Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Kurt Gets Life

I am currently working on a prophetic statement to file upon the record. What offends me most about these spiritual reprobates who spend their whole life denying their future of irreverence towards the Lord can so easily prophecy to me I'm going to get life. Having gone now through just about every jackass they can throw at me and hearing the same hellish retort I asked the Lord to give me the true words of a prophet against them. To me only one brave enough to surrender his life to the living God can truly know the future. Not because he has the ability but because he has the relationship with truth. Fortune tellers have the assistance of the devils who can report on what appears as future events but is really their ability to manipulate lives that creates the results broadcast. God is the future. Whatever He says comes to pass and He can even use the devils and their manipulation. At the time of this writing it is only partially completed, but by this posting I want you to look for it. It will be in the hands of witnesses to confirm it has been filed. I think a time and date stamped prophecy will be an added witness that God has always been in charge of these events and fools are never to be believed. I'm not going to get life and you're not going to get ripped off. I'm going to give life and you're going to get blessed. I say it in advance because I have superior will of which I'm tethered taking me and you to the future.

40 comments:

fireinthehole said...

Got served by FBI yesterday. Don't worry Kurt if the right questions are asked of me, I will set you free.

mogel007 said...

Swami:

I was just wondering. When the movie entitled "The Dorean Group" comes out in a Hollywood movie, there needs to be someone to play the part of "Nemo". I was thinking
"Marty Feldman," but I think that's not a possibility since I believe he's dead:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Marty+Feldman

I was thinking "Charlton Heston" might be a good person to play Kurt, but maybe we need to find a younger man.

Any suggestions?

neodemes said...

Philippians 2

1If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,

2Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

Judge Roy Bean said...

Gashler, you'd need to find someone who can play a delusional religious martyr. How about Powers Boothe? He did a good job as Jim Jones.

conmanbuster said...

Why didn't Alex Merklinger of Rowe New Mexico get charged with the rest of these con artists. He said on tape that he signed up 150 people for morgage elimination from his website freedom and trust . com , he was a affiliate broker with the Dorean group. On December 23 2004 Merklinger interveiwed Johnson on his cheesy web radio broadcast, Merklinger even indites himself as a member of the Dorean Group and says how many victims he had up to that date.
Alex Merklinger is a known con man and convicted federal prison Felon for mail and wire fraud. He also runs HYIP schemes and has riped off at least one person for victim for $125,000. This criminal should be brought to justice with kurt johnson and scott heinemen and le compte. Merklinger must have made over $400,000 off his victims at $3,0000 a pop with 150 signed up victim clients. I hope these con men all get life, if they got jesus, boy we are all in trouble.
Burn in hell johnson.

habakkuk said...

commanbustar said....

"Alex Merklinger is a known con man and convicted federal prison Felon for mail and wire fraud. He also runs HYIP schemes and has riped off at least one person for victim for $125,000. This criminal should be brought to justice with kurt johnson and scott heinemen and le compte. Merklinger must have made over $400,000 off his victims at $3,0000 a pop with 150 signed up victim clients. I hope these con men all get life, if they got jesus, boy we are all in trouble.
Burn in hell johnson."
___________________________________

LOL!!! Ahhh Shut the hell up.

~~The Swami~~~ said...

Mogel, about your movie. I think the right person to play Bruce Nemo is the fellow who plays "Mini Me" on the Austin Powers movies.

Judge Roy Bean could be played by Judge Judy.

TCOB could be played by "Boy George" of the Culture Club.

Marilyn Manson could be Sarahsmom.

Justice 7777777 could be played by Quintin Crisp.

The man who owned Propertysites could be played by "The Cowardly Lion".(Or the hermaphrodite of his choice)

"Lenny" will play himself with an infected butt boil.

Pauligirl will be played by Britney Spears.(She's really desperate for any role and took this one)

And playing the Flexible Arm that got so many banks in trouble will be kristina.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/816312/extreme_body_bending_by_kristina/

Trust me..........you will thank me for this link!!!!!!!

mogel007 said...

Conmanbuster: "Why didn't Alex Merklinger of Rowe New Mexico get charged with the rest of these con artists."
_________________________________

Mr. Conman: It's because this case is ALL ABOUT SELECTIVE PROSECUTION. If you indict a select few people, the leaders, then it's believed by those that brought this farce of a case into motion and into action, that this is enough propaganda to insure that no one else will ever attempt to do anything similiar ever again.

If the prosecution in their heart of hearts, really believed they had a righteous case, based upon real law, they would indict all 4,000 + clients, including all agents, and anyone that ever had anything to do with the process & charge everyone in the very least with at least conspiracy, which carries a maximum prison sentence of 5 years.

The FBI has access to all of these names anyway & confiscated all of these files on the raid of the Dorean office, so it would be nothing for them to include everyone, but by including everyone, it would enrage so much opposition, that they would have even more to handle than they do right now; & as it appears right now, the prosecution is losing their case if they haven't lost it already. They can't handle 2 men, let alone 4,000 people fighting them.

mogel007 said...

Conmanbuster: Sorry to hear about your $125,000 that you lost on a ponzi scheme.

I think you got it wrong about wishing someone to "burn in hell" forever though. It's not a "permanent place".

Hell is a temporary place that the wicked go to pay for their sins. Once they fully pay for their sins, they get a get out of jail free card & leave. It's the great secret that no religious teacher has taught you.

Even the Bible teaches this:
Acts 2: 25-27

"For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved.

Therefore did MY HEART REJOICE, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall REST IN HOPE;

Because THOU WILT NOT LEAVE MY SOUL IN HELL, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption."

If God in his justice and mercy, who paid the price of sin, will let even David go free from this "hell" after "the uttermost farthing has been paid," that has been spoken of, shouldn't we be more merciful towards our brothers and sisters, and you might want to start with yourself?

If you remember David was a self confessed murderer, and an adulterer among other things.

Conman, do you believe in your heart of hearts that that Kurt is worse than a murderer & an adulterer & deserves the same punishment as someone as blessed as David who put at mockery the things that God blessed him with?

By the way, you got it wrong about "hell". It's not a hot place where you "burn". It's a very cold and dark place with no light whatsoever, and who really knows, maybe you might be a recipient of this place yourself if you don't repent. Be careful in who you condemn. You might be condemning yourself to that place by your very words & injustice and bad judgments you spew for with what judgment you judge, ye shall also be judged. Probably not a standard that would forbode well for you.

conmanbuster1 said...

Alex Merklinger work with you as a broker, right, thats what you said on his cheesey radio show Dec 23, 2004. Did you see his home. How far is it off the highway what color is the property, House or a cabin. Rat him out, all he wanted was the money not your idea of justice, and trust me he is no jesus man. He denies you. He just wants the money. Your sitting in the can soapin up with the crips, bloods and M-13 and he is running free at your effort.

mogel007 said...

Conman said: "Rat him out, all he wanted was the money NOT YOUR IDEA OF JUSTICE,"

Yet in a previous post, Conman wants "Johnson to burn".

Here's a man that can't be trusted in what he really believes. He must be a witness for the prosecution. LOL

conmanbuster1 said...

Alex Merklinger Broker Affiliate with Dorean Group www.freedomandtrust.com off line due to the judge's orders. also the star of the inmen news article in january 2005.
Inmen news reports
The December 23 Internet audio broadcast was carried on a Web site called Mysteries of the Mind, hosted by Alex Merklinger. The Web site describes Merklinger's Internet-based talk show as a gateway to exploring "many of life's enigmas," including UFOs, spiritual cosmology, crop circles, personal agendas, and "the arcane secrets of many cultures
Merklinger is also the contact person for another Web site, http://www.freedomandtrust.com/, that is affiliated with The Dorean Group, according to Farrel LeCompte, a broker for The Dorean Group process. Merklinger could not be reached for comment about The Dorean Group.



An e-mail response noted, "Alex will be away from the computer and telephone while recuperating from a sudden illness," and a notice on the Web site states that "financial support for the escalating medical bills are very much appreciated." RIGHT ALEX IS ALWAY SICK, "IN THE HEAD". "COME ON SUCKERS DONATE FREE CASH CAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO WORK WE ARE TO GOOD FOR THAT."
The Freedom and Trust site, like many of the Web sites associated with The Dorean Group, includes allegations about the far-reaching powers of the Federal Reserve Board and widespread corruption within the U.S. financial system. There are links to readings about "The Military Industrial Complex," "An 'Economic 9/11' in the Works," Native American prophecy relating to the New World Order conspiracy, "Our Dishonest Monetary System," and to "The Creature from Jekyll Island" -- this last one focuses on the Federal Reserve and is referenced by many Dorean-affiliated Web sites
The Freedom and Trust site offers a window into how The Dorean Group and its affiliates attract consumers --and their money -- to their program. The group's affiliates promote philosophies that question the motives and validity of the U.S. financial system, and they encourage consumers to distrust and challenge this system
"We are focusing on the topic of challenging spurious lending as well as fiduciary practices and the resulting erroneous mortgage debt with good reason," the Freedom and Trust Web site states. The site asks consumers to challenge the mortgage process -- "This is but one way that we are saying that we are not going to sit idle and take it, we are declaring that we want our money, our property, our country, our lives, our God given rights and pursuit of happiness back." Why is he so political, he can't even vote, he is a convicted felon.

RIGHT WHILE Merklinger FILLS HIS POCKETS WITH MONEY SOME OTHER STIFF WORK FOR. That is a con man, the lowest form of animal on this planet.

conmanbuster1 said...

Johnson you go tell merklinger his name is smeared all over your blog. tell him WAVE # 2 has started. Tell him he is a coward, just like a real con man. Tell him he will work for the money he stold from me and the victims he stold from with Dorean Group scam.

mogel007 said...

Conman said: "RIGHT WHILE Merklinger FILLS HIS POCKETS WITH MONEY SOME OTHER STIFF WORK FOR. That is a con man, the lowest form of animal on this planet."
_________________________________

I think Conman is finally understanding why the lenders scam is wrong; the idea of getting something for nothing and not having to work for it and creating a situation of involuntary serfdom. Yes, whomever would do such a thing are in fact the lowest animals on the planet. They are the counterfeiters, the thiefs, and conman called lenders with a banking license which have in essence a license to steal and the privilege of having the US courts to watch their back & defend this fraud. Those institutions with this license have been filling their pockets for sometime to the trillions of dollars. Alot more than Merklinger ever took in that's for sure.

mogel007 said...

Conman said: "Tell him he will work for the money he stold from me and the victims he stold from with Dorean Group scam."
_________________________________

You're a "victim" all right. A victim of the educational system. The word is "stole", not "stold". The only thing you were cheated of was an education.

And don't expect Merklinger to work to pay you back. After all, if he's sick as you've professed him to be, how can you expect him to work? That must be more indication of your unreasonableness.

I can hardly wait for Wave # 3.

habakkuk said...

Mogel said.....

Hell is a temporary place that the wicked go to pay for their sins. Once they fully pay for their sins, they get a get out of jail free card & leave. It's the great secret that no religious teacher has taught you.

Even the Bible teaches this:
Acts 2: 25-27

"For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved.

Therefore did MY HEART REJOICE, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall REST IN HOPE;

Because THOU WILT NOT LEAVE MY SOUL IN HELL, neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption."
___________________________________

Mogel, you are mis-interpereting that scripture. Its not talking about some ordinary joe shmo who goes to hell...In verse 21-24 it tells you who HE is...Yeshua (Jesus of Nazareth). G-d did not leave HIS soul in hell nor let HIS body see corruption but HE was raised up. HE went to hell because HE was carrying the sins of the world. David was speaking symbolicly of himself but he was actually prophesying about the ONE who would come in his lineage.

As far as how long a person stays in hell i dont know...I personally believe its possible they will be consumed (burned or incinerated) and remembered no more...But i have to admit there are scriptures that allude to eternal suffering.

neodemes said...

“And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.” (1 John 4:16)

taycamstu said...

Kurt-I read your most recent posting with interest. Was a prophecy with a specific date given to you? I am a client, met you in Las Vegas and am most impressed with your character and commitment as demonstrated in Las Vegas and certainly in court and jail proceedings. Thank you for your actions as trustee and the Lord God Almighty bless you and Scott. Jeff Taylor

~~The Swami~~~ said...

SOP, the moderator on this blog is not making a vocal comment about his religious beliefs. What he is stating is that he thinks you're an idiot! With your stupid "Hillbillian" lingo and every koo koo conspiracy ever invented on the internet that you parade on this blog as gospel. Since you are a religious man....remember and read the part about rumors in the Bible!!!!!! Live what you preach!!!!!!!

mogel007 said...

Habukuk said: "Mogel, you are mis-interpereting that scripture"
_________________________________

It's interesting that the History channel had a special on "Hell" & had many experts on religion testify and they said the same thing as I am telling you that "hell" is NOT a permanent place. I am not misconstruing things as you believe. I'm sure the History channel will play that program again; just watch for it & view the whole program sometime.

If hell is NOT a temporary place, why do you think even Jesus visited the "Spirit Prison" or this Spirit dimension as a Spirit just before he was resurrected and taught or had the people there taught HIS principles of truth if it was a permanent place & a place that these disobedient Spirits couldn't leave ever?

If one is destined forever to be damned in a place, what's the purpose of any teaching? The people that were being taught were the people that were so wicked that were destroyed in the days of Noah that were being taught. Remember God destroyed all mankind by a great flood except 8 individuals since they were so wicked & these were the people that were being taught Christian principles, so they could be judged by God in the flesh, but live according to God in the Spirit:
1 Peter 3: 18-21

Even man, who is very unmerciful often and very unjust often builds earthly prisons and most of the time, these criminals sent to prison have a set sentence & eventually come out of their earthly jails while they are still alive. If man is merciful enough to let people go after they paid for their crimes, is God even more unmerciful than this?

So why should principles in the afterlife dealing with a God who is perfect and just and more merciful than we are, be expected to be a God of punishment that never ends?

I think that's why many people are turned off by Christianity because they can see the hypocrisy of being eternally damned by a loving & merciful God. It doesn't make any sense to the heart of man. It seems to me at least if you have the ability to repent and change through being taught, you can always change and improve your situation.

There was a blog by Kurt where a truth was made that many things on earth are first "settled in heaven before they are settled on earth." There are many likenesses of things on earth that are first originated & settled in Heaven by heavenly principles to be settled here. Jesus taught "what is bound on earth, shall be bound in heaven".

Many people believe that the Spirit world (comprised of Paradise & the Spirit Prison) is a place not far from earth & may even be here on earth but in a different dimension & that is why departed spirits are not far from us and sometimes visit the mortal realm and are seen by mortals because they are so close to us.

When I speak of the "Spirit Prison" or "hell", I am NOT referring to the "other place" where the sons of perdition go ALONG WITH SATAN & HIS ANGELS in the end of times. That is "another hell" that ONLY FEW will experience, a place where those that go there are "foreordained to this condemnation".

The problem where most people get confused is that the scriptures talk about 2 "hells" that are spoken of & often people get the one place confused with the other so people err in their conclusions.

When I speak of the place called hell or the spirit prison, I am referring to the spirit realm where the wicked & the unjust go immediately after their die where hundreds of millions will end up & pay for their sins because they never repented.

David rejoiced because he knew hell was a temporary place, however, even David who was once highly favored of God said in verse 34 due to his mortal wickedness, will not go to the highest heaven where God dwells: Acts 2: 34 "For David is not ascended into the heavens".

If David remained in hell forever as you think as you think I am misconstruing things, why does David in vs. 26 say: "MY FLESH shall rest in hope". David is joyful because all men regardless of good or evil deeds will be resurrected and receive a glorified immortal body. See 1 Cor 15: 21-22. (All SHALL BE MADE ALIVE". This is the "salvation" all receive due to Christ's merits. The resurrection does not take place for a man, until "death and hell are delivered up".

All those sent to hell will leave that place at some point & receive their resurrection & new body too-- even David. We all shall receive our final judgment & be judged in this "fleshly resurrected body". Those that go to hell, go there as a Spirit since their mortal body rots in the grave.

If David is forever assigned to hell as you believe, does his great mortal works & MANY OF THOSE ACTS WERE NOTEWORTHY, DO THEY COUNT FOR NOTHING IN THE EYES OF GOD?

frivolous said...

fireinthehole, what did they server you with? To appear in court as a witness to testify against Kurt and Scott?

frivolous said...

Does anyone know where Julian ended up and what his new address is?

habakkuk said...

"If David is forever assigned to hell as you believe,"


I NEVER SAID THAT...I SAID DAVID WAS PROPHESYING ABOUT THE SAVIOR IN THE MIDST OF HIS OWN SITUATION. IF YOU READ THE PSALMS YOU'LL FIND HE DOES THAT A LOT.


"It's interesting that the History channel had a special on "Hell" & had many experts on religion testify and they said the same thing as I am telling you that "hell" is NOT a permanent place"

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I COULD CARE LESS WHAT SOME GUY WITH A PHD SAID ON CABLE TV....I HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT LIVING INSIDE AND I CAN READ TOO. A LOT OF TIMES THESE "EXPERTS" ARE NOTHING MORE THAN WORLDLY PEOPLE POSING AS MINISTERS WHO ARE TRYING TO MAKE THE WORD OF GOD MORE PALITABLE TO THE MASSES WATCHING THEM ON TV...OR MAYBE THE PRODUCERS OF THE HISTORY CHANNEL SCREEN WHAT "EXPERTS" THEY ALLOW TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THAT PARTICULAR SHOW. THE RESULT IS PEOPLE GET DECEIVED BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE EVERYTHING THE "EXPERT" SAID ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL.

"If one is destined forever to be damned in a place, what's the purpose of any teaching? The people that were being taught were the people that were so wicked that were destroyed in the days of Noah that were being taught. Remember God destroyed all mankind by a great flood except 8 individuals since they were so wicked & these were the people that were being taught Christian principles, so they could be judged by God in the flesh, but live according to God in the Spirit:
1 Peter 3: 18-21"

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THOSE WHO DIED PRE-YESHUA? YEAH, HE WENT THERE TO PREACH TO THEM IN THE SPIRIT AND GAVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY....BUT THOSE WHO ARE POST-YESUA HAVE TO RECEIVE HIM HERE IN THIS LIFE. "HE CAME THAT WE MIGHT HAVE LIFE". YOU GET A SHOT HERE IN THIS LIFE TO ACCEPT HIM OR REJECT HIM.

LIKE I MENTIONED, I'M NOT SURE IF SOMEONE ETERNALLY BURNS IN HELL OR IF THEY ARE INCINERATED AND GONE FOREVER...EITHER WAY I DONT WANT TO GO THERE. I HAVE ENTERTAINED THE BELIEF THAT SINCE GOD IS A "CONSUMING FIRE" AS THE BIBLE DESCRIBES THEN ANYONE WHO DOES NOT CONTAIN THE HOLY SPIRIT IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO GETTING BURNT TO A CRISP IN HIS PRESCENCE. "NO FLESH CAN SEE GOD AND LIVE"...ITS LIKE YOU HAVE TO BE CLOTHED WITH HIM TO SEE HIM.

I'M NOT AN "EXPERT" BUT I DO STUDY THE BIBLE.

~~The Swami~~~ said...

sopsback said...
salami said...

"SOP, the moderator on this blog is not making a vocal comment about his religious beliefs.


1. I got your salami right here sop.

2. You can't read! Read the rest of my statement that you cut off. The moderator just thinks you're an idiot!!!!! Has nothing to do with religion Oh Great Judge of Souls. Just plain good old fashioned thinking you are an Idiot and a waste of a brain that could have been served to a mouse trying to get out of a lab maze.

Your posts, even if someone WANTED to read them, are impossible to take seriously and follow with your hillbilly lingo. Here's an idea sop.........SPELL CHECK!





sopsback said...

i am bringing the truth ....

Yeah sop. You are the pillar of truth. Federal Reserve closing down, unicorns as America's new pet, Bigfoot............you name it.......if there's a story to make up and spread.......the rumor mill sop is your man. In the words of Neodemes in regards to sop posts..........scroll on past.

I smell some serious sop deletions coming.

Delete
Delete
Delete

mogel007 said...

Habukuk said: "HE (Jesus)
went to hell because HE was carrying the sins of the world."
_________________________________

Wasn't Jesus God over life and death and hell & had power over these things, in fact He had authority and power over all things?
Why would Jesus even need to go to hell? You say because he was carrying the sins of the world. If he had power to raise himself up from the grave all by himself, certainly he had the keys of death and hell. The problem with your conclusion that he went to hell because of a burden he was carrying, or had no choice is contradictory to what he said to the thief on the cross:

Luke 23: 41-43

"And we indeed justly; for WE RECEIVE THE DUE REWARD of our deeds; but this man hath done NOTHING AMISS.

"And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou cometh into THY KINGDOM.

And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee: TODAY shalt thou be WITH ME IN PARADISE."

Obviously immediately & the SAME DAY after the Lord's body died, his Spirit went to Paradise, which is NOT HELL. Hell wouldn't really be considered Christ's kingdom that the thief had in mind. Paradise is where the righteous Spirits go immediately upon death. Paradise is not heaven.

Secondly, obviously the thief who did sin and was carrying sin
recognized his punishment was just, but despite his sins, it wasn't requisite for him to go to hell either because Jesus had the power to forgive & REMIT SINS. Jesus paid the penalty of sin before he died. There was nothing more to pay.
Since Jesus forgave the one thief, he was no longer in his sins and escaped the punishment of hell.

Modern scripture tells us that Jesus himself did not go personally to hell himself, but
organized a missionary force of spirits in Paradise, which enabled missionary work in hell to proceed forth FOR THE FIRST TIME
for those that never heard of the gospel or ever heard of Jesus Christ IN THEIR MORTAL LIFE
where there they would NOW
have this opportunity & HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY for further spiritual
progression for these unfortunate Spirits who made bad decisions in their mortal life.

Jesus's victory over sin &
death in the end would open up the gates of hell for all & hell no longer became a permanent state for those that died prior to Jesus's resurrection. Before Christ's victory, Satan still had power over these Spirits. Christ's victory changed all of that.

frivolous said...

sopsbackmountain said:

"it just serves to tell me that i am right on target + right in the crossahairs

meaning i am bringing the truth that nobody wants to hear...."

You've got to be kidding, with all the false alarm posts you've posted, and not to mention every mispelled word you've written. SOP - the self proclaimed prophet, the knower of all knowingness; PLEASE!!!

Oh, and Moderator, please keep deleting his posts so we don't have to Scroll On Past his naive and adolescent "opinions."

mogel007 said...

Habukuk said: "....BUT THOSE WHO ARE POST-YESUA HAVE TO RECEIVE HIM HERE IN THIS LIFE."
_________________________________

I'm not so sure that it is always going to be possible for everyone to have a fair shake to truly have a fair opportunity to receive him, "post-Yesua" as you say or even "pre-Yesua". Jesus has had his holy prophets from the very beginning of time and even now, to preach his message of "receiving Him", but that doesn't mean all have really heard & all been given a fair opportunity to make such an important decision in this mortal life.

At any rate, Jesus has made it possible that before the resurrection this decision will have to take place by everyone, to either accept Him or deny Him. In the end though, even those who have denied him through their actions or their choices & those that have "not received Him" in this mortal life, will still in the end acknowledge him to be the Christ "for every knee will bow and confess that he is the Christ and God of this earth."
Do you have a scripture to quote that says it's mandatory for all to receive Him "Post Yesua" in this mortal life or that some severe penalty is imposed? Certainly God will judge and reward all according to the light and knowledge that they have and what they have received and what they do with those talents. Like the parable of the talents, none of the servants were equal in the beginning in their talents, and all but one was complimented and blessed by the Lord.

mogel007 said...

Habukuk said: "LIKE I MENTIONED, I'M NOT SURE IF SOMEONE ETERNALLY BURNS IN HELL OR IF THEY ARE INCINERATED AND GONE FOREVER."
________________________________

With the exceptions of the sons of perdition, & the Devil & his angels, I am sure that the scriptures are clear that those mortals that go to hell are not incinerated & become gone forever, but are indeed resurrected and receive an immortal & glorified body of flesh & bones & come out of hell. "For as in Adam, all die, so in Christ shall ALL BE MADE ALIVE, but every man in his own order". The last enemy that will be destroyed is death (verse 26). 1 Cor 15: 38-44 gives different resurrected bodies to different ones according to their works, but all eventually get a ressurrected body, even the unjust and wicked.

The resurrection is universal. What would be the purpose to destroy any Being that acknowledged the Christ assuming such a destruction was even possible or even in the plan of God?

As you say, "God is a flaming fire" so Heaven where He resides must be a pretty hot place, but if you have a resurrected body that can endure such a place, it's no big deal to live in such an environment. I've heard it said that God lives in "everlasting burnings". You would burn even in God's presence without the Holy Spirit as you say. If Heaven is hot and bright place with many unearthly colors, and an eternal place to live forever, wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that it's counterpart place would be the opposite of that and that hell would be a very cold and dark place without light and even a temporary place?

mogel007 said...

Great Britain's 5th largest bank faces a panic. 2 billion in depositors monies have been withdrawn since rumors started the bank was in trouble:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/
up/player/popup/?rn=49750&cl=4113199&ch=
68276&src=news

mogel007 said...

Another lender to bite the dust?:

http://business.guardian.co.uk/
markets/story/0,,2169847,00.html

Yes, "your check is in the mail", and "your money is safe at our bank". LOL

sopsback said...

mr. turnip said...



Updated 16 September 2007 at 1439 HRS EDT

O.J. SIMPSON ARRESTED ON ARMED ROBBERY AND OTHER CHARGES!

LAS VEGAS POLICE PROCEEDED SLOWLY AND METHODICALLY BEFORE MAKING THE CHARGE!
SIMPSON COULD FACE 25 YEARS TO LIFE!

How long will it take for Blacks to start screaming this is "payback" for the Lost Angeles murder trial?

When those claims arise, we White folks can take solace in the fact that all we had to do was wait.

You see, we know that you can take a nigger out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of a nigger. OJ SImpson just couldn't help being himself and now he's gonna get the jail he so richly deserved but squeaked out of in the past.

=====================



now, yo wouldnt be trying to start a race war, would yo???



why not just claim that yo dong it for god???

LOLOLOOL!!!!!!!!



and by the way, my posts are not deleted for hillbilly spelling, as I purposely made some posts with EXACT spelling and they were still deleted.


no bullsh*t here.

my posts are deleted for CONTENT.


I KNOW IT.

THE MODERATOR KNOWS.


noone is getting bullsh*ted here.

frivolous said...

No simpleton, your posts are being deleted because you're a spamming idiot. How self richeous and presumptuous of you Johnny from Mobile Alabama! Are you truly that naive or too dumb to really get it? You haven't got a clue Johnny!

What's the matter, Tom and Judy haven't come through for you yet? Why don't you vent to them and the rest of the members over there instead of spamming here? Oh wait, you tried that and GOT REJECTED. Call Ray and tell him how he "messed up again," I'm sure he'd LOVE to hear from you.

conmanbuster2 said...

JUST ANOTHER OLD SKANK CRIMINAL THAT DID NOT LEARN THE GOLDEN RULE.

ALEX G MERKLINGER 22616-013 66 White M 12-18-1995 RELEASED


ID Search Criteria: Inmate Register Number 22616-013


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.
JOHNSON , YOU AND THE JACKO ABOVE
WILL MEET JESUS AND HE WILL ASK YOU BOTH, WHAT "DID YOU DO WITH THE TIME YOU WERE GIVEN" ? WE ALL KNOW WHAT YOU DID, MERKLINGER WE ALL KNOW NOW WHAT HE HAS DONE ?
JUSTICE FOR THE PEOPLE WOULD BE SERVED TO SEE ALL YOUR DOREAN GROUP CRIMINAL'S GETTING LIFE.
WHILE YOU ROT IN HELL JACKO IS FREE, YOU COULD CHANGE THAT ?
bET ALEX NEVER TOLD YOU THIS STUFF ABOVE !!

sopsback said...

"How self richeous and presumptuous of you Johnny from Mobile Alabama



wrong! i'm billy hill from the backwoods of tenneseeeeeeee...........



jus' call me hill billy....

sopsback said...

btw, any coputer geeks on this blaaahhhhhg that can tell me if there is a way to save donwloaded files from youtube.com ??


thanx.

neodemes said...

Hey SOP

Try this:

http://www.hiphopmusic.com/best_of_youtube/2006/02/how_to_download_and_save_youtu.html

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.

sopsback said...

thanx. here is yo dime....

10¢

notorial dissent said...

I find it amusing that Moogey seems to be fixated on Northern Rock going bust and crowing about another crooked lender going bust when he was not too long ago blathering about how banks just manufacture money at need. So which is it Moogs??? If banks can manufacture money at will, then why is this one, or any bank ever put into receivership??? Really do want to see your explanation for this one Moogs????

poopoo said...

K&S were surrounded by the enemy. They didn't know the enemy well enough, which is why their plans went awry."

Not according to all their boasting of God ordained training.

Next excuse?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

God never told them not to read the Art of War by Sun Tzu. I guess God never told them to read it either.