Innocent! No Banking Fraud in Kirkland - Just Persecution

[_moksha]

'The facts are that Perkins and Osborne were attorneys for Granison [sic] Newell in the prosecution of Smith and Rigdon for illegal banking.' Joseph Smith's assertion that the anti-bank litigation was stirred up by his enemies, a charge which has not been connected to Rounds, is most likely true, because it evidently refers to Newell. If this interpretation of the evidence is correct, Newell himself may have been guilty of stirring up and maintaining litigation in the names of others, which was a crime known as 'maintenance' at the common law.[/i]" (Marvin S. Hill, C. Keith Rooker, Larry T. Wimmer, BYU Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4, p.441)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I think this "in the name of others" is the grand key to this conspiracy. If we were to dig closely enough, we would find this has the markings of Dick Cheney himself. Cheney has been after the Church, and he even cast his evil spell so deep, that he fooled BYU into giving him an honorary doctorate.

Once we have established (and I think we have) the complicity of Dick Cheney in this sordid affair of persecuting Joseph Smith, I think we will immediately find links to Satan (or at least Scratch) himself. Think of it, Satan himself was after Joseph Smith because of the righteousness he stood for.

However, back to this legal argument of how the law which went defunct in 1824, could have ever been used as a prosecutorial weapon against the Saints when it clearly did not apply to anti-banking.

[_zzyzx]

A law passed by the State Legislature and signed by the Governor is the law. Not putting it into the book of statutes does not change that fact nor does non-enforcement.

Will look up the references for the coins on top of the sand, clay and whatnot. I believe some of those involved with the bank made reference to this.

As one involved in S&L compliance & fraud if Joseph were around and tried this today he would find free lodging in a nearby prison. That is if the amounts involved were enough to rise the level of prosecution. During the major S&L scandal brought on by the Garn-StGermain bill that level started at $5 million. Anyone who swindled less was left alone. Didn't make it OK, the law was still the law, the government just chose not to prosecute these 'small fry'.

As for Josephs bank/anti-bank, it appears Jesus charge to him and the promises of how great the institution would be were as solid as cow farts.

[_Nomomo]

More so when the money shown is a top layer covering sand.

This is a canard that continues to by pandered by those ignorant of the dimensions of the Society's safe. The "bags of sand" claim is physically imposssible.

Next!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Have you some references to back this assertion up?

Seems to me if the "safe" was too small to fake the amount of specie claimed to be on hand then wouldn't it also be too small to actually hold the claimed amount in specie itself also?

Also, wasn't the term used vault, not safe?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

I am perpetually amused that Mormon apologists can string a few words together, and then act as if it were the truth. Mr. Englund is an excellent example of someone who simply says something, and then asserts it is the truth.

This world is, very literally, a funny place at times.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_wenglund]

A law passed by the State Legislature and signed by the Governor is the law. Not putting it into the book of statutes does not change that fact nor does non-enforcement.

Will look up the references for the coins on top of the sand, clay and whatnot. I believe some of those involved with the bank made reference to this.

As one involved in S&L compliance & fraud if Joseph were around and tried this today he would find free lodging in a nearby prison. That is if the amounts involved were enough to rise the level of prosecution. During the major S&L scandal brought on by the Garn-StGermain bill that level started at $5 million. Anyone who swindled less was left alone. Didn't make it OK, the law was still the law, the government just chose not to prosecute these 'small fry'.

As for Josephs bank/anti-bank, it appears Jesus charge to him and the promises of how great the institution would be were as solid as cow farts.

It is amazing the tenacity with which certain naysayers hold uncritically to some of the most tissuey of rash charges made by people who know little if anything of what they are talking about, and which have been rationally discredited by people who do know what they are talking about.

I suppose that such is the nature of prejudice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dr. Shades]

It is amazing the tenacity with which certain naysayers hold uncritically to some of the most tissuey of rash charges made by people who know little if anything of what they are talking about, and which have been rationally discredited by people who do know what they are talking about.

I suppose that such is the nature of prejudice.

Hi Wade,

Would you have enjoyed losing your life savings to the Kirtland Bank scandal?

[_wenglund]

Have you some references to back this assertion up?

Seems to me if the "safe" was too small to fake the amount of specie claimed to be on hand then wouldn't it also be too small to actually hold the claimed amount in specie itself also?

Also, wasn't the term used vault, not safe?

The "safe" or "vault" or "bank" or whatever term you wish to nit pick, was of sufficient size to hold the "reserve" or "species" or "capital" or "subscriptions" or "coins" or whatever term you wish to nit pick.

It wasn't of sufficient size to hold the claimed "bags" or "boxes" of sand topped with "species" or "coins" or whatever.

This is explained and documented in the FAIRwiki article: Kirtland Safety Society, Boxes Filled with Sand. White brought this up during the Q&A at the FAIR Conference and may cover it in his own article to be posted to FAIR as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Hi Wade,

Would you have enjoyed losing your life savings to the Kirtland Bank scandal?

What a stupid question. Do you know who, by far, lost the most of their life savings because of the Society's failure?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dr. Shades]

Would you have enjoyed losing your life savings to the Kirtland Bank scandal?

What a stupid question. Do you know who, by far, lost the most of their life savings because of the Society's failure?

You keep harping on the notion that the law wasn't enforced, therefore Smith & Rigdon should've gotten away with it, but you've never addressed the fact that people were commanded to deposit their life savings into the anti-bank and then lost it.

So, do the Kirtland anti-Bank apologetics make it okay that so many people lost everything?

[_rocket]

Who lost their life savings?

I'm sure Warren Parrish recovered his and then many multiples of it with his embezzlement.