Wingit Call 10/26/2016 With Dinar Guru Hunters - Masters Trust Dinar RV With Richard T. Howard

Click the picture below to go to the video

Click either the picture above or the link below to go to the video page.
http://dinarrvnews.net/iqd-calls-open-mic/wingit/

Wow, what can I say?  What a great call we had!  After the Wingit Call was finished with me, I hung up and spent time with the guru hunters Nash Rambler https://www.dinardaily.net/u27993, TNTBS https://www.dinardaily.net/u27737 and Sam I Am https://www.dinardaily.net/u28835.  We discovered some interesting thing about the Masters Trust.

Here we go:


Want more?  Here is the link to that newsletter I found:

http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/?u=b4cad16cec189f2a819df5d69&id=ca9e8ec99b&e=2c5fb66acc

Pretty sure this will get deleted.  You should never mention RV and Trust in the same email.

Hey, we need time-stamps for this video, I will make a few here:

10:10 Nick joins the Wingit Call
31:10 TNTBS Joins Wingit With Nick
43:58 Why is your website down Nick?  He thought Dinar Daily was MY SITE HAHA.
49:41 Cupcake Reference and Garry asking where the picture of him wearing glasses with a bib was found
51:08 End of the Wingit Call, begin Guru Hunters Call
55:50 TNTBS Made money on the APPRECIATION of the Iraqi Dinar
59:18 Finding George Wages

They thought I wrote this, which I didn't:
http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2016/10/this-page-exposes-scams-and-provides.html

Awesome guys!!!

and shared!

I listened to this, both calls all the way through. While I think Nick is a highly resourceful and bright individual, I also think it does not serve the purpose of crushing scams to include such lesser players as Gerry.  I find Gerry harmless and baselessly hopeful, as worst.  Those who needed chasing (Tony, the whole crew at Sterling, etc.) should feel the full press of Nick's ingenuity and effort.

It seems to me that what separates Gerry from the Tonys and Sterlings of the world is that there is no evidence of Gerry profiteering.  Sure, accusations and insinuations are generously heaped on, but the "contribute button", for instance, is a waste of time waiting to be uncovered.  They "took money from Okie" is sounding more and more unsupportable every time it's trotted out.

I've read much of Nick's materials carefully. None of it reaches proof of anything illegal unless you follow the logic which says, in effect, "exotic currencies will never drastically appreciate in value and so providing information about an appreciation sheltering trust is a scam."  You guys may have a different experience with law enforcement and the criminal justice system, but I'm pretty sure that's nothing like the basis of a conviction.

This is a spirited disagreement, not pursuit of criminality.  Gerry wants to be left alone to have informational guests on his conference calls even though just about 100% of the listeners will have no use for a complex trust designed to shelter its assets from capital gain due to extreme appreciation.  Nick seems focused on defining the scam in terms of the virtual impossibility of vast currency revaluation resulting in sales of an expensive trust which cannot be used at all.  Free speech makes Gerry's argument appealing, and the absence of profiteering by Gerry makes Nick's argument less persuasive.  Nick, remember and reconsider this analysis when you've interviewed with the FBI and get some idea whether or not they will refer the matter to the US Attorney's office.

Of course, if you think a crime is being committed, you report it.  It's what decent folks do.  But, if the FBI and other law enforcement consider Gerry's action insufficient to refer to the prosecuting authority, will Nick stop calling it a scam?  If yes, then you are deferring to the folks who are supposed to enforce the law.  If not, then perhaps it's not criminality you want to pursue.

TheRealRex wrote:I listened to this, both calls all the way through. While I think Nick is a highly resourceful and bright individual, I also think it does not serve the purpose of crushing scams to include such lesser players as Gerry.  I find Gerry harmless and baselessly hopeful, as worst.  Those who needed chasing (Tony, the whole crew at Sterling, etc.) should feel the full press of Nick's ingenuity and effort.

It seems to me that what separates Gerry from the Tonys and Sterlings of the world is that there is no evidence of Gerry profiteering.  Sure, accusations and insinuations are generously heaped on, but the "contribute button", for instance, is a waste of time waiting to be uncovered.  They "took money from Okie" is sounding more and more unsupportable every time it's trotted out.

I've read much of Nick's materials carefully. None of it reaches proof of anything illegal unless you follow the logic which says, in effect, "exotic currencies will never drastically appreciate in value and so providing information about an appreciation sheltering trust is a scam."  You guys may have a different experience with law enforcement and the criminal justice system, but I'm pretty sure that's nothing like the basis of a conviction.

This is a spirited disagreement, not pursuit of criminality.  Gerry wants to be left alone to have informational guests on his conference calls even though just about 100% of the listeners will have no use for a complex trust designed to shelter its assets from capital gain due to extreme appreciation.  Nick seems focused on defining the scam in terms of the virtual impossibility of vast currency revaluation resulting in sales of an expensive trust which cannot be used at all.  Free speech makes Gerry's argument appealing, and the absence of profiteering by Gerry makes Nick's argument less persuasive.  Nick, remember and reconsider this analysis when you've interviewed with the FBI and get some idea whether or not they will refer the matter to the US Attorney's office.

Of course, if you think a crime is being committed, you report it.  It's what decent folks do.  But, if the FBI and other law enforcement consider Gerry's action insufficient to refer to the prosecuting authority, will Nick stop calling it a scam?  If yes, then you are deferring to the folks who are supposed to enforce the law.  If not, then perhaps it's not criminality you want to pursue.

Thanks TheRealRex. I appreciate the advice. I'm always open for tips on who to go after, or what to discuss, that's why I keep myself available. In fact, PM me if you want my number.

I get lots of people contacting me each week. Garry is just one of those who is putting out false information. We don't need gurus or intel providers, we just need facts, and a simple Google search will bring up the facts, however, too many uninformed people are relying on the gurus.

"...too many uninformed people are relying on the gurus."

Isn't that so very true.  Listening to a few (some just annoy me and I can't), I get the idea that a lobotomy would result in an IQ bump.

Nick, a couple of points.....

Recently, as I was spending a few days with one of my daughters' kids, one of the littler ones asked my what I "do", meaning my work.  The oldest spoke up for me saying, "grandpa solves people's problems".  After chuckling, I recalled that's how I had described my work to him when he was several years younger.  It fits.  People come to me with "issues" and I help resolve them in a variety of ways.  I want to be that for even the anonymous people of "dinarland".  

However, I fully accept we all pursue problem solving within our own style.  One of the central precepts of my pursuit of problems is to allow for a fair amount of proof that someone is an intentional "bad actor" before I will take action against them. I am not one of those who will obey a client without independent thought or application of my personal ethics.  This is just my style.  Even though I've only once in all these years been on the dirty end of the stick, it allows me to empathize with having to resist the zeal of someone who mistakenly saw me as one of those "bad actors".  This may be why I analyze and pursue the Gerrys of the world more conservatively than you.

On the substantive end.....

You mentioned "the FBI thinks the "RV" is a scam", however, if that were really true in the fullest sense, simply knowing these dinar and other currency related conference calls are occurring would be enough to sweep arrest all involved.  That's not happening because the short hand expression "the "RV" is a scam" does not mean the same thing to the FBI as it does to you. The Sterling criminal and civil (gov't as plaintiff) cases should make that clear to you.  The "RV" is "criminal" in the same way that amphetamines are "criminal" - when they are connected to statutorily criminal actions (e.g., theft, bootlegging, street sales, etc.).  Sterling is a perfect illustration.  Those criminal defendants made factually false statements for the purpose of inducing specific profitable sales to their benefit.  The belief of a guru, blogged about or discussed in conference calls, that currency will wildly revalue is not the same as making factually false statements, no matter how improbable.  The absence of actual profiteering further decreases the chance of finding criminality.  Thus, the FBI is not mass arresting all gurus.  The standard for criminality is simply not met without more.

I am not an apologist for nutcase dinarland gurus.  I am, however, highly opposed to criminalization of actions which do not - no matter how stupid - amount to actual lies or dangerous actual inciting of violence (the classic cry of "fire" in a crowded theater).  Since we know that the Masters Trust is a valid legal instrument (I've read it in full and that is my opinion), we know that holders of certain exotic currencies believe they may wildly revalue to a dreamed for exchange rate, and we know if that occurred it would be an incredible tax savings for all persons who had transferred their currency into the Masters Trust prior to any exchange of that currency.  Intellectually, we KNOW each of these facts are factually and legally correct.  The disconnect is that they believe that the revaluation is much more probable than you.  It's actually that simple, even if "the RV" tears at your sense of probability and good judgment.

Of course, the "mere" difference of belief has implications.  For instance, one might say, "hey, that's such a crazy notion that people that hold such a belief are susceptible to someone using that to take their money".  Of course, that's true when, for instance, you speak of the traveling driveway coating scam where 1) the "mark's" driveway is not damaged or in need of repair, and 2) the "coating" is actually going to damage the driveway.  But, in the case of a guru who is excited about "the RV" and has little to say except, "this is what I've read", or the like, finding an actionable and factually false statement is probably not possible.  Indeed, this is not at all like the systematic factual deceptions of the Sterling team which coupled with direct profit taking.  For these reasons, I am just as anxious to shut down the Sterlings of the world as as you.

2 last points....

I've personally made calls to bankers to set them straight on matters as simple as putting a checking or investment account in the name of a newly formed family trust.  Things you would imagine they should know at the bank, but with near minimum wage employees serving bank customers, the occasional nudge is needed.  Nick, that passage you quoted is pretty confusing, but if I have the gist of it, in effect he acknowledges that bank personnel may not allow an account to be opened in the name of a lawful trust because the customer mentioned they may put proceeds from a future exotic currency exchange into the account.  We may certainly agree this is perhaps dumb or a waste of time, but it's not at all illegal.

I didn't mean to equate "guru hunting" with law enforcement.  But, I definitely meant to agree with calling out lies.  I think my point was to distinguish between lying, on the one hand, and talking up a sincerely held, though idiotic, opinion, on the other. Obviously, you will not know it, but I have been on a quiet campaign of speaking to some of the absurdities and outright lies I HAVE read on some of the dinar related blogs.  It seems to me that not all readers will listen to common sense. This translates in my mind that not everyone will accept good sense when shown to them. I knew a salesman who would say, "some will, some won't, so what, move on".  While I want to have a bit more compassion than suggested by that salesman, there is a sense of that in me.  I have no interest in being the "dinar police", especially with folks who have no interest in another perspective. When I disagree with someone, I try to make that point, civilly. "Rescuing" folks from stupid ideas and opinions, which isn't forthrightly criminal, it the essence of "tilting windmills".  I speak to the bologna offered by some of the gurus and ignore those who do not seem to be turning a profit from it.  

Now, if any "dinar" conference call gurus are getting kickbacks from "guest speakers" on sales to callers, this changes the picture completely.

Be sure and vote above!

Hey TheRealRex, I agree, the FBI is not so much involved on people mentioning RV, but those who are using the urgency of the RV in order to sell trusts, or currency, or wealth seminars, or even post rv parties etc, that's what they want.

Your thoughts are very good, and I, as well as the rest of us here, appreciate your insight on this matter as it's near and dear to so many of us.

Follow up email:

The newsletter link from MyMastersTrust.com has been deleted, however, you can still access them here:

http://us3.campaign-archive1.com/home/?u=b4cad16cec189f2a819df5d69&id=5ef2a593aa

Will Richard Howard be on the Wingit call again? Let's just say the FBI is watching this CLOSELY.

Will Wingit last without a revenue stream?