Beware of Fred Damron

What's Fred Doing in that Concrete Building???

2011-06-23T08:56:00.000-07:00

Currently Fred is living with Alice Arnett Lykins in Olive Hill, KY. It is reported that Fred has something going on in a little concrete block building on Cold Springs Road. The windows are blacked out and have bars on them.

I hear Alice is involved with BELIEVERS IN JESUS CHRIST INC. and is a licensed insurance agent...any of this sound familiar???

Fred consistently aligns himself with women who he can manipulate and who are heavily involved in a religious organization and/or the insurance business.

Assumed names under BELIEVERS IN JESUS CHRIST INC. are:

BIG BROTHER'S BLESSINGS
WARRIORS OF THE WORD
CHRISTWAY CHURCH

Current Officers:

President Marcus McCleese
Secretary Alice M Lykins
Director Marcus McCleese
Director JoCarla McCleese
Director Alice M Lykins

Initial Officers at time of formation:

Director MARCUS MCCLEESE
Director ESTA M. MCCLEESE
Director JO C. MCCLEESE
Incorporator MARCUS MCCLEESE

2010-12-06T07:29:00.000-08:00

A sample of SOME of the emails I have received from people looking for help from these scammers:
_____________________________________________________

date Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:28 PM
subject Charles A Spradlin

I have recently come in contact with a man named Chalie Spradlin and searched the internet looking for information about him. I came across your blog and noticed his name in there several times. I have family members who are attending his so called church in Westfield IN and am very concerned about them. He is passing himself off as a pastor but I don't believe that he is at all and after reading everything I've seen on the internet I am convinced he is nothing more than a con artist. Thanks for posting what you have so far about him and the others. Do you know of any other information you could share with me about him? Have there been any legal actions taken against Mr. Spradlin? Has he been convicted? Are any authorities involved? I am afraid the family is going to be taken for a lot of money.
_____________________________________________________

date Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 8:52 AM
subject Fred Damron

I am so sorry your article did not pop up when I first searched Genesis Management Group. Is there a group of people he defrauded that are joining together in a law suite? If so I want to be counted in.
_____________________________________________________

date Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:37 AM
subject Exousia Foundation

I live in USA , but have a very close relationship with the government of Ukraine and work with some western world financial institutions in coordinating of financing some infrastructure covernment projects in Ukraine.
I ran into the name of Charles Spradlin
He is in Ukraine now and he is working on the level of high government officials of the Ukrainian Government promising them to bring Billions of Dollars from so called China Foundation
I googled them out and their website sounds very odd
Please advice any information you possibly know and please provide any kind of documents or sourses of documents which can prove that this is all scam.

_____________________________________________________

date Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:46 PM
subject RE: Fred Damon

I am writing you concerning Fred Damron. I need to know for certain we are talking about the same person. Here is his physical description: He is approximately 45 to 50 years in age . he is around 5ft 10 inches tall weighs approximately 220, 240. Has a full head of thick salt and pepper hair always keeps a beard and mustache. He wears glasses. Speaks with a generic accent, kind of nasally. What I know about him personally is that he grew up in West Virginia, I think somewhere around Fort Gay. His Mother is still living but I think his father has passed. He has not mentioned any siblings. Said his family owns a farm. His father owned a service station when Fred was growing up. He mentioned that his Mother owned a radio station . He says his job now is a currency exchanger/broker. He seems to be very computer savvy. The reason I need to know if this is the same person is that he is involved with my wife’s sister in-law, and my wife’s mother, my mother in-law. He is also very interested in our church. I am afraid someone in our family or our community is going to get hurt somehow, if indeed this is the same person. If you have a picture of him please scan it and send it to me. I realize you have no idea who I am, but I assure you all I want is confirmation that we are talking about the same person. I have no other agenda.

_____________________________________________________

date Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:10 AM
subject RE: Fred Damon

I am concerned that Fred is up to no good. The church that he is involved with now is called Christway Church in Olive Hill. He has a foot hold in a church here in our community. He and his girlfriend are the treasurers, and the congregation is growing. I sense trouble. Is there any kind of warrant out on him? I can give the authorities info about his whereabouts. I want him stopped before he hurts someone again.
_____________________________________________________

date Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 8:59 PM
subject fred damron

about 3 years ago fred came to my house and got me to invest with his company, at first we made a few hundred dollars, then i made the big mistake of writing fred a check worth 30.000.00 dollars....now 3 years later no fred, no money, what can i do,

2009-12-12T11:50:00.000-08:00

Details of Fred trying to get out of paying for his children's college expenses as he agreed to do:

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals: Damron v Shortt

What's Fred Been Up To?

2009-04-25T07:02:00.000-07:00

After CEP he started Dakota-Global which was another HYIP scam.

Company Name
DAKOTA GLOBAL, LLC

Company Type
KLC - Kentucky Limited Liability Company

File Date
11/25/2008

Principal Office
130 SOUTH COLD SPRINGS ROAD
OLIVE HILL, KY 41164

Registered Agent
FREDERICK C. DAMRON
130 SOUTH COLD SPRINGS ROAD
OLIVE HILL, KY 41164

Dakota Global

Welcome to Dakota Global. This is the only HYIP Program you will ever need. A real investment where we share the profits with you. This program will last a VERY long time. STAY long, EARN long.

Dakota Global - Start with only $1.00 You earn a daily return and an income from referring others to a great program. We design this program to last, so your efforts and income don't get wasted.

About Us

Dakota Global Investment Limited is a company incorporated in Vanuatu under the Electronic Trading Act 2000 of Vanuatu and does it's business exclusively on the internet. Our business consist of creating value for domains that we own and generating revenues from these by factoring leaseback contracts. Domaining is a very lucrative business and we work a unique leaseback business model that is highly profitable.

We are also market makers and a significant player in the CME currencies options market working an inhouse developed system that has provided us a consistent 8% to 10% returns on a month to month basis. This system was developed over a 15 year period and is the only one of a kind in the world. We also do training and development of trading talents and systems analysis and design.

Our online business model came on to the internet on April 19th 2007, a very significant and auspicious day in the history of our company. Designed to outstrip and outlast all other online programs pretending to be real investments, our program can be started for ONLY $1.00 and our 7 level referral plan gives you the advantage of an affiliate referral income stream. You have 2 ways of making your money.

SIGN UP for ONLY $1.00 and find out for yourself how easy it is to secure your future with our program. We train people to make millions from the internet by first showing them how to make $1.00 and then leveraging it often enough to end up making millions. You cannot make a million from the internet unless you first learn to make $1.00 LIMITED TIME OFFER - Prelaunch BONUS - SIGN up now, we will give you a $10 bonus !!

FAQ

1. Is this legal ?
Yes.

2. How is it legal ?
Firstly, we do not and will never solicit funds from you. Any funds you decide to put with us is entirely your decision and solely your responsibility. Secondly, any funds you place with us is treated as a private loan from you to our company at a daily interest of 0.10%. This is a private loan from you to us, unsolicitated and unsecured. You are free to recall your loan to us at any time subject only to the limits we set to prevent any untoward cashflow situations to us. At the present, there is no known country in the world where it is illegal to make out a private loan.

3. What is the term of the loan ?
There is no agreed term of the loan and we credit the interest to your account on a daily basis.

4. Can I leave my funds with you indefinitely and just collect the payouts daily.
Yes.

5. Can I send funds to you in any other way besides e-gold ?
Yes. You have a choice of sending by any of the e-currencies we accept and by bank wire or Western Union and also by Credit Cards. Transfers by Credit Cards however, are subject to a 90 day hold to cater for possibility of charge-backs.

6. Can I contact you by telephone to make queries ?
Yes you can but our first line of support is by email and all your questions can be answered by that way. Should you require to talk on the telephone, we could provide you a contact only if your loan size is substantial and you require the comfort on knowing that we are contactable.

7. Do you have an office I can visit ?
We are an internet entity, a duly registered Company in Vanuatu and we do our business exclusively on the internet and do not require to have a physical office to work from. We do however have an agency office located at Singapore which acts as a collecting agent and physical contact location for us and you can visit us there if you really need or want to. These will have to be arranged and we will meet you only by appointment.

8. How can you pay out such rates ?
We are able to consistently generate profits in excess of what we payout to you by a factor of about 3 so your funds will help us make twice what we pay out to you.

9. What business are you in to generate such returns ?
We have 2 primary businesses from which we generate our profits. Firstly, we are in the Domaining business in that we acquire quality domain names which we develop and enhance the value of before selling it off for a high profit. In the time we hold the domain waiting for a buyer, we leaseback those domains with investors and have the domains rented for weekly income. Our second core business is in the trading of currency options in the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. We have an inhouse developed system which we use to secure monthly returns from. We are also involved in training of traders who would use our system to trade under our flag and manage our inhouse funds.

10. How long do you see yourself staying in business ?
Our inhouse system was developed over a period of 15 years so we have been in the game for quite a while and we forsee ourselves staying in this business indefinitely and have a succession program in place. Our domaining business will always be there unless the internet goes away which cannot be forseen so we will be around long after all the other HYIP programs on the net, pretending to be real, are gone.

11. Can I only earn from the daily interest payouts ?
No. We have in place a referral program. This is a 7 level mlm type structure whereby you will earn referral commissions from people you refer to the program. These people will stay in your downline forever once they sign up under your referral link and you earn from their loan placements. Since it is a 7 level payout, the commissions income from it, if fully developed can be significantly substantial.

What People Say About Dakota-Global:

Talk Gold

Another of Fred's scams!

2007-09-12T09:40:00.000-07:00

Suit Against Fred Damron in CEP Bankruptcy

More info on the scam: Colon End Parenthesis Trust BLOG

Online site's take pegged at $16M

Trevor E. Reed

Larger transfers made after freeze/rate drop are indicated in (-) after the names and amounts
*********************************************************************

Frederick Damron - $443,484.00 (Kentucky) http://download.yousendit.com/B4EF45F669C9F4BB

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

In re: CEP HOLDINGS, INC.,
Debtor.
______________________________________

CEP HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

v.

FREDERICK DAMRON,
Defendant.

Case No. 07-71810
Chapter 11
Judge Massey
Jointly Administered
Adversary Proceeding
No. 07-____________

COMPLAINT TO AVOID AND RECOVER TRANSFERS

COME NOW, CEP Holdings, Inc. (“Holdings”) and Colon End Parenthesis Trust, LLC (“Trust,” and together with Holdings, the “Debtors”), and file this Complaint to Avoid and Recover Transfers, alleging as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The Debtors filed voluntary petitions in bankruptcy under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq.) on July 27, 2007 (the “Petition Date”). An order was entered on August 3, 2007 to have their cases jointly administered. This Court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(F), (H) and (O).

2. Venue of this adversary proceeding is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409.

THE PARTIES

3. On July 9, 2007, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) filed its Complaint for Injunctive and Other Relief in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Raleigh Division (the “District Court”), commencing the lawsuit styled Securities and Exchange Commission v. CEP Holdings, Inc., d/b/a colonendparenthesis.net, Trevor Reed, Clayton Kimbrell and Colon End Parenthesis Trust, LLC, Case No. 5:07-cv-00256-BO (the “SEC Action”). On July 10, 2007, the District Court entered the Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, Freezing Assets, Appointing a Receiver and Ordering Other Ancillary Relief (the “District Court Order”), to which Order the Defendants consented and the Debtors’ businesses were shut down. William F. Perkins was appointed receiver for the Debtors pursuant to the District Court Order and has since managed the Debtors’ assets and financial affairs.

4. The SEC has alleged that Trevor Reed (“Reed”) and Clayton Kimbrell (“Kimbrell”), through Holdings, were involved in a fraudulent and unregistered offering of securities sold via the internet.

5. Upon information and belief, since May 2006, over $16,000,000 has flowed into the bank accounts of Trust from more than 10,000 participants in one of the three “investment” programs operated by Holding’s d/b/a websites. Trust served as an internet payment processor
through which the Debtors’ participants received and disbursed money.

6. Upon information and belief, Holding’s “investment” programs included the following:

(a) a passive, interest-only investment format at colonendparenthesis.net. This program required a minimum initial investment of $20 and promised a daily return of 2% (more than 600% per annum) that was payable every thirty days by credit to the participant’s account at Trust. The participant committed to either a 180-day or 360-day option, but the original principal was not returned to the participant.

(b) investment autosurf websites generally known as CEPCoast.com and Coastin88.com. These programs were functionally identical, but had different financial restrictions and payout amounts. Participants purchased advertising packages, or “Ad Packs” at $5.00 each, which allowed the participant to place his website into a pool of websites that would be viewed and rated on a scale of one to five. If a participant purchased an Ad Pack, he or she then chose to either participate in the program offered at CEPCoast.com or Coastin88.com and was, thereafter, eligible to recover some of his or her costs, or even make a profit, by viewing and rating 15 websites--no more, no less--each day. For CEPCoast.com, 90% of each day’s revenue from purchases of Ad Packs was split pro-ratably among the participants who viewed websites that day, which participants could receive back as much as 130% of the cost of their Ad Packs. For Coastin88.com, 88% of each day’s revenue from purchases of Ad Packs was split pro-ratably among the participants who viewed websites that day, which participants could receive back as much as 115% of the cost of their Ad Packs. The caveats of these auto-surf programs were: (i) only participants who purchased Ad Packs were eligible to view and rate websites in order to earn credits, (ii) to share in a daily payout, the participant had to review all 15 websites sent to him or her that day, (iii) CEPCoast.com paid out 90% and Coastin88.com paid out 88% of daily Ad Pack purchases in their respective programs, and (iv) the payout to viewers each day was dependent on the amount of Ad Packs sales on that day (cash inflow), not on the number of websites viewed and rated by participants.

7. Upon information and belief, investors were led to believe that their funds were used to invest in safe “brick and mortar” type businesses that produced the promised yields, but there was, in fact, no significant investment of participant funds in any third-party business or investment other than a money market account yielding approximately 4%. Neither Reed nor Kimbrell invested personal funds in the programs described above.

8. Upon information and belief, (a) there was no review or audit of the financial transactions of the Debtors and (b) their records consist almost entirely of databases created by website transactions.

9. Several millions of dollars were transferred out of the Debtors’ accounts to Reed, Kimbrell, their family, as well as to employees and sub-contractors, for which it is believed that the Debtors did not receive reasonably equivalent value.

10. The Debtors had no source of funding for the profits paid to participants in these schemes other than the deposits of subsequent investors. It appears that more than 4,000 investors are still owed more than $9,000,000 of the money they initially invested in the Debtors.

11. Defendant Frederick Damron is a resident of Kentucky.

12. Defendant may be served with process in this adversary proceeding by mailing a copy of the summons and a copy of this Complaint by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to his attention at 130 South Cold Springs Road, Olive Hill, Kentucky 41164, or by such other means as may be permitted by Rule 7004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

THE AVOIDABLE TRANSFERS

13. Defendant participated in one or more programs offered by the Debtors as described in paragraph 6 above.

14. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is an itemization of the transfers from the Debtors to Defendant by date and amount of each transfer, which transfers totaled $443,484.00 (the “Transfers”).

15. During the operation of the Debtors’ scheme as set out in paragraphs 4 through 10 (the “Scheme”), various investors, including Defendant, were paid funds by the Debtors that purported to be (a) redemptions of funds invested or (b) profits made on principal funds invested.

The source of these payments, including those to Defendant, was the principal investments of other investors. The payments to investors were made by the Debtors generally in furtherance of the Scheme. The fraudulent nature of the transfers, including those to the Defendant, was concealed. It is not fair for those investors who received such payments, including Defendant, to keep those payments to the detriment of the remaining creditors and investors who have not been paid and whose investments were used to pay other investors, including Defendant.

16. The Debtors contend that all transfers, in whatever form, made to Defendant by the Debtors are avoidable and recoverable by the Debtors. Defendant is on notice that the Debtors are seeking avoidance and recovery of all transfers from the Debtors to them, even if such transfers are not listed on the attached exhibit, and even if the total amount of these transfers exceeds the amounts set forth on the attached exhibit.

COUNT I
AVOIDANCE AND RECOVERY OF THE TRANSFERS PURSUANT
TO §§ 548(a)(1)(A) AND 550(a)(1) OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE

17. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 16 above as if fully set forth in Count I herein.

18. The Transfers were transfers of interests in property of the Debtors.

19. The Transfers were made in furtherance of the Scheme.

20. The Transfers were made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud the creditors of the Debtors to which the Debtors were or became indebted on or after the dates that the Transfers were made.

21. The Transfers are avoidable pursuant to § 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and are recoverable by the Debtors from Defendant pursuant to § 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.

COUNT II
AVOIDANCE AND RECOVERY OF THE TRANSFERS PURSUANT
TO §§ 548(a)(1)(B) AND 550(a)(1) OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE

22. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 21 above as if fully set
forth in Count II herein.

23. The Transfers were transfers of interests in property of the Debtors.

24. The Debtors received less than reasonably equivalent value in exchange for each of the Transfers.

25. The Debtors were insolvent at the times that the Transfers were made or became insolvent as a result of each of the Transfers.

26. At the times of the Transfers, the Debtors were engaged in business or a transaction, or were about to engage in business or a transaction, for which any property remaining with the Debtors was unreasonably small capital.

27. At the times of the Transfers, the Debtors intended to incur, or believed that the Debtors would incur, debts that would be beyond the ability of the Debtors to pay as such debts matured.

28. The Transfers are avoidable pursuant to § 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code and are recoverable by the Debtors from Defendant pursuant to § 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.

COUNT III
AVOIDANCE AND RECOVERY OF THE PREFERENTIAL TRANSFERS
PURSUANT TO §§ 547(b) AND 550(a)(1) OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE

29. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 28 as if fully set forth in Count III herein.

30. The transfers made to Defendant by the Debtors within 90 days prior to the Petition Date (April 28, 2007 through July 27, 2007) total $109,015.00 (the “Preferential Transfers”).

31. In the event that Defendant was, at the time the Preferential Transfers were made, a creditor of one or more of the Debtors:

(a) The Preferential Transfers were made within 90 days of the Petition Date and were transfers of interests in property of the Debtors;

(b) The Preferential Transfers were made to or for the benefit of Defendant, a creditor of one or more of the Debtors;

(c) The Preferential Transfers were made for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by one or more of the Debtors to Defendant before the Preferential Transfers were made;

(d) The Preferential Transfers were made while the Debtors were insolvent within the meaning of § 547 and § 101(32) of the Bankruptcy Code;

(e) The Preferential Transfers enabled Defendant to receive more than he would have received if the bankruptcy cases of the Debtors were cases under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Preferential Transfers had not been made, and Defendant received payment of his debt to the extent provided by the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code; and

(f) The Preferential Transfers constitute avoidable preferential transfers pursuant to the provisions of § 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and are recoverable by the Debtors from Defendant pursuant to § 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.

REQUESTED RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Debtors pray that the Court will enter judgment in their favor as follows:

a. Pursuant to Counts I and II, avoiding the Transfers pursuant to §§ 548(a)(1)(A) or 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code and, pursuant to § 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, against Defendant in the amount of the Transfers, but not less than $443,484.00, together with prejudgment interest thereon at the legal rate allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 from the date hereof;

b. Pursuant to Count III, avoiding the Preferential Transfers pursuant to § 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and, pursuant to § 550(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, against Defendant in the amount of the Preferential Transfers, but not less than $109,015.00, together with prejudgment interest thereon at the legal rate allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 from the date hereof;

c. Providing for an award of costs to the Debtors; and

d. Providing for such other and further relief as this Court may deem necessary and proper.

Respectfully submitted, this 11th day of September, 2007.

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
/s/ James R. Sacca
James R. Sacca
Georgia Bar No. 621843
John D. Elrod
Georgia Bar No. 246604
3290 Northside Parkway, N.W.
Suite 400
Atlanta, GA 30327
(678) 553-2100
Counsel for Debtors

EXHIBIT A
(FREDERICK DAMRON)

Recipient Date of Transfer Method of Transfer Amount of Transfer

Frederick Damron September 2, 2006 E-Gold Withdrawal $250.00
Frederick Damron October 1, 2006 Check Withdrawal $27,800.00
Frederick Damron January 7, 2007 Check Withdrawal $7,500.00
Frederick Damron January 8, 2007 Check Withdrawal $18,000.00
Frederick Damron January 20, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $20,000.00
Frederick Damron January 26, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $28,000.00
Frederick Damron February 19, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $25,000.00
Frederick Damron February 26, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $18,000.00
Frederick Damron March 12, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $10,000.00
Frederick Damron March 12, 2007 E-Gold Withdrawal $7,350.00
Frederick Damron March 21, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $37,000.00
Frederick Damron March 21, 2007 E-Gold Withdrawal $725.00
Frederick Damron March 28, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $35,000.00
Frederick Damron March 28, 2007 E-Gold Withdrawal $544.00
Frederick Damron April 1, 2007 E-Gold Withdrawal $41,800.00
Frederick Damron April 5, 2007 E-Gold Withdrawal $7,500.00
Frederick Damron April 11, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $18,000.00
Frederick Damron April 14, 2007 E-Gold Withdrawal $12,000.00
Frederick Damron April 20, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $20,000.00
Frederick Damron April 28, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $16,000.00
Frederick Damron April 30, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $17,500.00
Frederick Damron May 1, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $5,550.00
Frederick Damron May 5, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $10,250.00
Frederick Damron May 12, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $45,000.00
Frederick Damron May 28, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $1,850.00
Frederick Damron May 31, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $1,690.00
Frederick Damron June 4, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $3,225.00
Frederick Damron June 6, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $1,550.00
Frederick Damron June 10, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $3,250.00
Frederick Damron June 12, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $1,585.00
Frederick Damron June 14, 2007 ACH Withdrawal $1,565.00
TOTAL : $443,484.00
EXHIBIT A PAGE 1 OF 1

Have You Been Sent An Email Link to This Page?

2007-09-04T06:57:00.003-07:00

If so, then you know, work with or are in business with someone on this page.

I consider convicted felon Fred Damron aka Frederick Cecil Damron, Frederick C. Damron as well as his girlfriend Ginger Hagerman aka Ginger Lee Rose Hagerman, Ginger L. Hagerman, Ginger Rose to be SCAM ARTISTS. They claim to be in control of a "BILLION DOLLAR TRUST" created and organized by Paul Hiram Chappell and Charles A. Spradlin that pays premiums on Irrevocable Life Insurance Trusts called FREEDOM 7, FREEDOM 8, LASTING LEGACY, LEGACY 7.

Fred Damron is a convicted felon. He was indicted on five counts of "Misuse of a Social Security Number" by a federal grand jury and pled guilty to one count in 2003. Frederick Cecil Damron criminal docket 02-CR-00006 Upon speaking to an ex-family member of Mr. Damron's, I was informed that these counts stem from the misuse of his eldest son's social security number. This ex-family member alleges that Mr. Darmon began using the number to avoid paying income taxes and child support. It was only discovered after the child was grown and was enlisting in the armed services.

He is currently under investigation with the Ashland, KY police department. If you have any questions as to whether this program or any program like it is legal, please contact Detective Rob Brunty (606) 327-2068 who is heading this investigation.

Billion Dollar Trust Manager, Fred Damron's home

Fred owned and resided in this home located at 1282 Highland Drive, Saint Albans, WV.

Ginger Lee Rose Hagerman (aka Ginger Hagerman, Ginger L. Hagerman, Ginger Rose) declared personal bankruptcy in 2002. The address of the billion dollar charity - 799 Hunt Street - is her home apartment #13. As of 2002, she had been living off of government disability payments for three years and accumulated $34,000 in outstanding credit card and retail charge card debt. There's some interesting documentation in the court records about her having to amend her social security number that she used on the initial filings.

Companies Associated with Fred Damron & Ginger Hagerman:

GUARDIANS FOR LIVING FOUNDATION, INC.

799 HUNT STREET
ASHLAND , KY 41101

President: GINGER L HAGERMAN
Secretary: HAZEL B DAMRON
Director : GINGER L. HAGERMAN
Director : CHARLES O LEWIS
Director: HAZEL B DAMRON

RIGHTS OF THE CHILD FOUNDATION
799 HUNT STREET
ASHLAND , KY 41101

President: GINGER L HAGERMAN
Secretary: HAZEL B DAMRON
Director : GINGER L. HAGERMAN
Director : CHARLES O LEWIS
Director: HAZEL B DAMRON

GENESIS ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC.
799 HUNT STREET
ASHLAND , KY 41101

President: GINGER L HAGERMAN
Director : GINGER L. HAGERMAN
Director : CHARLES O LEWIS
Director: HAZEL B DAMRON

GENESIS ASSET MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC
799 HUNT STREET
ASHLAND , KY 41101

Manager: GINGER L HAGERMAN

THE PERFECT RIDE, INC.
799 HUNT STREET
ASHLAND , KY 41101

President: GINGER L HAGERMAN
Secretary: HAZEL B DAMRON
Treasurer: HAZEL B DAMRON
Director : GINGER L. HAGERMAN
Director : CHARLES O LEWIS
Director: HAZEL B DAMRON

Everyone should be aware of with whom they are dealing so that they are not taken advantage of like so many others were in the recent Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust scam in which these two were involved.

Accomplices in this scam were:

Bob Pearson & Jeanie Pearson d/b/a

My Benefits America

UniqueCo Distribution or UniqueCo Distributing

Dallas, Texas & Plano, Texas

Charles Spradlin / Charles A. Spradlin
Sonship Ministries
Westfield, Indiana

Kent Traynor
Plano, Texas

Edward Allen Young / Ed Young
Ed Young & Associates
Carmel, Indiana

Gregory E. Young / Greg Young
Bancmark Financial

More information on all these individuals located at BEWARE OF BOB PEARSON.

I suspect that these individuals are heavily involved in other scams. If you have any information, please email me at watchoutforbob at yahoo dot com.

FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM and FREE WILL BAPTIST

2007-09-03T15:09:00.001-07:00

Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 11:14 AM
To: Hagan, Mike
Subject: Freedom 7

Mr. Hagan:

I received word today that the FREEDOM 7 program is alive and well. The Free Will Baptist organization is promoting it to their congregations nationwide for Fred Damron & Ginger Hagerman. They are especially active in Oklahoma. They still claim that Fidelity & Guaranty is one of the insurance companies issuing policies on their behalf. Is this true?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, this is not true. We have never endorsed this concept.

Thank you for the information.

-Mike
____________________________
Michael Hagan, CFE
Forensic Investigator
Old Mutual Financial Network
OM Financial LifetOM Financial Life of New York
Phone: 410.895.0015
FAX: 410.895.0295 Email: mike.hagan@omfn.com

The Freedom 7 program is currently being promoted by the National Free Will Baptist organization. Free Will Baptist leaders have been made aware of these people's past and the fact that they are under investigation, but they continue to allow their members to submit personal information to these individuals.

This program was to have established an Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (ILIT) for people who they approved. Any policies that were issued to MBA members were canceled due to non-payment. Of course, this begs the question, "why were they gathering all this personal information if they weren't going to pay for the policies"? The State of Oklahoma has issued a CEASE & DESIST order for Guardians For Living, MBA and it's employees. You can get a copy of the order from:

Sherry Standerfer, Legal Assistant
Oklahoma Insurance Department
P. O. Box 53408
Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3408
(405) 521-2748

sherrystanderfer@insurance.state.ok.us

The life insurance companies who were involved (even though they didn't know it) have opened fraud investigations. It is my understanding that some of the companies have taken steps to drop some of the agents from writing business for their companies.

Guardians For Living/Bancmark Financial
FREEDOM 7 DOCUMENTS

Advertisers this Letter below is for your eyes only

How To Determine If One Can Become A Qualified Person

Questions and Answers For Pastor Ray

Bancmark Advertiser Explanation Letter

FREEDOM 7 INVITATION

FREEDOM 7 Frequently Asked Questions

Compensation and Bonus Schedule

Independent Advertisers Letter

INDEPENDENT ADVERTISER AGREEMENT

Business Cards

Calling Card Thoughts

Dear Ministers, Pastors, Christians

Pastor Attention Letter

Who Can Tithe To Whom

Freedom 7 Form (F7F)

Guardians For Living/My Benefits America
FREEDOM 7 DOCUMENTS

INDEPENDENT ENROLLER AGREEMENT

MY BENEFITS AMERICA INC. “RD” AGREEMENT

Dates and email addresses used to notify the National Free Will Baptist:

To: keith@nafwb.org
Date: 1/12/2007
Subject: FREEDOM 7, GUARDIANS FOR LIVING

To: keith@nafwb.org
Date: 2/10/2007
Subject: FREEDOM 7 - Fidelity & Guaranty INVESTIGATION

To: dari@nafwb.org, melody@nafwb.org, steve@nafwb.org, debbie@nafwb.org, roy@nafwb.org
Date: 2/27/2007
Subject: FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM

To: jpuckett3@cox.net
Date: 1/12/2007
Subject: FREEDOM 7, GUARDIANS FOR LIVING

To: jpuckett3@cox.net
Date: 2/10/2007
Subject: Fidelity & Guaranty Investigation

Fred Damron Trying to Get Out of Paying for His Son's College Education

2007-09-03T15:07:00.000-07:00

Fred Damron Fights Son's College Tuition Costs, but is a Record Producer???

"John Darin Rowsey is working on a new project with one of Christian Music's newest artists,Angie Caserta. You'll be hearing more about her. She's pictured here to the far left with John and executive producers Fred Damron and Ginger Hagerman."

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

January 2007 Term

___________

No. 33185

___________

CAROLE E. DAMRON SHORTT,

Petitioner Below, Appellee

FREDERICK CECIL DAMRON,

Respondent Below, Appellant

________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County

Hon. Tod J. Kaufman, Judge

Case No. 87-C-1254

AFFIRMED

________________________________________________________

Submitted: April 4, 2007

Filed: May 10, 2007

Mark A. Swartz, Esq. Charles R. Webb, Esq.
Swartz & Stump Charleston, West Virginia
Charleston, West Virginia Attorney for Appellant
Attorney for Appellee

JUSTICE STARCHER delivered the Opinion of the Court.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1. “In reviewing challenges to findings made by a family court judge that also were adopted by a circuit court, a three-pronged standard of review is applied. Under these circumstances, a final equitable distribution order is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard; the underlying factual findings are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of law and statutory interpretations are subject to a de novo review.”
Syllabus Point 1, Burnside v. Burnside, 194 W.Va. 263, 460 S.E.2d 264 (1995).

2. W.Va. Code, 48-2-15d [1993] was amended in 1994 (using language now codified at W.Va. Code, 48-11-103(c) [2002]) to authorize courts to vacate the provisions of certain divorce orders entered under the authority of W.Va. Code, 48-2-15d [1993] that required a parent to pay for a child's post-majority college expenses without the agreement of the parent.

3. “This Court may, on appeal, affirm the judgment of the lower court when it appears that such judgment is correct on any legal ground disclosed by the record, regardless of the ground, reason or theory assigned by the lower court as the basis for its judgment.” Syllabus Point 2, Barnett v. Wolfolk, 149 W.Va. 246, 140 S.E.2d 466 (1965).

Starcher, J.:

In this case, we clarify the relationship between two versions of a statute relating to court orders requiring a divorced parent to pay for the college expenses of a child who has reached the age of majority.

I.
Facts & Background

The appellant in the instant case is Frederick Cecil Damron; the appellee is Carole Eileen Shortt. Mr. Damron and Ms. Shortt were married in 1982. In 1987, Ms. Shortt filed for divorce in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. (See footnote 1) At the time of their divorce, the parties had two children: Stuart Frederick Damron, (See footnote 2) who was four years old, and Alexander Thomas Damron, who was one year old.

On May 14, 1987, the parties entered into a written property settlement agreement. The parties' settlement agreement included a provision that stated, inter alia:

Husband agrees to underwrite the expense of providing the minor child/children of the parties with a post-high school education and to pay all tuition, fees, books, costs, and expenses relative to said child/children attending an accredited college, university, vocational or trade school of said child/children's choice; provided said child/children are full time students; provided they maintain at least a 2.0 grade point average after their Freshman year; provided they graduate by the time they attain the age of twenty-four (24) years; and provided the cost of said education does not exceed the cost of said children attending West Virginia University.

The terms of the property settlement agreement were incorporated into the circuit court's August 3, 1987 final divorce order (which also formally divorced the parties). The order stated:

It is further ordered and adjudged that the Defendant underwrite the expense of providing the minor child/children of the parties with a post high-school education and to pay all tuition, fees, books, costs, and expenses relative to said child/children attending an accredited college, university, vocational or trade school of said child/children's choice, provided said child/children are full time students; provided they maintain at least a 2.0 grade point average after their Freshman year; provided they graduate by the time they attain the age of twenty- four (24) years; and provided the cost of said education does not exceed the cost of said children attending West Virginia University.

In the fall of 2004, the parties' youngest son Alexander enrolled in Clemson University, a private college located in South Carolina. (See footnote 3) The appellant refused to pay for any of Alexander's college expenses. On August 30, 2004, as Alexander was beginning his freshman year at Clemson, Ms. Shortt filed a petition, pro se, in the Family Court of Kanawha County, seeking to hold Mr. Damron in contempt of the circuit court's 1987 final divorce order and seeking reimbursement for a portion of Alexander's college expenses.

After a hearing on Ms. Shortt's petition, on October 24, 2005, the family court entered an order concluding that W.Va. Code, 48-11-103(c) [2002] (See footnote 4) (discussed further hereinafter) required the vacation of the provision in the 1987 final divorce order that required Mr. Damron to pay Alexander's college expenses. (See footnote 5)

However, the family court also concluded that the parties' written settlement agreement was independently enforceable, and that Mr. Damron was contractually required to pay Alexander's college expenses based on the settlement agreement.

In support of these conclusions, the family court stated:

In a separation agreement a party may contractually agree to undertake an obligation that the law would not otherwise impose upon him and be bound by that agreement. There was no evidence that Mr. Damron's agreement to pay college expenses was procured through fraud, duress or other unconscionable conduct. W.Va. Code §48-11-103(c) [2002] does not require that a separation agreement providing for payment of college expenses be vacated and, therefore, the separation agreement may be enforced against Mr. Damron. [Paragraph numbers omitted.]

On November 22, 2005, Mr. Damron appealed the family court's ruling to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. On December 14, 2005, the circuit court entered an order affirming the family court's order. Mr. Damron now appeals from the circuit court's order.

II.
Standard of Review

In reviewing challenges to findings made by a family court judge that also were adopted by a circuit court, a three-pronged standard of review is applied. Under these circumstances, a final equitable distribution order is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard; the underlying factual findings are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard; and questions of law and statutory interpretations are subject to a de novo review.

Syllabus Point 1, Burnside v. Burnside, 194 W.Va. 263, 460 S.E.2d 264 (1995).

III.
Discussion

As previously noted, the circuit court relied upon language in W.Va. Code, 48- 11-103(c) [2002] (formerly codified at W.Va. Code, 48-2-15d [1994] and quoted hereinafter) to vacate the college expense payment provision of the parties' divorce order.

The briefs of both parties in the instant case assume that the circuit court's statute-based vacation of this portion of the divorce order was correct, and focus their discussion on the issue of the enforceability of the parties' separation agreement.

However, this Court has concluded, for the following-discussed reasons, that the circuit court erred in relying on W.Va. Code, 48-11-103(c) [2002] to vacate the college expense payment provisions of the parties' 1987 divorce order.

To properly understand the order “vacation” provisions of W.Va. Code, 48-11- 103(c) [2002], it is necessary to first understand West Virginia law in this area prior to 1993. While this Court's research has not disclosed anything in West Virginia's pre-1993 statutory law that specifically authorized a court to require the payment of a child's post-majority college expenses, our case law did clearly recognize that divorce orders that required a divorced parent to pay post-majority support for a child were enforceable _ if the order reflected a voluntary agreement by the parent to pay such support.

As this Court stated in Martin v. Martin, 175 W.Va. 542, 549, 346 S.E.2d 346 S.E.2d 61, 62 (1985) (per curiam):

There is nothing in the law, however, which precludes a parent from contracting to support his or her children after they reach the age of legal capacity. See In re Estate of Hereford, 162 W.Va. 477, 250 S.E.2d 45 (1978); Dimitroff v. Dimitroff, 159 W.Va. 57, 281 S.E.2d 743 (1975).

In 1993, W.Va. Code, 48-2-15d [1993] was enacted, and stated in pertinent part:

(b) The court may make an award for educational and related expenses for an adult child up the age of twenty-three who has been accepted or is enrolled and making satisfactory progress in an educational program at a certified or accredited college. The amount of these payments shall be related to the ability of the parent to make the payments. The payments shall be made to
the custodial parent when the adult child is residing with that parent or to a third party as designated by the court. If the child is not residing with a parent, the payments shall be paid to the child or to such third parties as so designated by the court.

This new statutory section specifically allowed courts to require a divorced parent to pay the college expenses of a child who was past the age of the child's majority _ without the agreement of the parent.

However, in 1994, only a year later, W.Va. Code, 48-2-15d [1993] was amended _ adding the order “vacation” language that is now codified at W.Va. Code, 48-11- 103(c) [2002]. The pertinent statutory language states:

The reenactment of this section during the regular session of the Legislature in the year one thousand nine hundred ninety- four shall not, by operation of the law, have any effect upon or vacate any order or portion thereof entered under the prior enactment of this section which awarded educational and related expenses for an adult child accepted or enrolled and making satisfactory progress in an educational program at a certified or accredited college. Any such order or portion thereof shall continue in full force and effect until the court, upon motion of a party, modifies or vacates the order upon finding that:

(1) The facts and circumstances which supported the entry of the original order have changed, in which case the order may be modified;

(2) The facts and circumstances which supported the entry of the original order no longer exist because the child has not been accepted or is not enrolled in and making satisfactory progress in an educational program at a certified or accredited college, or the parent ordered to pay such educational and related expenses is no longer able to make such payments, in which case the order shall be vacated;

(3) The child, at the time the order was entered, was under the age of sixteen years, in which case the order shall be vacated;

(4) The amount ordered to be paid was determined by an application of child support guidelines in accordance with the provisions of section eight, article two, chapter forty-eight-a of this code or legislative rules promulgated thereunder, in which case the order may be modified or vacated; or

(5) The order was entered after the fourteenth day of March, one thousand nine hundred ninety-four, in which case the order shall be vacated.

W.Va. Code, 48-11-103(c) [2002] (emphasis added).

The foregoing-quoted language, currently codified at W.Va. Code, 48-11- 103(c) [2002] and first enacted at W.Va. Code, 48-2-15d [1994], authorizes the vacation of only certain college expense payment orders that were entered under “the prior enactment of this section.” The words “the prior enactment of this section” clearly refer to the 1993 enactment of section 15d, chapter 48, article 2.

Thus, W.Va. Code, 48-2-15d [1993] was amended in 1994 (using language now codified at W.Va. Code, 48-11-103(c) [2002]) to authorize courts to vacate the provisions of certain divorce orders entered under the authority of W.Va. Code, 48-2-15d [1993] that required a parent to pay for a child's post-majority college expenses without the agreement of the parent.

In the instant case, the family court and circuit court concluded that W.Va. Code, 48-11-103(c) [2002] required the vacation of the college expense payment provisions of the parties' 1987 divorce order. (See footnote 6) However, that order was not entered under the authority of the 1993 enactment of W.Va. Code, 48-2-15d [1994]. Rather, the parties' divorce order was entered six years before section 15d even existed. Moreover, the parties' 1987 divorce order reflected the voluntary assumption by Mr. Damron of the duty to pay his son's college expenses. Therefore, W.Va. Code, 48-11-103(c) [2002] does not apply to the parties' divorce order, and the family court and circuit court erred in relying on this statute to vacate the college expense provision of the divorce order.

Having determined that the provision in the parties' 1987 divorce order requiring Mr. Damron to pay a portion of Alexander's college expenses was not subject to vacation under W.Va. Code, 48-11-103(c) [2002], it is not necessary to reach the issue of the separate and independent enforceability of the parties' written separation agreement.

Additionally, we find that the record before this Court does not disclose any other grounds upon which the parties' divorce order is void or unenforceable. This Court has consistently held that:

This Court may, on appeal, affirm the judgment of the lower court when it appears that such judgment is correct on any legal ground disclosed by the record, regardless of the ground, reason or theory assigned by the lower court as the basis for its judgment.

Syllabus Point 2, Barnett v. Wolfolk, 149 W.Va. 246, 140 S.E.2d 466 (1965).

This well-established principle applies in the instant case. We therefore affirm the circuit court's ruling that Mr. Damron has an obligation to pay for Alexander's college expenses as provided in the parties' divorce order, on the grounds that he was required to do so by a valid court order.

IV.
Conclusion

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Footnote: 1

A copy of the original complaint was not included in the record.

Footnote: 2

There are no issues involving Stuart in the instant case.

Footnote: 3

The cost of attending Clemson University in July 2004 was $20,550.00. The cost of attending West Virginia University at the same time was $13,186.00. While the cost of attending Clemson University exceeds the limit mentioned in the property settlement agreement and the divorce decree, the appellee sought only to be reimbursed for the cost of a student attending West Virginia University.

Footnote: 4

The pertinent provisions of W.Va. Code, 48-11-103(c) [2002] were originally codified at W.Va. Code, 48-2-15d [1994].

Footnote: 5

The family court's order stated that the court had “no choice but to vacate the provision of the final order requiring [Mr. Damron] to pay college expenses[,]” upon Mr. Damron's motion for such vacation.

Footnote: 6

The court relied on the grounds that Alexander was under sixteen when the order was entered, W.Va. Code, 48-11-103(c)(3) [2002].

Fred is Indicted on 2 Counts of First-Degree Wanton Endangerment

2007-09-03T14:48:00.000-07:00

Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court Of Appeals

NO. 1999-CA-000674-MR

FREDERICK DAMRON APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM BOYD CIRCUIT COURT

v. HONORABLE KELLEY ASBURY, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 98-CR-00055

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE

OPINION AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: BUCKINGHAM, EMBERTON, AND SCHRODER, JUDGES.

SCHRODER,JUDGE: This is an appeal from a conviction of two counts of second-degree wanton endangerment. Because the trial court did not errin denying appellant's motion for a mistrial and motion for a new trial, we affirm.

On April 1, 1998, Deputy Sheriff Patrick Boggs was attempting to serve a civil summons on appellant, Frederick Damron. Deputy Boggs waited in a parking lot near appellant's workplace, and spotted a Toyota MR2 automobile which he believed belonged to appellant, and recognized appellant as the driver.

Deputy Boggs made eye contact with appellant, after which appellant sped off. Deputy Boggs followed appellant to the highway. A high speed chase ensued down I-64, during which a car and a tanker truck had to swerve to avoid the MR2. When the MR2 reached West Virginia,Deputy Boggs was ordered over the police radio to terminate the pursuit. At one point during the chase, Deputy Boggs was able to get the MR2's license plate number, which was registered to appellant.

A warrant was issued for appellant's arrest, and he turned himself in to the Boyd County sheriff's department on April 3, 1998. On June 11, 1998 appellant was indicted on two counts of first-degree wanton endangerment resulting from his causing the car and truck to swerve. A jury trial was held on March 10, 1999. Appellant's defense at trial was that he was not driving his MR2 that day, rather he was driving a green Oldsmobile that he borrowed from a friend. The jury received instructions on both first- and second-degree wanton endangerment. The jury deliberated for approximately two hours, and returned a verdict of guilty on both counts of second-degree wanton endangerment, recommending a sentence of 12 months in jail and a $500 fine. Defense counsel requested that the jury be polled.

The trial judge then asked each juror individually if this was their verdict. Each of the jurors responded yes, until the court asked juror Donald Dulan, who replied "No". The court asked juror Dulan again, and he again replied in the negative. The foreperson told the court "Your Honor, I understood we all voted in agreement."Defense counsel moved for a mistrial. The court noted that the verdict must be unanimous, and sent the jury back to deliberate further. The jury returned after several minutes, with the same verdict. This time,when the jurors were polled, all of the jurors, including Dulan, responded "yes" when asked if that was their verdict. On March 17,1999, appellant filed a motion for new trial, on the grounds that the jury verdict was not unanimous. The trial court denied the motion on March 22, 1999, and this appeal followed:

On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court committed reversible error in denying appellant's motion for mistrial and motion for a new trial, because the jury verdict was not unanimous. When a jury verdict is announced, RCr 9.88 allows either party to require that the jury be polled, which is done by the clerk's or court's asking each juror if it is his verdict.

If,upon the poll, there is not unanimous concurrence, the verdict cannot be received. RCr 9.88. In Hart v. Commonwealth, Ky. App., 768 S.W.2d 552z9(1989), a poll of the jury following their initial return of a guilty verdict revealed that one juror was ambiguous in her position. The defendant moved for a mistrial after this juror gave her ambiguous response. The court denied the motion and sent the jury back for further deliberations, after which the jury returned a second guilty verdict. The second poll of the jury revealed no lack of unanimity. This Court held that under KRS 29A.320(3)(e), the trial court was authorized to send the jury back for further deliberations after the initial jury poll revealed the juror's ambiguous opinion. Id.at 555. KRS 29A.320(3)(e) states that when the jury is polled, "If more than the number of jurors required by KRS 29A.280, as appropriate to the type of case being tried, answers in the negative, the jury must be sent out for further deliberation."

As the instant case was a criminal case, requiring a unanimous verdict,the trial court could not receive the verdict when juror Dulan responded "No". RCr 9.88; KRS 29A.280(3). Per KRS 29A.320(3)(e), when juror Dulan answered in the negative, it was appropriate for the trial court to send the jury back for further deliberation.

Appellant incorrectly cites Coomer v. Commonwealth, Ky., 238 S.W.2d 161 (1951) and Johnson v. Commonwealth, 308 Ky. 709,215 S.W.2d 838 (1948), for the proposition that, unlike in Hart, in which a juror merely expressed misgivings, when a juror states a definite "No", that there must be a mistrial, because the jury verdict is not unanimous. Coomer and Johnson are readily distinguishable from Hart and the instant case. In Coomer, the trial court erred by accepting a guilty verdict, in spite of the fact that during the poll of the jury, one juror stated that he was forced to sign the verdict. In Johnson, the trial court erred when it received the verdict without conducting a poll of the jury, over defendant's objection.

In the instant case, the trial court did not receive the verdict after the poll revealed it was not at that point unanimous, but properly sent the jury back for further deliberations. KRS 29A.320(3)(e). When the jury returned the second time, the poll of the jury was unanimous, with the previously dissenting juror, Dulan, answering "Yes". To establish an absence of unanimity, upon being polled, the juror must connote that the verdict was given involuntarily, or was forced upon him, or against his will. Fleming v. Commonwealth, Ky., 419 S.W.2d 754 (1967). When juror Dulan replied "Yes" in the second poll, he did not indicate that the verdict was in any way involuntary or against his will.

Appellant further argues, that, at the very least, juror Dulan should have been examined to determine whether his
change in vote was influenced by coercion or threats. However, in Hart, this Court indicated that such an inquiry is not always necessary. In Hart, the second poll of the jury revealed no lack of unanimity, however, the defendant alleged that the trial court erred by not interviewing at length the juror who had misgivings after the first poll, to determine whether the second guilty verdict was, in fact, unanimous. Hart, 768 S.W.2d at 554-555.

This Court held that as none of the jurors had indicated any coercion, the trial court had no duty to interrogate the juror at length simply because she had previously expressed misgivings as to the initial guilty verdict. Id.at 555. Similarly, in the instant case, the trial judge had no duty to make such an inquiry of Dulan, as the second poll revealed no lack of unanimity, and neither Dulan nor any of the other jurors indicated any coercion.

Absent an abuse of discretion, a trial court’s decision whether or not to grant a mistrial will not be disturbed. Miller v. Commonwealth, Ky., 925 S.W.2d 449, 453 (1996). The granting of a new trial is a matter of judicial discretion, and unless there has been an abuse of discretion, an appellate court will not reverse. Jillson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 461 S.W.2d 542, 545

Fred Damron & The Dollar Trust

2007-09-03T14:45:00.000-07:00

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Charles William Adams Case Number: 1:04-MC-10193

Unrepresented Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________

VERIFIED STATEMENT OF FACT

and MOTION FOR VOID JUDGMENT

NOW COMES THE PLAINTIFF, a Natural Man, the Sovereign Creator of his servant government, a creation of Our Creator, Sui Juris, who under threat, duress and coercion, petitioned and invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for the constrained purpose of this case 04-MC-10193 pursuant to his First Amendment right to redress and never knowingly or unknowingly waiving any his rights herein presents the following Verified Statement Of Fact and Motion For Void Judgment, concerning Judge Rya Zobel’s “REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION” of November 2, 2004 and presented to the Plaintiff and Defendant for the first time on January 11, 2005.

Notice To Judge Rya Zobel

The purpose of this notice is to establish the facts at issue in a controversy that has arisen between us due to the fact that you practiced law from the bench and issued a “REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION” inventing arguments in favor of the defendant which were never presented by the defendant (the government) without proper authority to do so and discarding any appearance of impartiality. Therefore the Plaintiff, having no due process in this court in which the defendant is represented by both the US Attorney and the judge may have no alternative but to take this controversy before another U.S. Court or a higher court. In order that each of us has the facts before us, I am, therefore, stating the verified facts that I am willing to swear to in court and which will be proven by the record. This is your opportunity to rebut the verified facts as I have enumerated them below. Any factual statement that you do not specifically rebut UNDER OATH will stand as undisputed verified fact in any future legal proceeding.

Please carefully review each numbered statement of fact, and if you disagree with such fact, state the reasons for your disagreement UNDER OATH, along with rebuttal. List each of your rebuttals, numbering them according to the number as listed below. If you do not specifically contest any fact listed below, I will be forced to conclude that you do not disagree with such fact.

VERIFIED STATEMENT OF FACTS

A pro-se Plaintiff is to be held to a less stringent standard than professional attorneys. Judge Zobel, under her Oath of Office and Judicial Canons, is required to be fair to all litigants.

“… allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers…” Haines v. Kerner, 404 US 519 (1972).

Judge Rya Zobel denied even the illusion of impartiality and due process for the Plaintiff when she practiced law from the bench and created arguments for the defendant when she wrote and presented her “REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION” dated November 2, 2004.

At no time did the defendant ever even bother to present any rebuttal at all to the Plaintiff’s arguments concerning the authority of the IRS agents to obtain search warrants or carry firearms on warrants other than subtitle E activities. When the defendant never even responded and therefore defaulted Judge Rya Zobel discarded her role as impartial judge weighing the facts of each side and with extreme prejudice invented arguments for the defendant and presented them in her “REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION” dated November 2, 2004.

The court has shown blatant prejudice in favor of the defendant at all times during these proceeding including but not limited to sealing the plaintiff’s case so he could not obtain dockets or other information about his own case against the government. Without access to copies of the docket the plaintiff has no way to know when the government or the judge has entered and filings in this case. It is impossible for the plaintiff to obtain due process when his case against the government has been sealed.

There is no order in the sealed docket to seal his case so there is obvious collusion between the US Attorney and either Judge Rya Zobel or her agents or underlings in the court to impede the plaintiff in the prosecution of this case.

Judge Zobell acceded to fraud, perhaps unknowingly, perpetrated on the Court by the IRS agents and the U.S. Attorneys. It is possible that all parties to the fraud had no knowledge of this fraud; however, officials in this case now have full knowledge of this illegal activity and can be held accountable for any further unlawful activities and failures to take corrective measures. All willing participants of the perpetrated fraud also acceded to and perpetrated a deprivation of the Constitutional rights of the Plaintiff.

The agents involved in these actions for the IRS are specifically excluded by title from obtaining warrants actions under subtitle A and subtitle C by 26 USC 7608. The defendant (the government) has never disputed this fact in this case.

The agents involved in these actions for the IRS are specifically excluded by 26 USC 7608 from carrying firearms except when the warrants involve “Subtitle E” activities which are Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The defendant (the government) has never disputed this fact in this case.

Judge Rya Zobel, you have indeed acted outside of your lawful authority by practicing law from the bench when you invented arguments for the defendant who never even bothered to respond to the facts specifically stated as #8 and #9 in this affidavit. Since the defendant has never bothered to respond they are in default and acquiesce to the fact that these claims are the undisputed truth. All officials may be held liable under U.S. Supreme Court rulings as follows.

“Personal-capacity suits, on the other hand, seek to impose individual liability upon a government officer for actions taken under color of state law. Thus, ‘[o]n the merits, to establish personal liability in a 1983 action, it is enough to show that the official, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation of a federal right.’ Id., at 166.” HAFER v. MELO, 502 U.S. 21 (1991).

“When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their "individual" capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers) and lose the shield of immunity.” Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr, 952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991).

“Personal involvement in deprivation of constitutional rights is prerequisite to award of damages, but defendant may be personally involved in constitutional deprivation by direct participation, failure to remedy wrongs after learning about it, creation of a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occur or gross negligence in managing subordinates who cause violation.” (Gallegos v. Haggerty, N.D. of New York, 689 F. Supp. 93 (1988).

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda, 384 US 436, at 491.

"No State legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his Undertaking to support it". Cooper Vs. Aaron. 358 U.S. 1 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).

Judge Rya Zobel, perhaps unknowingly and unwillingly you have abandoned your role as impartial arbiter between the parties involved. Is it possible that you have been forced into this action by terrorist or extortion threats of the IRS or by your employer the defendant?

“No sophisticated person is unaware that the Internal Revenue Service has been in possession of facts with respect to public officials which it has presented or shelved in order to serve what can only be called political ends, be they high or low. And a judge who knows the score is aware that every time his decisions offend the Internal Revenue Service, he is inviting a close inspection of his records.” Lord v. Kelley, 240 F.Supp. 167 (1965).

Judge Zobel, I believe your “REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION” was based on erroneous assumptions and distorted conceptions of law and facts and that you used these preconceived notions to invent arguments for your employer, the defendant without relying on the following U.S. Supreme Court rulings:

28 USC Sec. 455, and Marshall v Jerrico Inc., 446 US 238, 242, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 64 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1980): "The Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases. This requirement of neutrality in adjudicative proceedings safeguards the two central concerns of procedural due process, the prevention of unjustified or mistaken deprivations and the promotion of participation and dialogue by affected individuals in the decisionmaking process. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259-262, 266-267 (1978). The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law."

“Parties who, by the constitution and laws of the United States, have a right to have their controversies decided in their tribunals, have a right to demand the unbiased judgment of the court.” PEASE v. PECK, 59 U.S. 595 (1855).

“It is true that no one has a vested right in any particular rule of the common law, but it is also true that the legislative power of a state can only be exerted in subordination to the fundamental principles of right and justice which the guaranty of due process in the Fourteenth Amendment is intended to preserve, and that a purely arbitrary or capricious exercise of that power whereby a wrongful and highly injurious invasion of property rights, as here, is practically sanctioned and the owner stripped of all real remedy, is wholly at variance with those principles.” TRUAX v. CORRIGAN, 257 U.S. 312, 330 (1921).

NOTICE TO Honorable Rya Zobel

If you fail to respond within 15 days the Plaintiff will be forced to conclude that you have been acting against the Plaintiff without authority of law. Plaintiff will, thereafter, commence a lawsuit against you. Your actions have caused the Plaintiff very much mental and emotional hardship, financial losses, along with expenses and losses suffered by your unauthorized actions.

Plaintiffs call your attention to the following rulings:

“When lawsuits are brought against federal officials, they must be brought against them in their "individual" capacity not their official capacity. When federal officials perpetrate constitutional torts, they do so ultra vires (beyond the powers) and lose the shield of immunity.” Williamson v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 815 F.2d. 369, ACLU Foundation v. Barr, 952 F.2d. 457, 293 U.S. App. DC 101, (CA DC 1991).

" ... where an act is done in the clear absence of all jurisdiction and this is known to the judge there is no immunity. Johnson v. MacCoy, 278 F2d 37 (9th Cir., 1960); Kenney V. Fox, 232 F 2d 288 ..." Rhodes v. Houston; 202 Fed Supp. 624

A ruling in violation of precedent rulings is the performance of an unconstitutional act by a judge: “Rule 28A(i) expands the judicial power beyond the limits set by article III by allowing us complete discretion to determine which judicial decisions will bind us and which will not. Insofar as it limits the precedential effect of our prior decisions, the Rule is therefore unconstitutional.” Anastasoff v. United States of America 223 F.3d 898 (8^th Cir. 2000).

The Court in Yates Vs. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that, "Not every action by any judge is in exercise of his judicial function. It is not a judicial function for a Judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the Courthouse, when a judge acts as a Trespasser of the Law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject matter jurisdiction and the Judge's orders are void, of no legal force or effect."

“An instrumentality of Government he might be and for the greatest ends, but the agent, because he is agent, does not cease to be answerable for his acts.” BRADY v. ROOSEVELT STEAMSHIP CO., 317 U.S. 575 (1943).

"There is also a general rule that if any officer- ministerial or otherwise- acts outside the scope of his jurisdiction and without authorization of law, he is liable in an action for damages for injuries suffered by a citizen as a result thereof." Cooper v. O'Connor, 99 F.2d 135, 137, 138 (D.C. Cir. 1938) See also Estrada v. Hills, 401 F.Supp. 429, 434 (N.D.Ill. 1975).

Plaintiff, hereby, await your response and/or rebuttals. If the Honorable Rya Zobel needs additional response time, please notify Plaintiff within the 15 day time period.

“Judgments entered where court lacked either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside”. Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.1994. 158 F.R.D. 278.

“Void order which is one entered by court which lacks jurisdiction over parties or subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter judgment, or order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that party is properly before court”, People ex rel. Brzica v. Village of Lake Barrington, 644 N.E.2d 66 (Ill.App. 2 Dist. 1994).

“A ‘void’ judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack (thus here, by ). No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen the old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been.” 10/13/58 FRITTS v. KRUGH. SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97.

“Decision is void on the face of the judgment roll when from four corners of that roll, it may be determined that at least one of three elements of jurisdiction was absent: (1) jurisdiction over parties, (2) jurisdiction over subject matter, or (3) jurisdictional power to pronounce particular judgment that was rendered”, B & C Investments, Inc. v. F & M Nat. Bank & Trust, 903 P.2d 339 (Okla. App. Div. 3, 1995).

Plaintiff Charles William Adams, A Natural Person, a Creator of Government and a Creation of Our Creator hereby files this Motion for Void Judgment with this Honorable Court based on the following:

MOTION TO VACATE FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Judge Rya Zobel allegedly issued the “REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION” dated November 2, 2004. Since the document contained arguments for the defendant that the defendant never even presented the Pro-se Plaintiff needs to be assured that it was Judge Zobel and not someone else who wrote the “REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION”. Defendants respectfully demand that Judge Zobel signs the proposed order of the earlier motion.

2. Since this chain of events was all started by the IRS, and the Plaintiff is aware of previous threats to judges by the IRS, and therefore, in order to obtain justice against intimidation or threats, the Plaintiff respectfully demands that Judge Zobel provide a sworn statement that there have been no communications with the IRS or threats by the IRS or any government agents or by her employer or anyone working for the US Attorney(s).

Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully demands that Judge Zobel provide a copy of her Oath of Office, in order to establish personal jurisdiction for issuance of the order.

Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully demands that Judge Zobel sign a statement under Oath that there have been no communications between Judge Zobel and any official of the IRS or other governmental official, without the Plaintiffs being informed.

Wherefore, Defendants respectfully demand that Judge Zobel sign a statement under Oath that there have been no threats made to her by the IRS or any other government agent, real or implied.

Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully demand that Judge Zobel issue an Order to vacate the “REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION” dated November 2, 2004.

Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully demand that Judge Zobel issue an order to immediately pronounce the search warrants 04M-1053-JGD and 04M-1055-JGD void ab initio and the property taken from 221 Madison Street during the raid per those warrants to be immediately returned to the Plaintiff at 42 Monroe Street, Norwood Massachusetts and all evidence obtained to be quashed ab initio and the Plaintiff to be made whole by the return of all property, licenses and his good name and standing.

Submitted by:

_____________________________ _________________________________

Clyde W. Goodguy Rea B. Goodguy

Dated: ____________________

Notary: The above signed have presented themselves before me and have properly identified themselves.

Here is Clyde's information:

Clyde W. Goodguy, individually and in his capacity as the trustee of "THE DOLLAR TRUST, et al.

REA B. Goodguy (Wife)

Clyde W. Goodguy, Corporation Sole

Box 227
Freedom, WY 83120
Phone: 208-873-2760

Email: cwGoodguy@silverstar.com

Sincerely,

Frederick C. Damron
130 South Cold Springs Road
Olive Hill, KY 41164
Phone: 606-286-4096
Fax: 606-286-0286
Email: fdamron@ezwv.com

Fred Damron & Exousia Foundation

2007-09-03T14:43:00.000-07:00

China Foundation: About Us
IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE

Only persons whose names are officially listed on this website are associated with the China Foundation. Recently the following persons and/or entities have contacted numerous companies requesting a line of credit or credit facility utilizing an euroclear chip and claiming to be associated with the China Foundation. Please be advised that these people or entities do NOT have any relationship with the China Foundation based in the United States. The China Foundation (USA) does not own an Euroclear chip. As we do not know these people, the China Foundation takes no position one way or another in connection with these persons or entities.

The following persons and entities have NO relationship with the China Foundation (USA):

MR. HUI-TE CHAO
MS. MANG-LI WANG
MR. GEORGE PATERSON
MR. WILLIAM S. SASS
MR. ROBERT C.H. YU
INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LAW OFFICE
FACILITY GROUP, INC.
NOIR INTERTRADE CORP
Mr. Tom Hekenkamp
Mr. Yasa Niga Azwirmam
Charles Spradlin, Robert Earl Palm, Frederick Damron, Paul Ross, or any other of Exousia Foundation Ltd.

If you have been contacted by any of the above persons or entities or if you have any questions please immediately contact legal@chinafoundation.net

And here is Fred purporting to be part of this group:

UNITED EURO WORLD BANKING CORPORATIONS WORLDWIDE

UNITY MEMBERS

1.- EXOUSIA FOUNDATION LTD. / Mr. Charles A Spradlin, S.

2.- THE CHINA FOUNDATION / Mr. R. E. P

all ( protected Names )

and Mr. Frederick C. Damron

Fred Damron's Case in United States Bankruptcy Court

2007-09-03T14:39:00.000-07:00

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
ASHLAND DIVISION

IN RE: MARY GAIL FOWLER
DEBTOR CASE NO. 01-10615
MEMORANDUM OPINION

1. Background

This matter is before the court on a motion to recuse filed herein on October 9, 2003 and a second filing on the same matter of December 8, 2003, both by Frederick Damron ("Damron"). Damron is a former spouse of the debtor. He identifies himself as a creditor in this case although he is not scheduled as a creditor. In some pleadings he identifies himself as an "interested party," although he has not demonstrated that he has standing as an interested party. Damron's involvement in this case centers around the case trustee's administration of estate property in which Damron asserts that he has an interest, real estate located at 16230 Bowling Drive, Catlettsburg, Kentucky. He also asserts an interest in a 1992 Corvette automobile.

In the course of the divorce of the debtor and Damron, the report and recommendation of the domestic relations commissioner of the Boyd Circuit Court was that the subject real property, as well as the 1992 Corvette, be awarded to the debtor. This report was confirmed and adopted by the Boyd Circuit court. Damron appealed the order of the Boyd Circuit Court to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Boyd Circuit Court's award of the real property and the Corvette to the debtor, free of any claim of Damron. Damron moved the Supreme Court of Kentucky for discretionary review of the decision of the Court of Appeals; that motion was denied. He then petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari regarding the Court of Appeals' decision. That petition was denied.

On November 13, 2001, the trustee filed adversary proceeding No. 01-1011 alleging the debtor's fraudulent transfer of the subject real property and the Corvette automobile to her daughter. The matter was eventually settled for the sum of $100,000.00. The trustee had retained counsel on a one-third contingency basis, and counsel filed his application for allowance of compensation on July 18, 2002, seeking $33,333.33, plus costs incurred. Damron's mother, Hazel Damron, was scheduled as a creditor in this case. On August 6, 2002 she filed an objection to the fee application. Her objection was overruled, and on September 24, 2002, an order was entered granting counsel his fee and costs.

On January 22, 2003 the trustee moved the court to employ counsel to clear title to the property at an hourly rate of $175.00. On March 24, 2003, an amended order was entered allowing the trustee to employ counsel on that basis. The trustee then filed a motion to sell the real property. Despite having no interest in the properties, Damron began filing a variety of pro se motions and objections, the primary purpose of which was to stop the sale. An order granting the motion to sell was entered on July 17, 2003. Damron filed more motions and objections, eventually filing a total of approximately 20, including his motions to recuse as set out above.

On July 18, 2003 Damron also attempted to file two claims in this case, Claim No. 3 in regard to the subject real property in the amount of $100,000.00 and Claim No. 4 in regard to the Corvette automobile in the amount of $20,000.00. The trustee objected to these claims on August 1, 2003, on the basis of their having been filed more than a year and a half after the last date to file claims in this case. On September 8, 2003, the court entered an order sustaining the trustee's objections and disallowing the claims. The order recites that Damron's interest in the subject real property and the Corvette automobile had already been adjudicated and that he had no interest in either the real property or the automobile. Various motions to alter, amend, etc., have been filed with respect to the order disallowing these claims.

The trustee filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011 on July 21, 2003. There she set out the history of Damron's attempts to assert an interest in the subject property in the Kentucky courts. The trustee argued that Damron's filing of motions and proof of claim in regard to the real property when it had already been determined that he had no interest in this property was a violation of Rule 9011 in that all of these filings contained factual assertions that have no factual or evidentiary support. She further argued that the only purpose in filing these documents was to harass and cause unnecessary delay in the sale of the real property that would cause unnecessary delay to the creditors. The trustee requested an order requiring Damron to be sanctioned and for reasonable attorney fees. On September 17, 2003, after a hearing at which the court offered to allow Damron to withdraw his pending motions and claims, an order was entered imposing sanctions on Damron, a $1,000.00 penalty and attorney fees and costs.

The trustee filed a second motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 9011 on October 9, 2003. There she represented that despite previous admonitions and the court's order imposing sanctions, Damron had continued to maintain in subsequent filings that he had an interest in the subject property. The trustee asked for a second order requiring Damron to pay a penalty and attorney fees. As set out above, Damron filed his motion to recuse on the same date, October 9, 2003.

The motion to recuse states that it is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 and 28 U.S.C. § 455, and alleges that the court is completely biased and prejudiced against Damron in this matter. It alleges impropriety on the part of the court and the trustee, all of which involves the prosecution of this case. It specifically alleges, among other things, that the court suggested to the trustee that she hire "his former law clerk" as counsel, allowed a contingent fee arrangement in counsel's representation of the trustee in Adv. No. 01-1011 "without a review of reasonableness" when the "local bar" would have charged $3000-$5000, allowed counsel an hourly rate of $175.00 in the action to clear title when the "local bar" charges $130.00 per hour, had ex parte communications with the trustee and her counsel, and allowed the trustee to deplete the estate. These allegations range from outright lies to irrelevancies.

While the court finds no purpose in replying to each specific allegation, the more outrageous among them should be addressed. As concerns the allegation that the court suggested "his former law clerk" as counsel to the trustee, it is outrageous to suggest that the court suggested anyone as counsel. Counsel for the trustee was employed by the Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court as a deputy clerk prior to entering private practice. In that capacity he served for a time as this court's courtroom deputy. He has never been employed as this court's law clerk. Since entering private practice he has represented this and other case trustees on many occasions, and his retention has always been sought and approved pursuant to the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code.

There is further no support for the equally outrageous and untrue allegation that the court had ex parte communications with the trustee and her counsel. Affidavits have been filed by the trustee and her counsel which state that no ex parte communications have occurred. Damron states in the affidavit attached to his motion that "on Monday, October 6, 2003, the Court changed the hearings on Affiants (sic) motions from Ashland to Lexington and from October 6 to October 31, by speaking ex parte to the former law clerk without the presence of the Affiant." The record in this case shows that Damron had set the above-referenced motions to be heard on October 8, 2003 in Ashland. The record further shows that an order was entered on October 6, 2003, rescheduling hearings on Damron's motions for October 31, 2003 in Lexington. Because of the lateness of the order continuing the matter, the court's staff contacted the trustee's counsel with instructions to see that Damron (who receives orders by mail instead of electronically as does counsel for the trustee) was informed of the court's order of continuance so that Damron would not make an unnecessary trip to Ashland. When counsel for trustee indicated inability to contact Damron, the staff member then reached Damron directly to inform him of the continuance. The presiding judge had no contact with either party. Another order was entered on the same day, directing that all future hearings in this case be held in Lexington, and that counsel or pro se filers contact the court's chambers to obtain a hearing date and time. Both of these orders were served on Damron.

2. Legal Analysis

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5004 governs disqualification of a bankruptcy judge. It provides as follows:

(a) Disqualification of Judge. A bankruptcy judge shall be governed by 28 U.S.C. § 455, and disqualified from presiding over the proceeding or contested matter in which the disqualifying circumstance arises or, if appropriate, shall be disqualified from presiding over the case.

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5004(a). The statute referred to in the Rule, 28 U.S.C. § 455, provides in relevant part:

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; ...

28 U.S.C. § 455(a). Damron also cites 28 U.S.C. § 144 which provides:

Whenever a party to any proceeding in a district court makes and files a timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of any adverse party, such judge shall proceed no further therein, but another judge shall be assigned to hear such proceeding.

The affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that the bias or prejudice exists, and shall be filed not less than ten days before the beginning of the term at which the proceeding is to be heard, or good cause shall be shown for failure to file it within such time. A party may file only one such affidavit in any case. It shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record stating that it is made in good faith.

28 U.S.C. § 144. By its own terms, section 144 applies only to district court judges, and not to bankruptcy judges. Bankruptcy judges are subject to recusal only under 28 U.S.C. § 455. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 5004(a). The requirement that the judge assume that the facts asserted in the affidavit referenced in § 144 are true and examine them only for their legal sufficiency is therefore inapplicable here. Smith v. Hale (In re Smith), 317 F.3d 918, 932 (9th Cir. 2002); In re Goodwin, 194 B.R. 214, 221 (B.A.P 9th Cir. 1996); Diaz v. Botet (In re Diaz), 182 B.R. 654, 658 (Bankr. D. Puerto Rico 1995).

The court must therefore decide if there is cause for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. While this statute imposes a duty to recuse where grounds exist, there is also a duty not to do so if no cause is shown. In re Computer Dynamics, Inc., 253 B.R. 693, 698 (E.D. Va. 2000). The standard for determining whether a judge should be disqualified is an objective one: whether a reasonable person with knowledge of all facts would conclude that the judge's impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Since the standard is objective, "the judge need not recuse himself based on the 'subjective view of a party' no matter how strongly that view is held." United States v. Sammons, 918 F.2d 592, 599 (6th Cir. 1990)(citing Browning v. Foltz, 837 F.2d 276, 279 (6th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1018, 109 S. Ct. 816 (1989)).

Damron's motion to recuse is based on unsupported allegations and accusations that this court not only favored the trustee and her counsel, but actively conspired with them to deplete the bankruptcy estate so that they might be personally enriched. As stated above, these allegations are not only untrue, they are outrageous, and no reasonable person would give them any credence. In fact this court has been exceptionally tolerant of Damron and his unceasing efforts to assert an interest in property in which the highest court of Kentucky has already determined that he has no interest. The court's dealings with Damron have been fair and impartial; he has been afforded due process in every instance, with notice and an opportunity to be heard. Rulings in regard to the trustee and her counsel have been made in accordance with the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code. Finally, it should be noted that Damron has also filed a Complaint of Judicial Conduct or Disability with the Judicial Council of the Sixth Circuit. "The filing of a complaint with the Judicial Council is not grounds for disqualification." Winslow v. Winslow, 107 B.R. 752 (D. Colo. 1989).

This court would be remiss in its duties if it recused itself in this instance. As stated by the court in In re Womack, 253 B.R. 245, 246 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2000), "[a]lthough the Court has a duty to recuse where any of [the § 455] factors exist, there is a concomitant duty not to recuse on unsupported, irrational or tenuous speculation." Id. This court will therefore enter a separate order overruling Damron's motion to recuse.

Copies to:

Phaedra Spradlin, Esq., Trustee Ryan R. Atkinson, Esq., Attorney for Trustee

Frederick C. Damron, Pro Se

Debtor

George Stavros, Esq., Attorney for Debtor

Affinity Fraud Cult Target Children & Christians in Insurance Trust Scheme

2007-09-03T14:33:00.000-07:00

By Offshore Informant on 3/29/2007 1:54:16 PM
E-mail: OffshoreInformant@safe-mail.net

"A fraudster leadeth by fraud an inheritance of fraud unto his children's children where the wealth of their victims is laid up for the fraudsters." - a 21st Century Fraud Fighter Proverb 1:1

Prosecuting a global group of affinity fraudsters whom ventured outside their own cult for decades targeting other christians is not as easy to as law enforcement thought, especially when these cult fraudster's attorney once worked as Chief Legal Counsel for the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of the Internal Revenue Service where nowadays Paul Hiram Chappell, Esq. worked from his wheelchair with an office in Maryland and his home-office out of Virginia.

Religions across the entire world have some interesting philosophies and practices, but fraud, and so this is what separates this group (below) from any other religious group of followers.

In 2005, I found myself accidentally interviewing a member of a religious group of fraudsters while investigating the origin of fictitious and fraudulent high-value certificated financial heritance instruments that my 2002 investigation uncovered had been surfacing and being submerged for nearly 23-years.

I traced some of the ring leaders down and found them ranging in age from their late 50s to early 90s, but what I really wasn't expecting to find were high levels of religion tied to these documents the closer I got to the top and when I ran across a cult of fraudsters, as some of the ring leaders, it didn't surprise me until I learned they were raising their children to take their places as fraudsters too.

While my job in Eastern Europe was not searching to uncover Dracula hidden by circus Gypsies in Romania, after I found what I did, not much more would surprise me. I hope this rough report of mine might be of interest to some, hopefully enough to perhaps share with others as well.

Hidden behind an aging group of former Pentecostal ministers whom have been defrauding businessmen around the world for over 27-years, their offspring appear normal to outsiders, however beneath their calm demeanors lie some troubled kids being programmed into fraudsters.

These fraudster parents now see several generations whom are raising their own young families in strict adherence to the dictates of policies sent-down by their parent's through a secretive tribe of non-denominational churches that stretch from Virginia to Indiana, Texas, and Florida.

While these adult children appear normal, part of their religious upbringing is to home school their children, which is not so uncommon these days, but another strict adherence is to the church requirement for not birthing their babies outside their home.

How-To Vette A Christian Prospect Into An Insurance Fraud Victim

Charles A. Spradlin Sr. operates a relatively simple fraud formula based primarily on christians� "net worth" and network marketing of determined christians to see the word of God spread, according to Spradlin, who incorporates a widespread affinity fraud on believers in those who preach the word of God.

Without so-much the brimstone, Spradlin's sure-fire affinity fraud has produced a 5-point how-to list Spradlin calls his "5 Tips" or "Rules Of Thumb Examples" presented to his 'misguided money mule christian soldiers' he calls his "Stewards of Estates" schooled to 'single-out specific christian prospect victim's age 14-yrs. old to 90-yrs. old for an Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (aka) ILIT where Spradlin's primer is based on "christian family net worth."

Spradlin's christian sales soldiers mimic his interpretation of gospel verses accentuated by curious twists that God's bottom-line that christians put on Earth were to seek wealth.

Spradlin's FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM ESTATE ILITs only qualifies wealthy christian prospect victims, whom are told they qualify for what the Lord told them to seek. No-less than, of-course, Spradlin's "FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM ESTATE" Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust.

An affinity fraud where 10% of each christian's legacy wealth is taken from christian family control and manipulated while each christian is still alive by Spradlin and his group of fraudsters to secure loans.

Once christian victims are snagged, signing an "Electronically Signed Secured Promissory Note" and "Security Agreement" form placing their insurance benefits under Trust Protector proxy GENESIS ASSET MANAGEMENT INC. inside the same Ashland, Kentucky office of the Trustee GUARDIANS FOR LIVING LLC operated by a not-so christian fraudster familiar with identity theft, U.S. federal felon Frederick Cecil Damron who also operates as trading platform liaison for Spradlin's Virginia based attorney Paul Hiram Chappell who represents Spradlin's EXOUSIA FOUNDATION LTD. (registered 13FEB04, at: 16209 Oak Ridge Road, Westfield, Indiana 46074, USA) and Spradlin's business partner Robert Earl Palm for THE CHINA FOUNDATION (registered, at: Hong Kong, People's Republic Of China).

This affinity fraud group's leader's goals are to see enough Trust fund insirance benefit funds tied-up in their own holdings to secure multiple loans enabling them to wire transfer multiple sets of funds placed toward $10,000,000 million dollar interest packages within several foreign legacy assets tied to the inheritors of a China Triad Family that controlled the Golden Triangle of herion trade that accepted valuable fine art, precious jewels, and valuable commodity metals over several generations who's representatives are the following two (2) men:

- Dr. G�nter Berthold Horn (St. Augustin, GERMANY); and,

- Mr. Wong Yat Hin (Negeri Sembilan D.K., Seremban, MALAYSIA).

- - - -

COSTS - THE FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM ESTATE ILIT:

#1. Initial $99 U.S. dollars paid for a FREEDOM 7 qualifying "application kit";

Qualified applicant christians (see Spradlin's 5-point list below) for THE FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM ILIT agree to see paid:

#2. 10% of whichever is 'greater': (A.) 'Amount of insurance premiums' or (B.) 'Amount of insurance death benefits' by placement into an Endowment Trust for FREEDOM 7; and,

#3. 10% of 'insurance death benefits' by placement into a FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM participating church; and,

#4. 80% of 'insurance death benefits' by placement spread over 18-years of payments to remaining beneficiaries.

IMPORTANT: FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM ESTATE ILITs are 'irrevocable' and 'cannot be changed'.

(See Further Below)

- - - -

FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM ESTATES

Letter Of Introduction [ circa: 23FEB06 ]

[EXCERPTS (below) FOR BREVITY]

"Dear Ministers, Pastors, Christians:

This is an invitation to you and each of your congregation if you and they desire to possibly create a personal Family Estate each worth up to $1,000,000 or more at no out-of-pocket outlay to you or any congregation members. None! This new estate, separate from any you may now have, is completed with 'private grant funds' similar to college grant funds, which will never be paid back...Private Grants are provided for you so an Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (ILIT) may be set up...In time, these new family estates may each grow for those who qualify into multi-million dollar trusts...If your church were to sign up 100 qualified people - each with an average Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust of $2,000,000 million in value - when it has come time for them to go to be with the LORD their families total benefits would be $200,000,000 million (less their tithes), your church would therefore have received $20,000,000 million in final tithes over the years from this benefit that cost your church and your members nothing out-of-pocket because 'God is doing all of this' with 'private grant money' that is 'never paid back'...The private grants never have to be repaid, in-fact they cannot be repaid because they are grants. These ILITs are comprised of life insurance policies, but you must pass these companies' qualifications, so this is only an invitation for you and others to 'apply'...The 'applicant' does 'not have the ability to select their own charitable organization'...The only way that can happen is if we receive written confirmation of endorsement by that christian church organization proving that they fully support the FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM. Applicants 'cannot select any charitable organization as beneficiary' they wish. They 'cannot' do that...Those participating in FREEDOM 7 'do not have a choice as to whom the charitable amount is donated' to unless it has been endorsed and we receive confirmation of this endorsement by that christian church organization. Endorsement means that 'the christian organization is going to allow its complete membership to receive information and participate in FREEDOM 7' and it is 'endorsed by that christian charitable organization for their membership'....We have rejected certain organizations because it would be considered self-promotion or a conflict of interest. We have to review each organization request on a case-by-case basis....We are compelled here to tell you also, that to those who 'do not qualify' we have 'no alternative program to offer at a cost'." - Pastor Charles A. Spradlin, Sr.

- - - -

Five (5) rules of thumb:

"1. A person projecting less than $25,000 per year income and little or no projected worth will probably 'not be approved' for the FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM and 'will not receive an Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (ILIT)', not for a while anyway, only God knows when and if we can help them in the future.

2. A person projecting an income of between $25,000 to $49,000 per year in income and a projected worth of at least $50,000 and living in decent health 'will immediately be approved' for the FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM and thus could possibly get $250,000 up to $1,500,000 of insurance in their own Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (ILIT) provided they have passed their medical physicals, signed all papers in a timely manner, and answered and returned calls.

3. A person projecting an income of between $50,000 to $70,000 per year in income and a projected worth of at least $250,000 and living in decent health 'will immediately be approved' for the FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM and thus could possibly get up to $1,000,000 to $2,500,000+ of insurance in their own Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (ILIT) provided they have passed their medical physicals, signed all papers in a timely manner, and answered and returned calls.

4. A person projecting an income of between $71,000 to $99,000 per year in income and a projected worth of at least $500,000 and living in decent health 'will immediately be approved' for the FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM and thus could possibly get up to $2,500,000 to $4,000,000+ of insurance in their own Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (ILIT) provided they have passed their medical physicals, signed all papers in a timely manner, and answered and returned calls.

5. A person projecting an income of over $100,000+ per year in income and over $1,000,000+ in projected worth may be required to prove this amount of income and worth with a Certified Statement from a CPA. If they are living in decent health they 'will immediately be approved' for the FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM and thus could possibly get up to $4,000,000 to $5,000,000+ of insurance in their own Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (ILIT) provided they have passed their medical physicals, signed all papers in a timely manner, answered and returned calls."

- - - -

ILIT FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM - TEAM LEADER(S)

- SONSHIP MINISTRIES
- SONSHIP INDUSTRIES
16209 Oak Ridge Road [ office home address of Charles A. Spradlin Sr. ]
Westfield, Indiana 46074
USA
TEL: (317) 896-9354
TEL: (317) 867-4181
TEL: (317) 867-2442
FAX: (317) 867-3431 [ Spradlin's residential FAX line for BANCMARK FINANCIAL CORPORATION ]
E-MAIL: cs1@sonshipindustries.com
WWW: http://www.5linx.net/sonship/HTML3/mycontactinfo.html
WWW: http://www.sonshipindustries.com
WWW: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:tQKWNybl5zIJ:www.5linx.net/sonship/HTML3/mycontactinfo.html+%22Charles+Spradlin%22Westfield&hl=en
CONTACT: Charles A. Spradlin, Sr. - Senior Pastor [ Associate of Robert Earl Palm (fraudster) ]
CONTACT: Charles A. Spradlin, Jr. - Associate Pastor [ ILIT circa: 2005 ]

[NOTE: SONSHIP is a dealer of THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GROUPS OF AMERICA ( TR&DGofA ).]

- GENESIS ASSET MANAGEMENT INC. [ FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM ESTATE ILIT Trust Protector Proxy ]
- GUARDIANS FOR LIVING LLC [ FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM ESTATE ILIT Trustee ]
- GUARDIANS FOR LIVING FOUNDATION INC.
- RIGHTS OF THE CHILD FOUNDATION INC.
- THE PERFECT RIDE INC.
799 Hunt Street
Ashland, KY 41101
TEL: (606) 286-4096 [ CARTER COUNTY TANNING, 130 S. Cold Spring Rd., Olive Hill, KY, USA ]
FAX: (606) 286-0286 [ - " - ]
E-MAIL: frederick_damron@yahoo.com [ Frederick Cecil Damron ]
E-MAIL: fdamron@ezwv.com [ Frederick Cecil Damron ]
E-MAIL: ginger24@ezwv.com [ Ginger Lee Hagerman (aka) Ginger Lee Rose ]
CONTACT: Frederick Cecil Damron [ convicted U.S. federal felon ]
CONTACT: Ginger Lee Hagerman (aka) Ginger Lee Rose

[ NOTE: 19NOV05 Damron acting as liaison for trade platform proposals he refers to the Robert Earl Palm THE CHINA FOUNDATION (Hong Kong) attorney Paul Hiram Chappell in Virginia. Also, see, e.g. 2006 Electronically Signed Secured Promissory Note and Security Agreement form.]

- ED YOUNG & ASSOCIATES LLC
219 Admiral Way
Carmel, IN 46032
USA
TEL: (317) 706-6799
E-MAIL: lifeinsuranceagent2@twicemail.com
CONTACT: Edward Allen Young (father) - TEL: (317) 946-9322, TEL: (317) 706-6786, E-MAIL: bancmark@indy.rr.com
CONTACT: Gregory E. Young (son), E-MAIL: greg_young@nctv.com

- LIBERTY INSURANCE AGENCY LLC
11805 N. Pennsylvania Street
Carmel, Indiana
USA
TEL:
E-MAIL: lifeinsuranceagent@gmail.com

ILIT LEGACY 7 PROGRAM / FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM MEMER(S):

- Michael G. Stults, Sr. [ ILIT circa: 2004 ]
- Michael G. Stults, Jr. [ ILIT circa: 2004 ]
- MaryLynn Stults [ ILIT circa: 2004 ]
Indiana
USA
TEL: (317) 578-0008

- Janet Hutson [ ILIT circa: 2005 ]
Indiana
USA
TEL: (317) 773-2770

CHRIST WORSHIP CENTER
Woodbridge, Virginia 22192
USA
TEL: (703) 216-9298
CONTACT: Tony L. Hall - Senior Pastor [ ILIT circa: 2005 ]
CONTACT: Tony L. Hall, Jr. - Associate Pastor [ ILIT circa: 2005 ]

- Douglas R. Hall [ ILIT circa: 2005 ]
- Deborah K. Hall [ ILIT circa: 2005 ]
TEL:

- Duane M. Payne [ ILIT circa: 2005 ]
Indiana
USA
TEL: (317) 445-6336

- Michael E. Hinderliter - Associate Pastor [ ILIT circa: 2005 ]
Indiana
USA
TEL: (317) 840-2766

- Paul W. Jansen [ ILIT circa: 2005 ]
- Sharon L. Jansen [ ILIT circa: 2005 ]
Indiana
USA
TEL: (812) 945-8637

- - - -

- BANCMARK FINANCIAL CORPORATION [ circa: 2003 thru 04JAN06]
450 East 96th Street, Suite 500
Indianapolis, Indiana 46240
USA
TEL: (317) 475-2206
FAX: (317) 867-3431 [ Spradlin's residential FAX machine ]
E-MAIL: bancmark@indy.rr.com
E-MAIL: bancmarkfinancial@earthlink.net
E-MAIL: bancmarkfaq@gmail.com
CONTACT: Charles A. Spradlin, Sr.

- MY BENEFITS AMERICA INC.
- MBA INC. [ est. May 2003 ]
12655 North Central Expressway, Suite 320
Dallas, TX 75243
USA
TEL: (866) 521-6605
FAX: (214) 521-6652
E-MAIL: support@mybenefitsamerica.com
WWW: http://www.mybenefitsamerica.com

BENEFITS AMERICA PROGRAM
THE FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM
AGELITY TM

MY BENEFITS AMERICA - Principals:

Robert V. Pearson - co-Founder & CEO
5900 Baywater, #1403
Plano, TX 75093
TEL: (214) 674-3062 cell
TEL: (214) 342-2446 home
E-MAIL: pearsonou@aol.com

Joshua B. Pearson - co-Founder & COO
8713 La Quinta Lane
McKinney, TX 75070
TEL: (972) 542-4343
E-MAIL: josh.pearson@comcast.net

Dr. Michael R. Camino - Director
1275 Shermer Road
Northbrook, IL 60062
USA
TEL: (847) 272-0633
TEL: (847) 610-2347
E-MAIL: mejcs@comcast.net

Kent Traynor - National Enrollment Director
3617 Teakwood Lane
Plano, TX 75075
USA
TEL: (214) 725-5971
E-MAIL: Kenttraynor@aol.com

Larry D. Conner - National Marketing Director
1413 Capstan Drive
Allen, TX 75013
USA
TEL: (972) 359-1215
E-MAIL: l.conner@sbcglobal.net

Allan Conner - National Training Director
3805 Doubletree Trail
Irving, TX 75061
USA
TEL: (214) 704-2877
allan@allanconner.com

- - - -

Question #1: Where are it's $1,500,000,000 billion in assets now held? Mortgages?

Question #2: Who's the real Protector over the Trusts, and who are its proxies? Offshore?

Question #3: What makes law enforcement so shy about these fraudsters? Bureau Of Public Debt?

Submitted,

Offshore Informant
[E-MAIL: OffshoreInformant@safe-mail.net]

Reference

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff205934.htm

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:jVnc2l98OTIJ:www.quatloos.com/TaxForums/viewtopic.php%3Fp%3D149333%26sid%3D4d0159193c24035a046068b1932cb16a+%22FREEDOM+7+PROGRAM%22fraud&amp;amp;amp;hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk

http://www.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/840167.shtml

http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2005/12/829382.shtml

http://groups.msn.com/UnwantedPublicity/clickalbum5.msnw?Page=2

http://groups.msn.com/UnwantedPublicity/clickalbum5.msnw?Page=3

http://groups.msn.com/UnwantedPublicity/clickalbum7.msnw

http://p196.ezboard.com/fredcatsboardsfrm1.showMessage?topicID=1204.
topic&index=11

Advertisers this Letter below is for your eyes only

How To Determine If One Can Become A Qualified Person

Questions and Answers For Pastor Ray

Bancmark Advertiser Explanation Letter

FREEDOM 7 INVITATION

FREEDOM 7 Frequently Asked Questions

Compensation and Bonus Schedule

Independent Advertisers Letter

INDEPENDENT ADVERTISER AGREEMENT

Business Cards

Calling Card Thoughts

Dear Ministers, Pastors, Christians

Pastor Attention Letter

Who Can Tithe To Whom

Freedom 7 Form (F7F)

INDEPENDENT ENROLLER AGREEMENT

MY BENEFITS AMERICA INC. “RD” AGREEMENT

Bradynet.com Scam postings by Fred Damron & Ginger Hagerman

2007-09-03T14:28:00.000-07:00

DATE	TOPIC	TITLE OF ARTICLE (click to read)

10-27-04	Futures/Options/Indices	WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS
10-27-04	Structured Products	WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS
10-27-04	Emerging Markets	WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS
10-27-04	Non-Emerging Markets	WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS
10-27-04	U.S. Treasuries	WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS
10-27-04	Asia	WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS
10-27-04	Central America	WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS
10-27-04	East Europe	WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS
10-27-04	New Deals	WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS
07-26-05	New Deals	GEMSTONES FOR TRADE PLACEMENT/HYPOTHECATION


10-27-04	Futures/Options/Indices	WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS
10-27-04	Structured Products	WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS
10-27-04	Emerging Markets	WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS
10-27-04	Non-Emerging Markets	WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS
10-27-04	U.S. Treasuries	WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS
10-27-04	Asia	WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS
10-27-04	Central America	WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS
10-27-04	East Europe	WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS
10-27-04	New Deals	WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS
07-26-05	New Deals	GEMSTONES FOR TRADE PLACEMENT/HYPOTHECATION

Posted by KYMandate (Sunday, October 17, 2004)
Wanted - $1M Silver Certificate Reedemer

BUYER/REDEEMER FOR AUTHENTIC $1M SILVER CERTIFICATES WANTED BY HOLDER. PLEASE RESPOND IF YOU CAN REDEEM BY EMAIL ONLY TO: fdamron@ezwv.com

Posted by KYMandate (Wednesday, October 27, 2004)
WANTED - LENDER FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS

LENDER WANTED FOR HYPOTHECATION OF ARTIFACTS STORED IN MUSEUM. FIRST ARTIFACT GROUP VALUED AT $5B USD. PLEASE RESPOND ONLY IF YOU CAN HYPOTHECATE ARTIFACTS BY EMAIL TO: ginger24@ezwv.com.

Posted by KYMandate (Tuesday, July 26, 2005)
GEMSTONES FOR TRADE PLACEMENT/HYPOTHECATION

GEMSTONES AVAILABLE FOR HYPOTHECATION FOR CREDIT LINE FOR TRADE PLACEMENT. PLEASE RESPOND IF YOU HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO TRADERS/TRADE GROUPS WHO CAN TAKE ASSETS INTO TRADE. NO INSURANCE ON GEMS. ALL APPRAISALS CURRENT. PLEASE RESPOND TO cfcompliance@gmail.com

Frederick Cecil Damron & Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust Scam

2007-09-03T14:16:00.000-07:00

SCAM TARGETS CHRISTIANS AND THEIR CHURCH BY FALSELY OFFERING A "FINAL TITHE".

PROGRAM NAMES : FREEDOM 7, LASTING LEGACY, FREEDOM 8

There is a scam that is being perpetrated across the country which targets Christians and their religious organizations. The program claims to offer life insurance with no out of pocket expense to the insured through the purchase of a benefits package from My Benefits America (MBA) and Bancmark Financial. Ten percent of the death benefit is offered to the Church as a "final tithe". Of course the promoters of this scam hope that greed will get the best of the Church administration and they will publicly support the program to their parishioners. Unfortunately, this has happened on several occasions. However, even though this program has been offered by these individuals several times under different names, all policies were eventually canceled for non-payment. This begs the question of why they are going to all the trouble of collecting the personal information of thousands of individuals?

My Benefits America
Dallas, TX 75243

The company is owned by:

ROBERT V. PEARSON
TX Insurance License ID: EXPIRED & UNDER INVESTIGATION

MBA employees:

JOSHUA B. PEARSON
Co-Founder/Chief Operating Officer
TX Insurance License ID: 1309603

KENT TRAYNOR
TX Insurance License ID: 716140

People were solicited by these MBA employees to invest in MBA through the purchase of "territories". MBA investors were given contracts which offered them exclusive rights to payment off of all packages sold within their territory regardless of who sold the package. The name of the insurance program was FREEDOM 7. The premiums were to be paid by a charitable trust named GUARDIANS FOR LIVING.

Guardians for Living, LLC
799 Hunt Street
Ashland, KY 41101
TRUSTEES: Ginger Hagerman, Fred Damron

FREEDOM 7 DOCUMENTS

Advertisers this Letter below is for your eyes only

How To Determine If One Can Become A Qualified Person

Questions and Answers For Pastor Ray

Bancmark Advertiser Explanation Letter

FREEDOM 7 INVITATION

FREEDOM 7 Frequently Asked Questions

Compensation and Bonus Schedule

Independent Advertisers Letter

INDEPENDENT ADVERTISER AGREEMENT

Business Cards

Calling Card Thoughts

Dear Ministers, Pastors, Christians

Pastor Attention Letter

Who Can Tithe To Whom

Freedom 7 Form (F7F)

After Bob spent all the investors' money, he was forced to close MBA due to the fact that he was locked out of his office by management. He also lost the MBA website and moved out of his home of 10 years that was in Larry Conner's name. I have heard from many people that the money they spent on his benefits package was wasted as the benefits are no longer available either. One of his investors claims to have paid him as much as $600,000 over a 3 year period. Some estimate Bob's total take in the selling of "territories" to be as high as $1.2 million dollars. WHERE DID ALL THE MONEY GO!?!

The insurance agents who sent the insurance applications to people are:

Edward Allen Young (father)
Bancmark Financial
bancmark@indy.rr.com

Gregory E. Young (son)
TX Insurance License: 1367116
SC License # 365134
greg_young@nctv.com
lifeinsuranceagent@gmail.com

Liberty Insurance Agency, LLC
11805 N. Pennsylvania Street
Carmel , Indiana

Ed Young & Associates, LLC
219 Admiral Way
Carmel , IN 46032
317-706-6799
lifeinsuranceagent2@twicemail.com

The State of Oklahoma has issued a CEASE & DESIST order for Guardians For Living, MBA and it's employees. You can get a copy of the order from:

Sherry Standerfer, Legal Assistant
Oklahoma Insurance Department
P. O. Box 53408
Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3408
(405) 521-2748
sherrystanderfer@insurance.state.ok.us

Many of the life insurance companies who were involved (even though they didn't know it) have opened fraud investigations. It is my understanding that some of the companies have taken steps to drop some of the agents from writing business for their companies.

I have a video tape of Mr. Fred Damron at one of our training sessions. He claims that Paul Hiram Chappell is the creator of this program. A clip of this video will be available on this site shortly. A quick google.com search of his name will give you an idea of the fraud that these people have been associated with in the past.

FREEDOM 8 NEWS

I have been contacted recently regarding the creation of FREEDOM 8 which is being promoted by Charles Spradlin of Westfield, Indiana. If you have any questions as to whether this program is legal, please contact Detective Brunty.

LASTING LEGACY NEWS

I have also been informed that Kent Traynor, Fred Damron & Ginger Hagerman have persuaded the FREE WILL BAPTIST organization to offer a similar program to their members. Even though the leaders within the FREE WILL BAPTIST organization have been made aware of this fraud, Ernest Harrison told me that he and 4 other people met with Fred & Ginger in Kentucky on or about February 27, 2007. Earnest says that during that meeting, they were introduced to the "investors" of the "trust" who invested the alleged 1.5 billion dollars it holds. They are going to call this new program "LASTING LEGACY". It will be exclusive to the FREE WILL BAPTIST organization. The two other men within the FREE WILL BAPTIST organization that he mentioned are helping Fred with this new venture are:

James R. Puckett
301 Paxton Court
Norman, OK 73069
(405) 919-6827
jpuckett3@cox.net

Keith Burden
National Association of Free Will Baptist
Antioch, TN
(877) 767-7659
keith@nafwb.org

It appears that this is not the first time that State Insurance Board has issued a CEASE & DESIST for Mr. Kent Traynor:

The International Union of Petroleum and Industrial Workers (IUPIW) and theManufacturing and Industrial Workers Union (MIWU). Terrence LaFave,John Kudra. International Union of Public/Petroleum IndustrialWorkers-Canadian Benefit Fund, Manufacturing and Industrial WorkersUnion Benefit Trust Fund, Contractors and Merchants Association, OakTree Administrators, First Class Administrators, Inc., South bySouthwest Employers Association, George Beltz, Mitchel Coneley,Cherille Shelp, William Hope, Tim Gue, Robbie Larkin, Gary Couch, Kent Traynor, and Raymond Palombo
Violation: Enrolling members to union plans without requiring union membership.
Penalty: Cease and Desist Order. (Texas)
Date: 03/02/05

Dates and email addresses used to notify the National Free Will Baptist:

To: keith@nafwb.org
Date: 1/12/2007
Subject: FREEDOM 7, GUARDIANS FOR LIVING

To: keith@nafwb.org
Date: 2/10/2007
Subject: FREEDOM 7 - Fidelity & Guaranty INVESTIGATION

To: dari@nafwb.org, melody@nafwb.org, steve@nafwb.org, debbie@nafwb.org, roy@nafwb.org
Date: 2/27/2007
Subject: FREEDOM 7 PROGRAM

To: jpuckett3@cox.net
Date: 1/12/2007
Subject: FREEDOM 7, GUARDIANS FOR LIVING

To: jpuckett3@cox.net
Date: 2/10/2007
Subject: F&G Investigation

Fred Damron's LEGACY 7 PROGRAM

ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED
SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE

$0,000,000 , 2006

FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is here acknowledged, Payor hereby promises to pay to the order of Payee the sum,
in United States dollars of $___________, reflecting certain indebtedness to Payee by
Payor in the amount of $__________, together with a six payments of $________ as 3%
monthly interest and fees due every thirty days with the principal due at the end of the
term of the Note which is six months.

This Promissory Note (the “Note”) is referred to in and is executed and delivered in connection with that certain Security Agreement dated as of ________________, and executed by Payor in favor of Payee (the “Security Agreement”). Additional rights and obligations of Lender are set forth in the Security Agreement.

1. TERMS: This Note, to be effectuated _____________, shall be administered for the mutual benefit for the parties herein named by Genesis Asset Management, Inc., as the parties have agreed independently of this Note. Notwithstanding said arrangement, payments hereunder beginning on the first date of the schedule as listed within this Note, may be made in such manner as shall from time-to-time be designated by any valid Holder hereof. This note shall be paid in the manner specified in the accompanying payment schedule, in general reflecting Payor’s lump sum payment, inclusive of principal and fees. Payor hereby acknowledges certain legal rights and obligations accrue to the parties as referenced in the Security Agreement and accompanying documents. To the full extent such obligations are
consistent with this Note, as well as underlying obligations thereto, they are incorporated herein.

2. REPAYMENT: The outstanding principal amount of the Loan and any first payment and accrued interest and fees thereon shall be due and payable thirty (30) days, plus seven (7) days after the funds are posted and cleared. The Payor will notify the Payee of the posted and cleared date which will be seven (7) days from the date of receipt of funds.

3. PAYMENT SCHEDULE: The payment schedule will be in a six single payments with the principal due as a balloon payment at the end of the term of the Note, which is six months.

The outstanding principal amount of the Loan is to be paid to the Payee in the following installments:

Payment Date Payment Amount

_________________, 20_______ 3% $______________________
_________________, 20_______ 3% $______________________
_________________, 20_______ 3% $______________________
_________________, 20_______ 3% $______________________
_________________, 20_______ 3% $______________________
_________________, 20_______ 3% $______________________

4. PREPAYMENT. Payor may prepay this Note in whole or in part, without penalty. Payments shall be applied first to accrued fees and interest and the balance to the outstanding principal of the Loan.

5. PAYMENT LOCATION. All payments hereunder shall be made to such address as may from time-to-time be designated by any holder of this Note and must be made in United States funds.

3. SECURITY: This Note is secured by the Collateral described in the Security Agreement.

4. DEFAULT AND ACCELERATION: Payor shall be in default under this Note upon any of the following: (a) at the option of the Holder, failing to timely pay any principal amount due after demand is made, (b) Borrower dissolves, terminates its existence, or declares insolvency (c) Borrower files for relief under bankruptcy laws or any other laws for the benefit of creditors, (d) an involuntary petition is filed against Borrower under any bankruptcy laws (unless such petition is dismissed within 30 days), or (e) any default as described in the Security Agreement. Upon the occurrence of any default, Payee may declare the unpaid principal of the Loan and all accrued fees and interest on this Note immediately due pursuant to applicable law.

In the event the Note shall be in default and given to an attorney for collection or enforcement or if suit is brought for collection or enforcement, or if it is collected or enforced through probate, bankruptcy, or other judicial proceeding, then Payor shall pay Payee all costs of collection and enforcement, including reasonably attorney’s fees.

7. BINDING EFFECT: The covenants and conditions contained in this Note shall apply to and bind the Payor and its heirs, legal representatives, successors and permitted assigns.

8. CUMULATIVE RIGHTS: The parties’ rights under this Agreement are cumulative, and shall not be construed as exclusive of each other unless otherwise required by law.

9. WAIVER: The failure of the Payee to enforce any part of this note shall not be deemed a waiver or limitation of the Payee’s right to subsequently enforce and compel strict compliance with every provision of this Note. Furthermore, no waiver by Payee of any default shall operate as a waiver of any other default or the same default on a future occasion.

10. SEVERABILITY: If any part or parts of this Note shall be held unenforceable for any reason, the remainder of this Note shall continue in full force and effect. If any provision of this Note is deemed invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, and if limiting such provision would make the provision valid, then such provision shall be deemed to be construed as so limited.

11. NOTICE: Any notice required or otherwise given pursuant to this Note shall be in writing and mailed certified return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or delivered by overnight delivery service, addressed as follows:

PAYEE: PAYOR:

_________________________ Genesis Asset Management, Inc.
_________________________ Administrative Office
_________________________ 799 Hunt Street
Ashland, KY 41101

Either party may change such addresses from time-to-time by providing notice as set forth above.

12. GOVERNING LAW: This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Wyoming.

13. E-SIGNATURE AND ORIGNAL DOCUMENT: The Payor, Payee, their successors in interest, any Holder and all other parties to or having interest in this Note further agree and acknowledge this Note is in original format compliant with the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act) and other applicable laws and regulations, and that the one, true original Note is retained electronically by Genesis Asset Management, Inc., whether electronic or in tangible format, being facsimiles or reproductions only. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all parties agree and acknowledge that a true and exact version of this Note, specially noted by Genesis Asset Management, Inc., and possessing internal and enduring integrity, whether in electronic or tangible format, may substitute for the electronic
original with respect to Holder’s full legal and equitable rights, including but not limited to possession and negotiability. Any rightful Holder, whether or not in possession or control of this Note or equivalent version, whether in electronic or tangible format, agrees, acknowledges and is expressly on notice that Genesis Asset Management Inc., may indicate in writing (including electronically, as permitted by the E-Sign Act) the payment in full, accord and satisfaction, completion, discharge or other fulfillment of Payor’s obligations under this Note, and that such writing shall suffice as notice to Holder in lieu of any transfer to or receipt by Holder or others of the original, electronically generated Note.

14. WAIVER AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The undersigned and all other parties to this Note, waive demand, presentment and protest and all notices thereto and further agree to remain bound, notwithstanding any extension, waiver, or other indulgence by any Holder or upon the discharge or release of any obligor hereunder or to this Note. All parties agree and acknowledge the terms Payor, Payee and Holder as used herein are valid and constitute identical meaning whether employed in singular or plural form, and may represent natural or legal personalities, as applies.

For the parties’ mutual benefit, Genesis Asset Management, Inc., has recorded in the form of an electronic signature the assent of Payee _________________________ to and acknowledgement of the terms of this Note and all attendant obligations on _____________________ at _______________ Eastern Time.

Electronically signed by Payor Representative on ____________________, at _______________ Eastern Time, while in the municipality of ________________, Commonwealth of or State of __________________.

Electronically signed by PAYOR: Genesis Asset Management, Inc. represented by:
_____________________________

DOCUMENT VERION HISTORY

This version, as initially generated by Genesis Asset Management, Inc., accurately reflects and represents the original Genesis Asset Management, Inc., Promissory Note electronically signed by Payor. This document is provided for recordkeeping purposes or, where Payee or Payee’s Representative has requested, and Genesis has so notated, as a functional equivalent to the original Note electronically executed by the Payor. Where applicable, this document’s negotiability may be affected by prior act of Payee or other parties. All transferees and holders should obtain adequate assurances from Payee, Payee’s Representative or other relevant parties as to this instrument’s negotiability.

SECURITY AGREEMENT

This Security Agreement (the “Agreement”) is dated as of ____________________, by and between Genesis Asset Management, Inc. (“Grantor/Payor”) and ______________________ (“Grantee/Payee”) (collectively referred to as the “Parties”).

WHEREAS, Payee has or will make certain advances of money to Payor (the “Loan”) as evidenced by that certain Promissory Note dated ____________________, (the “Note”), and

WHEREAS, Payee is willing to make the Loan, but only upon a condition that Payor executes and delivers this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, Payor hereby represents, warrants and agrees as follows:

1. GRANT: As security for the payment and performance of the Note, Borrower hereby grants to Lender a security interest in all of Borrower’s rights, title and interest in the following (collectively referred to as the “Collateral”):

Cash held in Corporate Accounts up to and including the amount of the Promissory Note or Interests through Trust held in Certain Insurance Policies where one or the other may be substituted or assigned by the Payor.

2. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS: Borrower hereby represents and warrants that:

(a) The Collateral, other than cash, will be kept at the designated Trustee Records Custodian and will not be removed except in the ordinary course of business.

(b) Payor will not sell, dispose or otherwise transfer the Collateral or any interest in the Collateral without notice to the Payee.

(c) Except for the security interest granted above, Payor is the sole, legal and equitable owner of the Collateral pledged under this agreement.

(d) No other security agreement, financing statement, or other security instrument covering the Collateral exists.

(e) Payor will not create or allow any other security interest or lien on the Collateral which causes the Payee’s interest to not be secured.

(f) Payor, upon Payee’s written request, will execute any financing statement or other document necessary to perfect or otherwise record the security interest.

(g) Payor will not change its principal place of business without giving Payee at least seven (7) days prior written notice.

(h) Payor will maintain applicable insurance at all times with respect to Collateral against the risk of fire, theft and other such risks and in such amounts as Trustee may require.

3. DEFAULT: Payor shall be in default under this Agreement upon any of the following: (a) at the option of the Payee, default in the payment or performance of the Note, (b) any material breach by Payor of any warranty, representation, or covenant in this Agreement, (c) dissolution, termination of existence, declaration of insolvency, an assignment for the benefit of creditors or the institution of bankruptcy proceedings, whether voluntary or involuntary, if not dismissed within thirty (30) days.

4. REMEDIES: Upon default and at any time thereafter, Payee may declare the Loan secured by this Agreement, immediately due and payable and shall have all the rights and remedies of a Payee under the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”).

5. TERMINATION: This Agreement shall terminate upon the payment and performance in full of the Note.

6. BINDING EFFECT: The covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement shall apply to and bind the Parties and the heirs, legal representatives, successors and permitted assigns of the Parties.

7. CUMULATIVE RIGHTS: The Parties’ rights under this Agreement are cumulative, and shall not be construed as exclusive of each other unless otherwise required by law.

8. WAIVER: The failure of either party to enforce any provisions of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver or limitation of that party's right to subsequently enforce and compel strict compliance with every provision of this Agreement. Furthermore, no waiver by Payee of any default shall operate as a waiver of any other default or the same default on a future occasion.

9. SEVERABILITY: If any part or parts of this Agreement shall be held unenforceable for any reason, the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. If any provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, and if limiting such provision would make the provision valid, then such provision shall be deemed to be construed as so limited.

10. NOTICE: Any notice required or otherwise given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and mailed certified return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or delivered by overnight delivery service, addressed as follows:

PAYEE: PAYOR:
________________________ Genesis Asset Management, Inc.
________________________ Administrative Office
________________________ 799 Hunt Street
Ashland, KY 41101

Either party may change such addresses from time-to-time by providing notice as set
forth above.

11. GOVERNING LAW: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Wyoming.

12. WAIVER AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The undersigned and all other parties to this Security Agreement, waive demand, presentment and protest and all notices thereto and further agree to remain bound, notwithstanding any extension, waiver, or other indulgence by any Grantor or upon the discharge or release of any obligor hereunder or to this Agreement. All parties agree and acknowledge the terms Payor, Payee and Holder as used herein are valid and constitute identical meaning whether employed in singular or plural form, and may represent natural or legal personalities, as applies.

For the parties’ mutual benefit, Genesis Asset Management, Inc., has recorded in the form of an electronic signature the assent of Payee _________________ to and acknowledgement of the terms of this Note and all attendant obligations on __________________ at _____________ Eastern Time.

Electronically signed by Payor Representative on __________________, at ____________ Eastern Time, while in the municipality of ________________, Commonwealth of or State of ____________________.

Electronically signed by PAYOR: Genesis Asset Management, Inc. represented by: _______________________

DOCUMENT VERSION HISTORY