course, broke all earning records of any female golfer in history and attributed her success to the Golf Power program. The most outstanding male PGA Tour player was Chip Beck, who was only the second man to score a 59 in tournament play. He said the techniques he learned in the Golf Power program were the same as the ones he used in shooting his low round.

As a result of the success in the field of golf, the techniques and concepts have also been taught to bowlers, including the US Olympic Bowling coaching staff, skiers, professional and amateur baseball players, Olympic track and field athletes and tennis players, among others. The concepts have universal applications and will aid adherents in reaching their ultimate potential in any activity.

While broadcasting The Golf Power Show, one radio station, KRDO in Colorado Springs, increased its audience share by 1,100% for the 7:00 to 9:00 AM period during one rating period. On a national basis, the popularity of The Golf Power Show, growing entirely by word of mouth, was recognized as one of the fastest growing new shows on radio. As a result of the show’s popularity, there have been numerous attempts to copy it, but with no success.


MIND DEVELOPMENT CLASS OUTLINE

Friday evening:

* Introduction
Background and history of human potential movement
Stand and Introduce selves
Lay out ground rules to take course
Visualization exercise
Explanation of Chart of Human Consciousness
How to do Mental Exercises
Initial Relaxation Exercise
Organ Language lecture
Creative Process – “Copper Curls” etc
Opening Creative Dimension

Saturday:

Share experience of last night
Broken Agreements Lecture
Deep Meditation Exercise
Five Rites Exercises
Power of Visualization Lecture
The Greatest Secret Never Told lecture
Goal Setting
Creation of Workshop
Psychometry Exercise
Self Worth Lecture
Lecture on Teachers
Meet Teachers Exercise
1st New Self Image Exercise

Sunday:

Sharing of Yesterday; describe Teachers
Advanced Visualization Exercise
Problem Person Exercise
Communication with Father
Advanced Communication Exercise
Life of JESUS and its meaning to us today
Projection into Elements
Animal Kingdom Exercise
Exploring Human Body Exercise
Psychic Readings
Purpose and Meaning of Life
2nd New Self Image Exercise
3rd New Self Image Exercise
Energy Exercise
Closing Exercise
Hi Brian,

Sorry it has taken me this long to write back but I have been going flat out and have been going through a lot with our daughter in Florida. She, Saucy, is the one who has been so sick with cancer: her 4th bout with it. GOD willing she'll beat it this time, too.

So sorry to hear that your injury is more permanent that originally expected. I know how much flying meant to you: remember I'm one of those guys too. Oh, a quick question, although I should know the answer: because I've had a heart attack, will it preclude me from passing my physical? I just don't recall. I know I couldn't get my commercial but what about a private? Also, how about you: can you maintain a private ticket?

Guido, thanks so very much for the kind words you always share with me. I'm so happy the course has meant so much to you. The wonderful reports I get from people make it all worthwhile. Over the years I have gotten such satisfaction from teaching the course I couldn't begin to tell you. One good thing: it's just starting for you. The more you practice the stronger your abilities will become; and much broader, too.

Sorry to hear about your run in with the bullies. They are just a bunch of clowns anyway. If you're game, I would like to use one of the generators for my house. I have even spoken with my local phone guy and he said go for it. We're on a small private system and they are great. I wouldn't announce it but could use it. The same goes for the heating concepts you have. I can help get the word out on that and it would help a lot of people around the country/world. So, my friend, the next move is yours.

Regarding you "small" investment. If you are serious I'll make you an offer you can't or shouldn't refuse. Only is your serious.

As you may remember, I've worked in the financial world for many years. Not full time any more but over many years. I have been working on four transactions and will never do any others. Each of them, if they all go through, will net me personally at least 600M and up to almost 1B. One is finalized, two will close this week and the fourth will take about a month. If you want, I'll "sell" you a 1% interest in all revenues that are received for the 100K. Let me know and we'll talk about.

In the meantime dear friend, keep in touch and let me know how I can help you and your different endeavors. GOD Bless and take care.

alex Merklinger

MERKLINGER COMMUNICATIONS GROUP
PRESENTS

THE GOLF POWER MINUTE


THE ONLY DAILY 2-MINUTE VIGNETTE DEALING WITH THE MENTAL ASPECT OF GOLF!

CONCEPTS EVERY GOLFER IS SEEKING TO MASTER: THE ZONE, ENERGY, PRE-SHOT ROUTINE, VISUALIZATION, “WILL” OVER “CHANCE”, ETC.

NO OTHER PROGRAM LIKE IT!

A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROGRAM 5 DAYS A WEEK!

REACH EVERY GOLFER IN YOUR MARKET AREA!

MOST SERIOUS GOLFERS AGREE THAT GOLF IS 10% PHYSICAL AND 90% MENTAL!

THE GOLF INDUSTRY HAS NOT HAD A RECESSION IN MORE THAN 20 YEARS!

35 MILLION GOLFERS IN THE USA PLAYING ON MORE THAN 12,000 COURSES!

ONLY ONE STATION PER MARKET WILL BE LICENSED TO CARRY THE GOLF POWER MINUTE!

ONE NATIONAL AD WILL BE PLACED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE VIGNETTE LEAVING THE BEGINNING AND ENDING FOR LOCAL SPOTS.

LICENSED STATION WILL RECEIVE AN EXCITING BONUS FOR CARRYING THE GOLF POWER MINUTE!

NO ONE UNDERSTANDS THE MENTAL SIDE OF SPORTS AS COMPLETELY AS ALEX MERKLINGER! ALEX MERKLINGER HAS A WEEKLY 2-HOUR SHOW, THE GOLF POWER SHOW, THAT IS CONSISTENTLY A MOST LISTENED TO SPORTS PROGRAM.

Please take the time to read a forth-coming letter describing in detail the offering to air The Golf Power Minute.




PO * Box 4548 * Santa Fe, NM 87502 * 505-757-3000 * email
ALEX MERKLINGER MUST MEET HIS JUSTICE, A CAREER CRIMINAL LOOKING FOR A FAST BUCK. HE SHITS IN A OUTHOUSE ON LAND HE SQUATS ON IN ROWE NEW MEXICO HIDING FROM THE LAW. HE BECAME A GREEDY OLD MAN LOOKING TO STEAL MONEY FROM PEOPLE WITH THE DOREAN GROUP AND WHEN IT WENT BAD HE PRAYED ON HIS CLOSE FRIENDS THAT DID NOT KNOW WHO HE REALLY WAS. NOW THEY DO. I am not a victim of dorean I OWN MY PROPERTY NO MORGAGE, I WAS BROUGHT UP RIGHT. BUT GOD WILL HAVE HIS VENGENCE ON SINNER LIKE ALEX MERKLINGER AND THE DOREAN GROUP THIEVES. INDIGHT ALEX MERKLINGER WITH DOREAN HE RIPED OFF 150 PEOPLE, ITS ON TAPE. jOHNSON IS A REPEAT OFFENDER SO IS MERKLINGER.
gOD BLESS THE PURE AT HEART, SEND THE EVIL DOREAN GROUP TO BURN IN HELL WERE THEY BELONG. JESUS IS AGAINST JOHNSON AND HIS BAND OF THIEVES. GO GET MERKLINGER F.B.I.

mogel007 said...

Conman said: "ALEX MERKLINGER WITH DOREAN HE RIPED OFF 150 PEOPLE, ITS ON TAPE."
_______________________________

So admittedly you aren't a dorean client, so where do you get off to complain about The Dorean Group then? As far as Alex is concerned, shouldn't his clients be the ones to complain if they have a problem, instead of you? If you aren't even a dorean client, how is the issue any of your business?
If you have a personal problem with Alex, shouldn't you work it out with him alone without making a private issue a public issue?

And no, it isn't on tape "that Alex ripped off 150 people." That's your editorializing of what was really said.

Certainly "the pure in heart" aren't wishing their brethren to "burn in hell" or saying that "Jesus is against Dorean". Talk about taking the name of the Lord in vain.

mogel007 said...

Conman said: "WHEN IT WENT BAD HE PRAYED ON HIS CLOSE FRIENDS"
__________________________________


It might be a little unorthodox to "PRAY on your close friends," but when things go bad, it's always a good time to pray. Maybe it really doesn't matter where you do your praying?

Conman, if the Dorean Group belong in hell, surely you belong in a spelling class if you were really raised up right.

habakkuk said...

Now its "commandbuster" who is sending Dorean and its clients to hell.....I have to hand it to him...this guys tries real hard to sound like a real moron. What thinking human being would sit down and write all that idiotic stuff.

mogel007 said...

When you start hearing the question in the news: Could a run on a US bank happen here in the U.S., given the economic climate we now see, you have to think even more cautiously and be even more conservative with your funds now. It's like the rules are changing and it isn't the same game anymore:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/
story/could-run-bank-happen-us/story.aspx?guid=%7BDBA148C1%2D3329%2D48C0%2DADB7%2D748B133045BF%7D&siteid=yhoof

mogel007 said...

The U.S. Dollar is being sacrificed by the Federal Reserve IN A LAST DITCH EFFORT TO SAVE THE MORTGAGE BANKERS:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/
story/dollar-drops-record-low-vs/story.aspx?guid=%7B5FA1CA78%2DD591%2D4DC2%2DBFA1%2DE260625858FB%7D

~~The Swami~~~ said...

SOP,I'll put this in Lingo even you can understand:

s o p, u r n e d ut

Thank you God of Deletion.

habakkuk said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sopsback said...

well, the $ is now in "full blown" free fall, just like haveing full blown eggs.


so, what hoppens now.

and that turnip guy really likes starting race war, dont he?


if he want to pick on a etnic groop, there is one groop much more dangerus tahn balck peeple, choo no wha I sain??


in centuries past, these were known as the "sword of the church"

they are going to be used for the same soon.

HINT: think inquisition.


and most are incorrectly identified as XXXXX, when mostly they are all of indian heritage and lerned to speak thier language when they were "conquered" by the spanards many years ago.

those who did not convert to katholicsim were goners.

but those today are really aztecs, mayans, etc who were tawt the latin language from their "inquistors"


these shall prove to be much more dangerous than the groop turnip is picking on.


also, the groop turnip is pickig on are mostly baptists. see the connedction there? the other groop will be made "catlick"


meening that they will be made to recite some obscure words and thus become catlicks

they will have no clue about yeshua of course, but it wont matter....

neodemes said...

"if he want to pick on a etnic groop, there is one groop much more dangerus tahn balck peeple, choo no wha I sain??"

*****************

Oh, please, DO clarify "wha yo sain".

mlr said...

This is my first comment on this blog. I have been with Kurt, Scott, and Bill for years. I read the blog every day there is something new and I have prayed for all of them to win this fight.

My wife and I lost our home to the bankers, and I got cancer the same year. But that is nothing compaired to what these champions have gone through for all of us. My situation is not important to me. I wish them well and I pray they win this battle for my children, and their childrens' children.

I look at the newspapers all the time and see foreclosure after foreclosure of peoples homes. I don't want this happening to my family, and Kurt and Scott are the answer to those prayers for me. I can only imagine how much all of you have suffered for us and I would never call you any names or blame you like some of these people on this blog have done. God Bless You All.

light1rae said...

mlr said "My wife and I lost our home to the bankers, and I got cancer the same year."

I believe what you do not know can harm you. Go to the link below and read about the new medical discovery on how people are giving their body what it needs to fight off disease. I personally know people who had cancer and don't now. Check it out for yourself.
http://www.mannapages.com/health4seniors

neodemes said...

Well, it looks like a ray of light for Dorean clients, in the form of precedent setting fraud and restitution orders against the Dorean Group, over a year ago.

Funny, I don't recall anyone mentioning this before.

LEARN MORE

Note to mlr - sorry to hear of your loss and your health.

mogel007 said...

Nemo said: "precedent setting fraud and restitution orders against the Dorean Group"
_________________________________

The one judgment I read was for $5500. Whooooooooooo! That was so earth shattering that I actually peed my pants from excitement. The nominal fee of $5500 probably just compensated for attorney fees, don't you think? Quit claim deed procurred by fraud? Where is the fraud in quit claiming a property into a legitimate trust? Sounds like the Florida Judge just took the fantasy ruling of Judge Alsup & assumed that the process was a scam based upon what he had read & therefore, putting an asset into the trust that was affiliated with this alleged scam was also fraudulent in nature.

As far as saying that the quit claim deed was unsupported by consideration, that's a bunch of hogwash. Remember there was consideration that was performed where the Dorean Group sent out a legitimate presentment or challenge to the clients lender, not to mention the consideration as acting as trustee of the clients trust & the service & work that went along with that. None of the family trusts have been ruled to be fraudulent ever & you can't find any case saying that.

The trustees have put their life, liberty, family, reputation & work for the past several years on the line & if that isn't consideration of the highest order, the Judge needs his head examined for competency.

Course quit claim deeds are filed without consideration all the time; that in & of itself doesn't make the filing a fraudulent transaction. Notice also in the judgment summary it doesn't say why the quit claim deed was procurred by fraud. Another ruling based upon no legal reasons whatsoever, just like Judge Alsup's rulings come to think of it.

Dorean clients have approx. 4000 "administrative DEFAULT JUDGMENTS" attested by a notary, an officer acceptable to the court, showing the fraud of lending institutions where lenders never responded either, so what's your real point? Don't you think that's much more impressive than just a couple of defaults on record?

Remember these precedences you refer to Nemo, went uncontested by the Dorean Group, not to mention they were in jail at the time these cases were served obviously if they were served at all. An "uncontested default" can be overturned on appeal if there is legitimate reason why the Defendants couldn't defend themselves or because they had some legitimate emergency. Maybe being jailed illegally constitutes a legitimate defense for an appeal, you think?

Course than again, why should the Dorean Group care about these few ignorant clients who sold themselves for a mess of pottage by their own negligence & poor choices of getting out of their family trusts? They obviously won't share in any huge damages down the road, in any settlement or sale of administrative judgments, don't currently now have the asset protection of the trust & tax savings strategies that a trust can give either due to their poor choices.

What's comical about these cases you mentioned Nemo, is that the clients didn't have to spend thousands of dollars just to get their home back into their personal names & didn't have to file suit to accomplish that. Basically that's all they accomplished getting their property back into their personal names. And worse, they didn't get any of that $5,500 that is accruing interest at a whopping 7% & probably spent money they couldn't afford to spend in order to get that judgment, not to mention all the time they probably expelled too.

Yep, those two cases are EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT in the grand scheme of things. LOL

No Nemo, a legal precedent is a judgment or conclusion based upon real law and real justification, not an appealable verdict signed by an ignorant or corrupt Judge that was procurred by simply a default of one party not showing up to argue. I think a legal precedent also has to be a court case in the appellate court or Supreme Court too, not in the court of Captain Kangaroo.

Maybe that's why you forgot about these two insignificant cases. You thunk?

mogel007 said...

Nemo: Why didn't you just post the Aldrich case?

http://www.neodemesne.com/Dorean/
Aldrich/aldrich.pdf

Oh I forgot. It's a bogus link that doesn't work since nothing comes up.

sopsback said...

"...but those today are really aztecs, mayans, etc who were tawt the latin language from their "inquistors"



funny how all the "science" programs like disc channel, history ch., etc all say...


"strange, the mayans, one of them most advanced civilizatins in the world just 'up and disappered'


this is a totally inocorrect statement to hide the truth.


peple just dont up and dispaer...


the were conquered by the 'conquistadors" under the auspices of the catlick church.


if yo were a mayan (indian) yo eether had two choices;

become catlick, and lern spandish lagnage, or "just up and disapper"


so all the mayans are really still mayan, tho called of "latin or hispnanic" origin


in fact, most pwple who are incorrectly called "hispanic" are of indian descent

wheter mexiacan, guatemalan, honduran, porro reecan, peruvain, etc, etc.


why the sudden influx to the USA,

natch, the calick church behind it.


so usa can be like rome, taken down from the inside out....


noting against any of these indigenous people, just the fact that the ptb really dont "care" about them; they are just being used for a prupsoe like everyone else, and when done will be thrown to dogs like everyone else.

sopsback said...

corse, yo no that same guy behing it all...

i. lou minardi


yeah, he got a nice "corporate name"

yo no, coparate names all start with the inital, then they middle name.

sopsback said...

WOW! sh*t hissing the fan!


air farce downs own sattelite containing cooridinates of iran nook faciltys

falls in peru

govt. claims it a meetor


factions in govt./military at war over war over boming iran




http://english.pravda.ru/
opinion/feedback/97410-0/

neodemes said...

Keep spewing pipe dreams, moog, as if the clients are going to ever see a dime back, let alone a huge settlement.

Your process didn't, doesn't and won't work.

If you actually had any clients, be a good boy and refund their money.

Its the right thing to do.

JDJD said...

Surprised no one picked up on Kurt's admission that a leaopard can't change it's spots. Truer words were never spoken on this blog. Onece a thief, always a thief, Kurt.

neodemes said...

Seems to me, if Alsups' rulings were without merit, you would still have your Dorean web site up pushing the process, Byron.

You are all talk and no substance.

Who woulda thunk it?

LOL

merklinger1 said...

Shit on the jail house jesus follows
her;s the news from the outside walls.
from ALEX THE FREE OLD GREEDY WHITE MAN MERKLINGER THE KING OF THE CON MEN:
A Note On The Word "Nigger"
By Randall Kennedy, Professor of Law, Harvard University



The word "nigger" is a key term in American culture. It is a profoundly hurtful racial slur meant to stigmatize African Americans; on occasion, it also has been used against members of other racial or ethnic groups, including Chinese, other Asians, East Indians, Arabs and darker-skinned people. It has been an important feature of many of the worst episodes of bigotry in American history. It has accompanied innumerable lynchings, beatings, acts of arson, and other racially motivated attacks upon blacks. It has also been featured in countless jokes and cartoons that both reflect and encourage the disparagement of blacks. It is the signature phrase of racial prejudice.
To understand fully, however, the depths and intensities, quirks and complexities of American race relations, it is necessary to know in detail the many ways in which racist bigotry has manifested itself, been appealed to, and been resisted. The term "nigger" is in most contexts, a cultural obscenity. But, so, too are the opinions of the United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which ruled that African Americans were permanently ineligible for federal citizenship, and Plessy v. Ferguson, which ruled that state-mandated, "equal but separate" racial segregation entailed no violation of the federal constitution. These decisions embodied racial insult and oppression as national policy and are, for many, painful to read. But teachers rightly assign these opinions to hundreds of thousands of students, from elementary grades to professional schools, because, tragically, they are part of the American cultural inheritance. Cultural literacy requires detailed knowledge about the oppression of racial minorities. A clear understanding of "nigger" is part of this knowledge. To paper over that term or to constantly obscure it by euphemism is to flinch from coming to grips with racial prejudice that continues to haunt the American social landscape.

Leading etymologists believe that "nigger" was derived from an English word "neger" that was itself derived from "Negro", the Spanish word for black. Precisely when the term became a slur is unknown. We do know, however, that by early in the 19th century "nigger" had already become a familiar insult. In 1837, in The Condition of the Colored People of the United States; and the Prejudice Exercised Towards Them, Hosea Easton observed that "nigger" "is an opprobrious term, employed to impose contempt upon [blacks] as an inferior race…The term itself would be perfectly harmless were it used only to distinguish one class from another; but it is not used with that intent…it flows from the fountain of purpose to injure."

The term has been put to other uses. Some blacks, for instance, use "nigger" among themselves as a term of endearment. But that is typically done with a sense of irony that is predicated upon an understanding of the term’s racist origins and a close relationship with the person to whom the term is uttered. As Clarence Major observed in his Dictionary of Afro-American Slang (1970), "used by black people among themselves, [nigger] is a racial term with undertones of warmth and goodwill – reflecting…a tragicomic sensibility that is aware of black history." Many blacks object, however, to using the term even in that context for fear that such usage will be misunderstood and imitated by persons insufficiently attuned to the volatility of this singularly complex and dangerous word.

Some observers object even to reproducing historical artifacts, such as books or cartoons, that contain the term "nigger." This total, unbending objection to printing the word under any circumstance is by no means new. Writing in 1940 in his memoir The Big Sea, Langston Hughes remarked that "[t]he word nigger to colored people is like a red rag to a bull. Used rightly or wrongly, ironically or seriously, of necessity for the sake of realism, or impishly for the sake of comedy, it doesn’t matter. Negroes do not like it in any book or play whatsoever, be the book or play ever so sympathetic in its treatment of the basic problems of the race. Even though the book or play is written by a Negro, they still do not like it. The word nigger, you see, sums up for us who are colored all the bitter years of insult and struggle in America."

Given the power of "nigger" to wound, it is important to provide a context within which presentation of that term can be properly understood. It is also imperative, however, to permit present and future readers to see for themselves directly the full gamut of American cultural productions, the ugly as well as the beautiful, those that mirror the majestic features of American democracy and those that mirror America’s most depressing failings.

For these reasons, I have advised the management of HarpWeek to present the offensive text, cartoons, caricatures and illustrations from the pages of Harper's Weekly, as well as other politically sensitive nineteenth-century material, as they appeared in their historical context. This same advice holds for slurs relating to Irish, Chinese, Germans, Native Americans, Catholics, Jews, Mormons and other ethnic and religious groups.

A Note On The Word "Nigger"
By Randall Kennedy, Professor of Law, Harvard University



The word "nigger" is a key term in American culture. It is a profoundly hurtful racial slur meant to stigmatize African Americans; on occasion, it also has been used against members of other racial or ethnic groups, including Chinese, other Asians, East Indians, Arabs and darker-skinned people. It has been an important feature of many of the worst episodes of bigotry in American history. It has accompanied innumerable lynchings, beatings, acts of arson, and other racially motivated attacks upon blacks. It has also been featured in countless jokes and cartoons that both reflect and encourage the disparagement of blacks. It is the signature phrase of racial prejudice.
To understand fully, however, the depths and intensities, quirks and complexities of American race relations, it is necessary to know in detail the many ways in which racist bigotry has manifested itself, been appealed to, and been resisted. The term "nigger" is in most contexts, a cultural obscenity. But, so, too are the opinions of the United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which ruled that African Americans were permanently ineligible for federal citizenship, and Plessy v. Ferguson, which ruled that state-mandated, "equal but separate" racial segregation entailed no violation of the federal constitution. These decisions embodied racial insult and oppression as national policy and are, for many, painful to read. But teachers rightly assign these opinions to hundreds of thousands of students, from elementary grades to professional schools, because, tragically, they are part of the American cultural inheritance. Cultural literacy requires detailed knowledge about the oppression of racial minorities. A clear understanding of "nigger" is part of this knowledge. To paper over that term or to constantly obscure it by euphemism is to flinch from coming to grips with racial prejudice that continues to haunt the American social landscape.

Leading etymologists believe that "nigger" was derived from an English word "neger" that was itself derived from "Negro", the Spanish word for black. Precisely when the term became a slur is unknown. We do know, however, that by early in the 19th century "nigger" had already become a familiar insult. In 1837, in The Condition of the Colored People of the United States; and the Prejudice Exercised Towards Them, Hosea Easton observed that "nigger" "is an opprobrious term, employed to impose contempt upon [blacks] as an inferior race…The term itself would be perfectly harmless were it used only to distinguish one class from another; but it is not used with that intent…it flows from the fountain of purpose to injure."

The term has been put to other uses. Some blacks, for instance, use "nigger" among themselves as a term of endearment. But that is typically done with a sense of irony that is predicated upon an understanding of the term’s racist origins and a close relationship with the person to whom the term is uttered. As Clarence Major observed in his Dictionary of Afro-American Slang (1970), "used by black people among themselves, [nigger] is a racial term with undertones of warmth and goodwill – reflecting…a tragicomic sensibility that is aware of black history." Many blacks object, however, to using the term even in that context for fear that such usage will be misunderstood and imitated by persons insufficiently attuned to the volatility of this singularly complex and dangerous word.

Some observers object even to reproducing historical artifacts, such as books or cartoons, that contain the term "nigger." This total, unbending objection to printing the word under any circumstance is by no means new. Writing in 1940 in his memoir The Big Sea, Langston Hughes remarked that "[t]he word nigger to colored people is like a red rag to a bull. Used rightly or wrongly, ironically or seriously, of necessity for the sake of realism, or impishly for the sake of comedy, it doesn’t matter. Negroes do not like it in any book or play whatsoever, be the book or play ever so sympathetic in its treatment of the basic problems of the race. Even though the book or play is written by a Negro, they still do not like it. The word nigger, you see, sums up for us who are colored all the bitter years of insult and struggle in America."

Given the power of "nigger" to wound, it is important to provide a context within which presentation of that term can be properly understood. It is also imperative, however, to permit present and future readers to see for themselves directly the full gamut of American cultural productions, the ugly as well as the beautiful, those that mirror the majestic features of American democracy and those that mirror America’s most depressing failings.

For these reasons, I have advised the management of HarpWeek to present the offensive text, cartoons, caricatures and illustrations from the pages of Harper's Weekly, as well as other politically sensitive nineteenth-century material, as they appeared in their historical context. This same advice holds for slurs relating to Irish, Chinese, Germans, Native Americans, Catholics, Jews, Mormons and other ethnic and religious groups.

Straight Up Nigger"
So we get out of the car to walk into a McDonald's (excuse me, I mean "Mickey D's") in BF Arkansas and there are three African-American youths (perhaps 14 to 16 years old) standing behind their car talking rather loudly.
"You gotta be a straight up nigger," I hear.

I'm sorry to be so totally not "with it", but I was (to say the least) somewhat shocked. Although I hear an endless stream of the word in in movies, on television, in songs and from the mouths of black comedians, I have never heard it while walking with my wife in public in a place where there are small children present. And even after the hundreds, if not thousands, of times that I've heard it, I was offended.

I never heard the word in my parent's house while growing up. I was raised in the military (which is highly integrated) and never heard the word used in school. I realize that I grew up in a more innocent time, but even so, I was somewhat taken aback by the strength of my reaction to the word.

I, middle age white male, was offended.

I looked over and saw a group of adults talking just a few feet away from the youths. The parents? I don't know, but I hope not. But even if not, why did they not say something?

It was repeated, louder and more emphatic. "You. gots. ta be. a. straight. up. nigger."

If the word has come to mean something less pejorative than when we were growing up, then fine. "Bitch" used to be a word that got your mouth washed out with soap, but these days it's someone who is being spiteful or difficult. Now everyone says it. "You bitch!" you can exclaim. There are worse things to say.

So if "nigger" is not the derogatory term that it once was, then everyone should be able to use it. I should have been able to turn to the kids and say, "He's right. If you're going to be a nigger you should be a straight up nigger!" and they would laugh and I would smile and wave. But I can't. Had I done so there may have been bloodshed. Because had I done so I would now be in jail for shooting one or two people as they would almost certainly have turned on me with hate-filled eyes, animus in their hearts and malice in their souls.

And rightly so, for it is a word filled with hate that should never be used.

It is a word filled with emotive historical context of which no one should be ignorant, and certainly not these youths, for if a word could ever be evil, then this one certainly is. Its mere utterance evokes imagery of separate water fountains and of stepping into the street with eyes downcast to give others the use of a sidewalk; of cross burnings and church bombings and lynchings in the dark of night; of wrongful arrests and beatings administered with barbaric cruelty in the name of order and justice.

It is a word which represents a concept that generations have fought and died to eradicate from our hearts and minds.

The abolition movement in this country started at least as early as 1688 and grew to include men like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and George Washington. John Brown led a botched revolution to end it and women like Harriet Tubman risked their lives working the Underground Railroad. Our nation endured unimaginable savagery during a long and bloody civil war. Fighting prejudice gave us great civil rights figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks.

The fight to rid the world of prejudice produced many more courageous men and women willing perform heroic acts. Every time the word is used, it is an insult to the valorous men of the Tuskagee Airmen, to the intrepid pugnacity of Fannie Lou Hamer, and to the incalculable courage exhibited by a group of children who became known as the Little Rock Nine. But these youths have probably never heard of these brave individuals, which makes it all the sadder. They do not understand the centuries of struggle and how far we have come.

The word represents a malignancy that has been cut out of our souls by innumerable acts of bravery; excised through unimaginable passion and indescribable suffering; expunged by boundless determination and extraordinary sacrifice.

At least, it should have been. The battle for civil rights was won, but the greater war for equality has been lost; the proof lies in the continued use of the word. The evil still exists as long as the word is uttered. These youths are throwing away all the gains by perpetuating the word, and what the word represents. They do not know that their use of the word is a tragedy of enormous proportions.

There is a sickness in the soul of black America that is no less pernicious than the sickness darkening the heart of Islam. The sickness is evidenced by the rise of victimization and entitlement culture, the breakdown of morals and of family, and the denigration of women. It is a sickness perpetrated in the worst imaginable case of black-on-black crime in history.

People, if you don't want me to say it then don't use the word. More importantly, if you don't want your peers of other races to say it, then don't use it. You can't be mad if they do. You mustn't.

But you will, won't you? And the hatred, the divisiveness will grow.

Bill Cosby is offended, too. He presented this message for the second time, this time to Jesse "Shakedown" Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition.

"Let me tell you something, your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30 every day, it's cursing and calling each other n----r as they're walking up and down the street," he said.
Cosby continued railing about the state of black youth in America. "They think they're hip," he said. "They can't read; they can't write. They're laughing and giggling, and they're going nowhere."...He complained about rap music: "When you put on a record, and that record is yelling 'n----r this' and 'n----r that' and cursing all over the thing and you got your little six-year-old and seven-year-old sitting in the back seat of the car--those children hear that. And I am telling you when you put the CD on and then you get up and dance to it, what are you saying to your children?"

And he also ripped into sitcoms targeting African-American audiences: "Comedians coming on TV [saying,] 'I am so ugly, you are ugly, yuck, yuck.' That's all minstrel show stuff. I am tired of it."

In May, Cosby got in hot water with several civil rights activists when he criticized the lifestyle, education and speech patterns of his fellow African Americans, saying there is no excuse for ignorant behavior.

"I can't even talk the way these people talk, 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is'...and I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk," Cosby said in May. "And then I heard the father talk...Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth."

On Thursday, Cosby further elaborated his thoughts on the subject, saying once again that white people aren't to blame for teen pregnancy and high-school dropout rates.

"For me there is a time...when we have to turn the mirror around," he said. "Because for me it is almost analgesic to talk about what the white man is doing against us. And it keeps a person frozen in their seat, it keeps you frozen in your hole you're sitting in."

Indeed -- a return to conservative family values was a theme in Cosby's tirade:
The more you invest in that child, the more you are not going to let some CD tell your child how to curse and how to say the word 'nigger.' This is an accepted word. You are so hip with 'nigger,' but you can't even spell it," an impassioned Cosby lamented.
Whatever happened to 'Black is beautiful?' Well, it was replaced with 'nigger please,'" he said to laughter....

"Education, ladies and gentleman, respect the elderly, respect for yourselves, respect for others," Cosby said.

"These young girls have no business having sex!" he emphasized as the crowd clapped approvingly.

Columnist Dawn Turner Trice says, "Blacks neither elected Jackson, nor appointed him. He was a product of the media and the times." Yet she believes that there is still a need for black leaders, and wonders who they will turn out to be:
One of the enduring hallmarks of a black leader, indeed any leader, is his or her ability to mobilize a mass of people. An effective black leader has to be able to reignite a fire under a community of disaffected people, but also those blacks with more education, more money and greater access to information than at any time in our history.
Who will the black leaders be?

Will they be community activists such as Rev. Michael Pfleger of St. Sabina Church, who isn't even African-American, but who has worked for years in impoverished black communities for change?

What about prominent and powerful blacks who aren't widely considered black leaders? I'm thinking about National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell or even Time Warner Chief Executive Officer Richard Parsons.

Smart lady, this Ms. Trice. I hope the black community starts looking around for a new set of leaders.
Jesse may see this coming as well:

Jesse Jackson, head of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, wipes a tear from his face in an emotional moment after listening to entertainer Bill Cosby address the civil rights organization's annual conference, Thursday, July 1, 2004, in Chicago.
Yep, Jesse has a tear -- because black America may finally be waking up to the fact that wallowing in the victimization and entitlement that "leaders" like Jackson dish out has been detrimental to the struggle, their lives, and the lives of their children.
How is black America receiving this message? For an answer I headed over to a discussion board at BET. I found that the vast majority of responses were along lines like these:

From sunshinegrl82:

Thank you Dr.Cosby! His message is one of accountability. He should've touched on the poor's dependence on the government too.
Since when did our government deserve our trust to the point where they are building our houses, feeding our children, building our apartments, giving us our money, handling our family business, and teaching our children what it means to be Black in America with the history books they distribute in public schools?

Poor Black people are allowing the same government that enslaved us for hundreds of years, to run their lives(mental slavery). Let me tell you. Our government hasn't changed so much.

From Kenny997T:
Dr. Cosby has said the same thing our mothers,father,grandparents have said all our lives get a good education work hard for what you want. Everything comes at some cost nothing comes for free! Today's youth glorify Basketball players,Football players, rappers and drugdealers its all in our face everywhere TV, Video and movies.
they are our modern day Robin Hood.
We make fun of the educated brothers and sistas we call them nerds. Its not hot to be smart, and get good grades respect your elders. It all begins at home. We our so quick to fault parents but the family structure has broken down completely.
From blkamazonqwn:
All I can say is thank you Bill!!! Our culture has gone backwards.
From olatokslaw:
not to boast, I remember my mother use to wake me up like 4.00am to study for exams that I have, while still at elementary/middle school.This was in NIgeria. I live alone now in USA for the last 4.5 yrs. I just graduated with 3.798 GPA in Biomedical engineering.she laid the foundation earlier. I work to pay bills and was going to school. If parents in America spend time with their kidds LIKE MY MUM did with me and my brother, then Cosby won't be saying this. his emphasis was not on using those words, but it would be better if they can speak English. I mean, I have a Black american friend who pronounces 50 as fity. she can't prounce it right in class. pretty sick. Coaby is plainly right.
From cannon07:
I am only 14 years old and I agree with everything that he said. I often thought about what Bill said and it is true. Black people don't want to live up the truth and the truth is we need to wake up. Just like the Missy Elliot joint wake up "i love jacob, but jewelry won't fix my place up.." All i can say is god bless bill cosby for making a statement that has been hidden for years.
From LPskin:
If racism died today, would we as African Americans immediately rise to prominence? Or how long would it take? 5yrs, 10? Would all of our AIDS problems, baby having baby issues and drug problems vanish? Truth is we?re all scared to say that if you erase racism as the sole cause to all of black Americas ills you would have to deal with issues that until now have been taboo in the black community.
There are dozens of messages like these. Some are negative, defensive, attacking, but they are few and far between.
These posts give me hope. Hatred, fear, ignorance -- these are things we should strive to leave behind. Billions for welfare and public education, and we are worse off than before. Please, please, let's start putting some thought into our policies instead of supporting the feel-good cause of the day.

The Jackson's and Sharpton's of the world are losing their importance as other leaders are standing up, other role models are stepping forward.

It's time to move -- not to move on, but to move forward. Together.

Update: The Boston Globe has an excellent take on why this is not just black America's problem:

From a white perspective, it is easy to cheer on Cosby then smugly write off his words as a long-overdue wake-up call for black America. It's their problem, not ours, right?
Their problem it may be, but the big issue -- declining values and standards -- isn't limited to one ethnicity or neighborhood.

Today the American minivan is hip-hopping along the way to soccer games and baseball practice. The beat is a better pickup than caffeine, but listen to the lyrics and the message is a real downer. Not to sound like Tipper Gore, but after a while you realize you are singing about shaking your "tailfeather," "milking the cow," and "double-Ds," with the n-word thrown around as generously as the Beatles used "yeah, yeah, yeah." White boys can't jump, but many of them want to be Kobe Bryant or, short of that, Ja Rule. They want the money, the cars, and the bootylicious babes, and they see no connection between those goals and reading "A Separate Peace." (Incidentally, it is difficult to explain why a certain ethnic slur is unacceptable when they hear their rap idols singing it on their favorite CDs.)...

The hip-hop generation is not all black. White America just likes to believe it is.
How to Convert to Islam
From your Islam Guide

If you believe in the teachings of Islam, it is recommended to make a formal declaration of faith. After careful study and prayer, if you find that you want to embrace the faith, here's how.

Difficulty Level: Average Time Required: Variable



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's How:
For a Muslim, every action begins with your intention. Quietly, to yourself, make the intention to embrace Islam as your faith.
Say the following words with clarity of intention, firm faith and belief:
Say: "Ash-hadu an la ilaha ill Allah." (I bear witness that there is no diety but Allah.)
Say: "Wa ash-hadu ana Muhammad ar-rasullallah." (And I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.)
Take a shower, symbolically cleansing yourself of your past life.
Learn how to pray and practice Islam in your daily life.
Continue to learn, study, and grow in your new faith.


Tips:

Before embracing Islam, be sure to spend time studying the faith, reading books, and learning from other Muslims.
Your conversion should be based on knowledge, certainty, acceptance, submission, truthfulness, and sincerity.
It is not required to have Muslim witnesses to your conversion, but many prefer to have such support.
If you wish to go for Hajj (pilgrimage), a "certificate of Islam" may be required. Contact your local Islamic center to obtain one.









More How To's from your Guide to Islam








From Huda,
Your Guide to Islam.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Related Articles
Introduction to Islam
Books on Converts to Islam
Religion - Islam - Moroccan Culture Series
Cat Stevens Sings for Peace
Iqamah
Sponsored Links
Islamic Marriage Service
Join For Free. 100,000+ Members. It's Safe, Secure & 100% Discreet!
SingleMuslim.com

Marry Single Muslim Man
Find Muslim men for marriage Chat, email, photos. Join free now.
www.Muslims4Marriage.com

Convert YouTube Video
Copy and convert YouTube videos for playback on PC, cell phone, etc
www.wideanglesoftware.com

Ramadan
Uncover the History of Ramadan, the Koran, & Islam at History.com®.
www.History.com

America and Islam
The New Testament of Allah New Book. Free T-Shirt.
TheNewTestamentofAllah
How to become a muslim


Get to know the basics of Islam


Being a convert in a family of non-muslims (help available here)


Islamic Clothing


Islamic Food & Drink

Understanding a little Arabic eg INSHA-ALLAH


Conversion stories


Selecting a muslim name


The importance of following a Mujtahid



Science in Islam - (under construction)


Proof of Islam in other religious texts (under construction)

The Prophet (sawa)


Lady Fatima (as)


The Imams (as)


The events of Karbala

Some Quranic Ayats about Guidance

Beautiful hadith

Duas (Supplications)

Your articles and poems


Children's articles and poems

Websites of interest

Recommended further reading

Glossary of Terms (under construction)

Your suggestions



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are visiting: CONVERTSTOISLAM.COM/INDEX
Please email: ZAYNAB5@AOL.COM
We are looking for
BUT IS IT REALLY TRUE ?



Is the crucifixion and resurrection undeniable history as modern day evangelists claim or was this an idea that only Paul seemed to have knowledge of? Could it be that there was no crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus? Rather, could it be that Paul was simply inventing a story in such a way as to appear to fulfill Old Testament writings? The following analysis not only proposes the possibility of such an alternative but provides overwhelming evidence that this is just what occurred. The entire crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus was nothing more than Paul's prophesies.

Paul tells us that:

I Corinthians 15:3-4

Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.

Paul finds the crucifixion of Jesus in Isaiah 53 and his resurrection on the third day in Jonah 1:17, Hosea 6:2, and II Kings 20:5. Paul then tells his audience that he did not receive it from any man nor was taught it, rather he got it from Jesus (Gal 1:11-12). Another words, Paul essentially tells us that you will not find this story anywhere else because it is not being taught in schools nor do any other men know of it. Furthermore, upon careful investigation, we can see that the crucifixion/resurrection was a theme only knowledgeable to Paul and to which latter tradition developed into the four gospels, each being very different stories of what they thought Paul probably meant. But where did Paul receive the idea that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. Paul clearly tells us that it was not common knowledge of his time but rather that God gave it to him.

Galatians 1:11-12,20

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it: rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Just how did Paul receive this revelation from Jesus Christ? Actually, while his name was still Saul and during his persecution of "Christians" whatever their beliefs may have been, Paul became transformed called, he believed to carry the news of Jesus to the Gentiles (Acts 9). He began to travel and proclaim Jesus. It must be remembered that Paul never knew Jesus nor ever met him since Paul came from a Greek city (Acts 22:3). Jesus and Paul never met once while Jesus was still on earth. The book of Acts, which was written decades after Paul's life, gives the following account of Paul's conversion. The author of Acts cleverly inserts verse 15 in an effort to help explain just who Paul is; moreover, Paul never tells us in his 10 letters contained in the New Testament that this is how he discovered Jesus. The book of Acts has largely been acknowledged by scholars to be a much embellished fictional work, nevertheless this is the account of how Paul discovered the Lord!

Acts 9:1-20

"1Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest 2and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" 5"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. 6"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. "Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." 7The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything. 10In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!" "Yes, Lord," he answered. 11The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight." 13"Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. 14And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name." 15But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name." 17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord--Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here--has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19and after taking some food, he regained his strength. 20Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God."



PAUL'S VERSION OF "CHRISTIANITY" VS THE OTHER "CHRISTIANITY"

The following verses clearly illustrate that Paul's version of "Christianity" was not the dominating version of "Christianity" and that there were other versions of what "Christianity" was. In fact, the following accounts given by Paul himself clearly prove this. The book of Galatians is probably the earliest writing (50 ce) that we have concerning Christianity and a great source for insight as to what was happening twenty years after Jesus left earth in (30 ce).



Galatians 1:6-7

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel-which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.?

Galatians 4:10-11

You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

Galatians 4:17

Those people are zealous to win you over but for no good.

Galatians 2:11

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

Galatians 5:10

I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be.

1 Thessalonians 2:2

We had previously suffered and been insulted in Philippi, as you know, but with the help of our God we dared to tell you his gospel in spite of strong opposition.

Romans 16:17

I urge you, brothers to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned.

1 Corinthians 1:10-12

I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. What I mean is this: One of you says, I follow Paul; another, I follow Apollos; another, I follow Cephas; still another, I follow Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:4

For when one says, I follow Paul, and another, I follow Apollos, are you not mere men?

1 Corinthians 11:18

In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.

2 Corinthians 11:4-5

For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough. But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those super-apostles.

2 Corinthians 11:12-13

And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such mean are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ.

Philippians 4:2
I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord.

Colossians 2:8

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy.



The point is that Paul's version of "Christianity" which taught a death and resurrection of Jesus according to the scriptures may not have been historical facts as modern day evangelists claim. The above verses prove that there were other faiths that Paul competed with. As to what these different gospels are, the early Christian record does not say. The point is that the Pauline version of Christianity encompassing a death and resurrection of Jesus according to the scriptures may not be an historical fact as some claim but nothing more than Paul's invention. Were there other "Christians" that had no idea of a crucifixion during Paul's time? The answer may be located in Galatians 3:1 where Paul rebukes the Galatians for what appears to be a variety of deviations given in the form of a list; the first of which is not believing in Jesus' crucifixion as well as obeying the Jewish law. The following verse is extremely important because it possibly suggests that one of the areas where the Galatians did not agree with or doubted Paul was on the crucifixion as well as on keeping the Jewish law.

Galatians 3:1-2

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?

What in the world does this mean? This above verse is often overlooked; however, upon careful scrutiny one has to wonder what Paul really means here. Paul responds that before your very eyes Jesus was "portrayed" as crucified. This suggests that most likely Paul was the source of the idea of a crucifixion. Why does not Paul say, You all know or remember how Jesus was crucified? The way the sentence is written it does not give the sense that Paul has an absolute sureness to Jesus' crucifixion. Moreover, the following statements by Paul also seem to indicate that the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus was something only known to Paul and not common knowledge to the general public.



1 Corinthians 1:22-23

Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles

1 Corinthians 2:1-2
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

1 Thessalonians 4:14

We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.

1 Corinthians 15:12

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?



PAUL CONSTANTLY CLAIMED THAT ONLY HE KNEW OF THE CRUCIFIXION/RESURRECTION



Ephesians 3:1-13

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles-- 2Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. 6This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. 7I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God's grace given me through the working of his power. 8Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence. 13I ask you, therefore, not to be discouraged because of my sufferings for you, which are your glory.

Galatians 1:11-12,20

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it: rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ .20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

I Corinthians 15:1-4

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also.

2 Corinthians 10:15-16

Our hope is that, as your faith continues to grow, our area of activity among you will greatly expand, so that we can preach the gospel in the regions beyond you.

Colossians 1:6-7

All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood God's grace in all its truth. You learned it from Epaphras, our dear fellow servant, who is a faithful minister of Christ on our behalf, and who also told us of your love in the Spirit.

Colossians 1:25-26

I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints.

Colossians 4:3-4

And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should.


SOURCES FOR PAUL'S BELIEF IN A CRUCIFIXION AND RESURRECTION



From Robert M. Price: Resurrection (1987)

"In early Judaism, from about 200 B.C. to 100 A.D., we find both that the resurrection doctrine has become widely (though by no means universally) held, and that there are many different versions of it. Texts vary over just who will rise, whether only the righteous, some or all of them, both the righteous and the wicked, etc. Will this rising be spiritual, or physical with the return of the very body that died, or rather transformation into a glorious angelic form, or first the mortal body which subsequently puts on immortality? And contra the oft-heard generalization, some Jews must even have entertained the notion of possible resurrections before the eschatological judgment, since John the Baptist was widely believed to have risen from the dead as a supernatural being with new miraculous powers (Mark 6:14), a belief which perhaps accounts for the tenacious belief in John's Messiahship which lasted into at least the fourth century.

The earliest attested form of the belief in Jesus' resurrection occurs in 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul compares the general resurrection to that of Jesus and thus implies his conception of the latter. The risen Jesus "became a ... Spirit" (v. 45). His was a spiritual, not a natural body (v. 44) and did not have flesh, since such is entirely unsuited to immortality (v. 50). The often overlooked passage 1 Peter 3:18 may assume the same understanding since it contrasts Jesus' death "in the body" with his resurrection "in the spirit." The four gospels are later works, and their very different, materialistic idea of Jesus' resurrection may be later as well."

The important point is that "The earliest attested form of the belief in Jesus' resurrection occurs in 1 Corinthians 15" a document written by Paul. The resurrection also was not unique to only Jesus but other clearly fictional examples of it occur as well i.e. (Mark 6:14 & Matthew 27:51-53). Likewise, the earliest attested form of belief in the "Crucifixion" of Jesus is also by Paul (Galatians 3:1). Hence, with no external evidence to the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus, the possibility is very high that it never occurred. Given the evolution in the resurrection accounts in the New Testament, from Paul's basic and relatively unadorned description of appearances (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) to the glorious miraculous happenings and multiple resurrections of the later gospels, it should be clear that this was not a static belief. If Matthew's account of the dead rising from their graves and appearing to many was true (Matthew 27:51-53), then such a remarkable event would have been reported by historians such as Josephus who avidly recounted the exploits of the supposed miracle workers of those times. Josephus' father would have been a priest in Jerusalem at the time of the alleged "crucifixion" (The Life of Flavius Josephus, 2:7), and yet Josephus mentions nothing about a midday darkness that was followed by an earthquake and a mass resurrection from the dead. It really should be quite clear even from this one example that the resurrection accounts contain much made up or embellished material.



WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO JESUS FROM A MUSLIM PERSPECTIVE?


Quran 4:157
"And their SAYING: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear to them so and most surely those who DIFFER therein are only in a DOUBT about it; they have NO KNOWLEDGE RESPECTING IT, but only follow a CONJECTURE, and they killed him not for sure." M.H. Shakir, Yusaf Ali

This verse has been the source of many interpretations; the question is whether or not it is compatible with the theory outlined above, that the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus was only known to Paul. In order to answer this question we need to know who in the above verse boasted, "we have killed Jesus." Was it people in Jesus' time or was it people in subsequent times such as Jews living in Paul's time or Muhammad's time? If the answer is that it is people living in Jesus' time then Paul would not have been the sole source of the idea of a crucifixion. If it is people in latter times then Paul could very well be the sole source for the crucifixion story. If one were to accept Paul's confession in Galatians 1:11 as true "that the gospel he preached is not something that he received from any man nor was taught it but got it from Jesus," then Paul probably is the sole source of the crucifixion idea. What is important is that either way the Quran is compatible with the theory that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus never really happened. If Paul is the source of the crucifixion story then he would be the person who "made it appear" through his preaching and therefore would be the one guilty of "no knowledge" as to what really happened to Jesus. If the idea originated earlier than Paul's time then those who boasted "we have killed Jesus" would be the ones guilty of "no knowledge" as to what really happened to Jesus and Paul would be merely passing on the "conjecture" of a crucifixion which he heard from other sources. Even if that were the unlikely case (see verse 153 of the same Surah which seems to suggest that it was Jews in Muhammad's time who made this statement), Paul still should be given credit for the development of the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus since he is the author of nearly half of the New Testament books. The important point is that either way the Quran tells us that those who contend that Jesus was crucified have absolutely "no knowledge respecting it," that they "differ therein," and that they "follow conjecture." Hence, whoever the author is of the resurrection/crucifixion story, whether it is Paul or someone earlier, the Quran tells us that they have "no knowledge respecting it" and are flat out wrong. Thus, when stories are written to fit Old Testament writings they should be categorically rejected.



DOES THE HISTORICAL RECORD PROVIDE "UNDENIABLE HISTORY" THAT A MAN NAMED JESUS EXISTED AND WAS CRUCIFIED?

Does the historical record confirm that a man named Jesus existed and was crucified? The answer is no. In fact atheists have an easy time even arguing that Jesus never existed. What modern scholars say: the renowned internationally recognized scholar Robert M Grant writes in his book, "A Historical Introduction To The New Testament"

Pg 290 Chapter 19

Jesus in Non-Christian Writings

Because the Christian movement arose within the Roman Empire and spread throughout it, from east to west, we should expect to find some notice taken of it by Greek and Roman writers. They ought to say something about Jesus and his influence. Such an expectation is clearly fulfilled only by four writers of the late first century and the early second; by the time of the anti-Christian writer Celsus (c. 178), nothing authentic about Jesus is preserved in non-Christian sources.

The four writers we have in mind are 1) the Hellenistic Jewish general and historian Josephus and the Roman officials 2) C. Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Younger), 3) A. Cornelius Tacitus and 4) C. Tranquillus Suetonius. In dealing with each bit of information we must be just as critical as we should like to be in considering Christian statements. Each of these authors has his own axe or axes to grind; his attitude is not necessarily "objective" simply because he is not a Christian.

The words of Josephus are especially questionable, since we know that he was militantly opposed to apocalyptic movements which in his view had led to the disastrous war with Rome (66 -70); he himself became a devoted supporter of Rome and his work was subsidized by successive emperors. He included three passages bearing on Christian origins in his Antiquities, published about the year 93 (significantly, none of them is to be found in parallel passages in his earlier War; presumably Christians had become more important in the interval). These three passages deal with (1) John the Baptist, (2) James the brother of Jesus, and (3) Jesus himself.

The passage about John the Baptist (18, 116-19) depicts him as a "teacher of righteousness" and makes no reference to his eschatological views. His baptism is portrayed as absolutely non-sacramental. The passage about James (20, 197-203) describes his judicial murder by the high priest Ananas in AD. 62 and refers to him as the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ. From this passage two inferences can be drawn. (1) James was an important figure in Jerusalem up to the year 62; this confirms the impression we gain from Acts and from the second-century Christian writer Hegesippus. (2) Josephus probably -- indeed, almost certainly -- had already given some account of the Jesus to whom he referred in this brief notice, though his account was undoubtedly unfavorable.

If we turn to what he does say about Jesus, it is not what we should expect. The passage (18, 63-4) reads as follows:

At this time lived Jesus, a wise man (if it is right to call him a man), for he was a worker of miracles and a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure; as followers he gained many Jews and many of the Hellenic race. He was the Christ, and when by the accusation of the chief men among us Pilate condemned him to the cross, those who at first had loved him did not cease from doing so; for he appeared to them, alive again, on the third day, since the divine prophets had foretold this as well as countless other marvellous matters about him. Up to the present day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not disappeared.

In this form the description cannot come from Josephus. (1) It is purely Christian in outlook; indeed, only a Christian can have written it. (2) Origen, writing about 250, refers several times to Josephus's testimony to Jesus as contained in the passage about James; he makes no mention of the fuller account. Since he had read all the later books of the Antiquities, which he regarded as an excellent historical source, this passage cannot have been contained in them -- or, if it was, Origen regarded the passage as suspect and therefore refrained from mentioning it.

Various attempts have been made to improve the text by leaving out a few words here and there and by reading he was not the Christ; but it is highly unlikely that any authentic original version can be recovered. We simply do not know the method which the forger used. All we know is what Origen knew: Josephus said something about Jesus and spoke of him as the "so-called Christ".

Three other testimonies come from a group of Roman officials hostile to Christianity and other non-Roman religions, which they regarded as expressions of fanaticism or, as they called them, superstition. Pliny was legate to Bithynia and Pontus and wrote to the emperor Trajan in January 112; Tacitus, once proconsul of Asia (where Christians were fairly numerous), wrote his Annals in 112-13; and Suetonius, formerly an imperial secretary, published his gossipy Lives of the Caesars about 121.

Pliny tells us a good deal about Christians, little about Jesus. (1) The Christians, he says, were accustomed to sing a hymn "to Christ as to a god". This sentence shows that Pliny knew, or believed, that Christ should be regarded not as a god but as a man, one who had actually lived and died as a human being.

(2) Renegade Christians were willing to curse Christ; true Christians could not be compelled to do so. Pliny was thus aware of the intensity of Christian devotion to the (human) leader. But his statement (Ep. 10, 96) provides no direct data about Jesus himself.

Tacitus describes a great fire at Rome under Nero in the summer of 64, and he mentions the Christians whom the emperor used as scapegoats. As is his custom, he gives a brief summary of background material to explain who the Christians were. We do not know where he got his information. If it comes from police reports, these in turn were probably based on the interrogation of Christians (Ann. 15, 44).

The founder of this sect, Christus, was given the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate; suppressed for the moment, the detestable superstition broke out again, not only in Judaea where the evil originated, but also in the city [of Rome] to which everything horrible and shameful flows and where it grows.

Again, we learn something about Christianity. Momentarily suppressed at Christ's crucifixion, it "rose again" in Judaea and spread to Rome (compare the account in Acts). Of Christ himself we learn only that he founded the sect and was executed under Pontius Pilate. This hardly adds much to what the New Testament says; and if Tacitus' ultimate source is Christian, it adds nothing.

Finally, Suetonius mentions the fire at Rome in connection with Christians (Nero, 16) and also says that in the reign of Claudius the emperor expelled from Rome the Jews who were constantly rioting at the instigation of Chrestus (impulsore Chresto) (Claudius, 25). Since Claudius was emperor from 41 to 54, something is obviously wrong with this statement, even though one later Christian writer (Irenaeus) thought that Jesus was crucified during his reign. Probably it is a garbled version of a story about messianic riots in Rome, riots which could have resulted in the expulsion of such Christian Jews as Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2). The passage shows that the name "Chrestus" (= Christus) was known at Rome during the reign of Claudius. Once more, nothing is added to what we could have inferred from the New Testament.

Our four Graeco-Roman sources, then, contribute nothing to our understanding of the life of Jesus. The Christian interpolator of Josephus undoubtedly thought that he was helping history to confirm faith. All he succeeded in doing was to remove any independent value from the testimony of Josephus.

One might hope for some evidence from rabbinical Jewish sources, but the stories the rabbis tell are late in date and reflect no more than the attitude of the synagogue towards an early heretic.

We are left, then, with Christian testimony. If we wish to recover early non-Christian attitudes towards Jesus we can rely only on what Christian sources are willing to tell us about them. To be sure, we can find that they give us a considerable amount of information. Jesus was frequently accused of violating the Jewish law in regard to Sabbath observances and ritual purity. He was thought to claim divine prerogatives, such as forgiving sins, for himself. His driving out demons was sometimes ascribed to Beelzebul, the prince of demons. The expression "son of Mary" used of him may perhaps reflect a suggestion (developed in later criticisms) that he was illegitimate. According to Luke, he was accused of leading a revolutionary movement, of forbidding the payment of taxes to the Romans, and of calling himself an anointed king. It is true that in part Christian writers report these accusations in order to contrast them with the true understanding which they themselves possess. But the accusations fit the first century situation so well that we need not suppose that they were invented. Indeed, if we possessed a report from Pontius Pilate the "facts" in it could hardly be very different from what the gospels tell us.

Within the Christian testimony, then, we find non-Christian elements. These elements are retained in support of Christian faith in Jesus; but the kind of faith they support is not something unrelated to events. The apostles and the evangelists are giving testimony to events in which, they believe, the work of God was made manifest -- though not to all. Because historically the revelation was not received by all, the evangelists are free enough, and honest enough, to record the varying responses which were made to it. These responses, negative as well as positive, were included in the gospel story as they told it.

The above explanation by Robert Grant proves that there is no external evidence to a crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus, and that contrary to the evangelists claim that Jesus' crucifixion is "undeniable history," the claim is simply unsupported by the historical record. Moreover, even the few references to Jesus listed above do not predate Paul's letters, and as such may be from Christian sources anyway. Hence, Christianity starts with Paul's ten letters contained in the New Testament. Thus, when Paul says:

Galatians 1:11-12,20

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it: rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ .20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.


he is telling the truth and that is that no one else knows of a crucifixion/resurrection except for Paul. Hence, either we believe that the former "Christian" persecutor (Galatians 1:13, 1 Corinthians 15:9, Philippians 3:6, Acts 7:58, Acts 9:1-2) is truly God's apostle to mankind (Romans 1:1, Galatians 1:1, 1 Corinthians 1:1) or that his gospel of a crucifixion/resurrection is false. I happen to believe in the latter; the argument from silence is too incriminating a case for "Christianity" to escape from.



THE ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE
The argument from silence is that there are no writings on "Christianity" that have come from the year Jesus left earth in 30 ce to the year 50 ce when Paul began "prophesying" his gospel; there are simply no writings that tell of a crucifixion/resurrection as contained in Paul's gospel. How could this be? What happened to all those "churches of Judea that were in Christ" (Galatians 1:22) that said, "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy" (Galatians 1:23). How come none of these churches possessed any scripture or writings about the "faith" that Paul says is his? Why does not Paul quote from their writings? How come not one writing has ever survived from these "churches of Christ" which would have been preaching a crucifixion/resurrection for nearly 20 years until Paul started writing in 50ce? The answer is simple, there never were any "churches of Christ" that preached a Crucifixion/Resurrection. Paul is simply using this as a sales tool to purport that there were others that had similar beliefs as his and that as such his prospective audience should jump on board. However, anyone who reads Paul's ten letters contained in the New Testament can see that he was the sole inventor of his gospel. As Paul himself tells us.


Galatians 1:11-12,20

I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it: rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.


PAUL ADMITS THE UNIQUENESS OF HIS GOSPEL



Romans 2:16
This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Romans 11:13-14
I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel.

Romans 16:25-26
Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God.? (i.e. Paul admits he learned of the crucifixion/resurrection through prophesizing scripture not on actual historical events.)

1 Corinthians 7:17
This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.
2 Corinthians 1:19

For the son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by me and Silas and Timothy.

2 Corinthians 10:9-10

I do not want to seem to be trying to frighten you with my letters. For some say, His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing.

2 Corinthians 13:2-3

On my return I will not spare those who sinned earlier or any of the others, since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me.

Colossians 2:2-4

My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.



WHAT OTHER MODERN SCHOLARS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ISAIAH 53

"Challenging The Verdict" by Earl Doherty

Chapter 10 pg 135-136

Paul was no doubt referring to Isaiah 53 when he declared in 1 Corinthians 15:3 that his gospel that Jesus "died for our sins" was according to the scriptures, meaning that it was the scriptures which revealed this to him. Paul, I have suggested, was speaking of a spiritual Christ who died in the supernatural world, similar to the myths of the pagan savior gods. When the Gospels came along, they created a Jesus of Nazareth who was the Son of God dying on earth, a tale put together out of scriptural passages like Isaiah 53.

It was also, by the way, a story which in its overall form was a retelling of a traditional allegory found throughout centuries of Jewish literature, called by modern scholars The Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One. That tale symbolized the Jews themselves, suffering under foreign yokes, with their true God rejected by the nations. Its literary features have also been worked by Mark into his Passion account.

Could Isaiah 53 be a prophecy of Jesus? Or are its similarities to Jesus the result of the literary creativity of the first evangelist, who drew on so much in this Suffering Servant Song? As far as critical scholars are concerned, the passage refers to a figure who lived at the time of the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BCE. Chapters 40-55 are regarded as from the hand of a writer who lived a couple of centuries after the original prophet known as Isaiah, and so he is referred to as "Second Isaiah."

This "Song" may be about this later prophet, who was persecuted by the authorities of his time, one who suffered, perhaps to death itself, though this is not clear. His followers seem to have regarded his persecution as diverting attention from themselves, thereby saving others from their own persecution. Or perhaps it is rescued Israel itself (that is, emerging after the Exile) that is symbolically speaking. It attributes its salvation to the prophet, or to those of their number who had submitted to the Exile and its sufferings. The "sins of the many" would be the perceived offenses against God which had led to the disaster of the Exile. Out of such humble roots do great religious concepts grow.

In its original Jewish context, such vicarious suffering as was envisioned, for the Servant, and the consequent benefit it bestowed on "the many" ---if that was how they regarded it ---was hardly universal in its scope. One thing which modern critical scholars have come to reject is any idea in Jewish thought that Israel was suffering for the nations, to provide an example or benefit that would win over the gentile to the true God. This theological fiction was a product of Christianity, anxious to read into the word of God in the Old Testament a prefiguration of the idea contained in Christian soteriology, that Jesus was suffering to atone for the sins of the world. Rather, the Day of the Lord mythology entailed the idea that retribution would come upon the nations who had trod Israel down and refused to acknowledge her God and his suzerainty. All messianic and apocalyptic expectation found in later Jewish literature is a development of this theme.



This analysis helps explain such statements by Paul such as "the mystery of Jesus is now revealed." Obviously, Paul thought long and hard about how to create his gospel, and there can be no doubt that he based it on the tale of "The Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One" as stated above.

Ephesians 3:1-13

For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles-- 2Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you, 3that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. 4In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets. 6This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. 7I became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God's grace given me through the working of his power. 8Although I am less than the least of all God's people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. 12In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence. 13I ask you, therefore, not to be discouraged because of my sufferings for you, which are your glory.

Colossians 1:25-26

I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints.

Colossians 4:3-4

And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should.

Romans 16:25-26

Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God. (i.e. Paul admits he learned of the crucifixion/resurrection through prophesizing scripture not on actual historical events.)

Colossians 2:2-4

My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.



CONCLUSION
Paul finds the crucifixion of Jesus in Isaiah 53 and his resurrection on the third day in Jonah 1:17, Hosea 6:2 and II Kings 20:5. Paul then tells his audience that he "did not receive it from any man nor was taught it," rather he got it from Jesus (Gal 1:11-12). However, the truth will always be there; Paul did not get it from Jesus, he simply got it from his own imagination during his attempt to "prophesy."
PAUL CONSTANTLY ADVISED OTHERS TO USE THEIR IMAGINATION AND PROPHESIZE



1 Corinthians 12:7-10
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.

1 Corinthians 12:28

And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:1,5

Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues but I would rather have you prophesy.

Romans 12:6
We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith.

1 Corinthians 14:29-31,37,39

Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged? 37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 39 Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.sic.sic

2 Corinthians 12:1-5

I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know God knows. And I know that this man whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself. (i.e. Paul says he was in heaven maybe this is where he thought about a crucifixion/resurrection story)

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9

This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

2 Corinthians 12:11-12

I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the "super-apostles," even though I am nothing. The things that mark an apostle, signs, wonders and miracles were done among you with great perseverance.

Ephesians 4:11-12

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up.

Ephesians 6:19-20

Pray also for me, that whenever I open my mouth, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.



Reference:

(1) "Challenging the Verdict" -by Earl Doherty -Age of Reason Publications 2001

(2) "The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity begin with a Mythical Christ" -by Earl Doherty -Canadian Humanist Publications 1999

(3) " New Testament Story"- by David L. Barr -Wadsworth Publishing Company 1987

(4) " The Gospels Their Origin and Growth"- by Frederick C. Grant -Harper & Brothers 1957

(5) "The Bible in The Church" by Robert M. Grant -The Macmillan Company 1954

(6) Criticism of The Resurrection -online site

(7) "A Historical Introduction To The New Testament"- by Robert M Grant - Simon and Schu

neodemes said...

Now explain away Matthew, Mark, Luke and John