chuckst3r

I love idioms. You used the same "if you lie with dogs...you will get fleas" one that tmcgraw used a couple weeks ago during my Scooter/Rudy debacle, which subsequently sent Scooter packing (though not entirely, since he's still seen logging on-and-off his old account here from time to time) and maintaining his affiliation with "Rude C." and this Breitling guy. Aight, that's all I have for now. Back to the real world. Hang in there, jmw. I give you props, dude. These folks get rather touchy-feely when you blaspheme against the almighty Scooter & Friends...lol!

Agreed, jmw. Agreed. This reminds me of the old idiom, "birds of a feather flock together." Bottom line: like-minded individuals have a tendency to associate with one another. Here's more proof of the delusional soap box prophets "spin doctoring" financial data, macroeconomic theory, and monetary policy to suit their interests. Feel free to spend your time listening to the convoluted drabble from likes of DD, B____ling, Ph_____3333, S___ter, and R__y, as the second reality they seek to maintain slowly erodes at the bedrock. I choose horses over unicorns, marlins over mermaids--REALITY OVER FANTASY. I appreciate the commentary provided by dinarck, jmw, and tmcgraw over the past few days in response to the CBI news articles. These guys know what's up and covered all the bases rather poignantly, so there's no need to reiterate a single word of what they already contributed to this forum. I'm looking forward to reading Adam Montana's take on these recent events and keeping my eyes open for that. In the meantime, best of luck to all and may whatever transpires benefit not only the people of Iraq, but those of us invested in her burgeoning prosperity. Aloha, chuckst3r P.S.- I gave up on Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny years ago. It's about time some of you did the same.

Here's the thing, folks: I meant every word during my post, down to the letters themselves. And I still do. Call me disrespectful, arrogant, pompous, whatever. Sticks and stones as far as I'm concerned. I still, for the life of me, don't see what the big deal is. What I find are overly-emotional responses to an otherwise well-intentioned inquiry. Let me ask you this: just how many of you took the time to listen to that portion of the Conference Call AFTER hearing Scooter's initial explanation? To me, it just doesn't add up and it troubles me to see him making a concession speech (which is precisely what he did) with the amount of time it could've taken him to address my initial question by contacting Rudy and getting to the bottom of this--not only for me, people--but for EVERYONE! Scooter shouldn't have needed to read it from Adam - he wrote of CREDIBILITY and TIME as if they are equals, yet as Scooter clearly showed us yesterday, it appears CREDIBILITY > TIME after all. I enjoyed his analyses and commentary. I really did. But it's hard to enjoy a five-star meal surrounded by flies, you feel me? None of this should have happened and you folks don't have to believe a single word I say. Just let me make myself pointedly clear: I am not satisfied with his CHOICE to walk away. Doing so only makes him all the more guilty in my eyes of a corroboration previously unknown to many of us, as it was veiled behind fantastic data analysis and a golden-boy persona. Scooter receives no apology from me. Aloha, chuckst3r P.S. In Topic: Scooter – Gonna Miss You (posted 18 Jun 2011)The following was this topic’s final post by Adam Montana: Guess I forgot to hit the close button! Look, I'm not going to keep defending myself all over the forum - but I'll do it one more time. I have a LOT of respect for Scooter. I think he is a great guy, an awesome researcher, and a very intelligent investor. Unfortunately: Scooter was associated with Rudy, simply by appearing in the same venue as him. There is a LOT of evidence to prove that Rudy is a con artist. Scooter was asked if he endorsed or supported Rudy.... and Scooter did not answer. Instead, Scooter chose to leave. Scooter did not disassociate himself from someone we believe to be a con artist... Therefore, in my opinion, Scooter is guilty of associating with a con artist. A non-response is the same as a silent endorsement, in my opinion. I have a lot of respect for Scooter, but if it turns out he is endorsing con artists - that respect is GONE. Scooter can address this issue at any time. Until then, I would like to see this topic closed.

Here's the thing, folks: I meant every word during my post, down to the letters themselves. And I still do. Call me disrespectful, arrogant, pompous, whatever. Sticks and stones as far as I'm concerned. I still, for the life of me, don't see what the big deal is. What I find are overly-emotional responses to an otherwise well-intentioned inquiry. Let me ask you this: just how many of you took the time to listen to that portion of the Conference Call AFTER hearing Scooter's initial explanation? To me, it just doesn't add up and it troubles me to see him making a concession speech (which is precisely what he did) with the amount of time it could've taken him to address my initial question by contacting Rudy and getting to the bottom of this--not only for me, people--but for EVERYONE! Scooter shouldn't have needed to read it from Adam - he wrote of CREDIBILITY and TIME as if they are equals, yet as Scooter clearly showed us yesterday, it appears CREDIBILITY > TIME after all. I enjoyed his analyses and commentary. I really did. But it's hard to enjoy a five-star meal surrounded by flies, you feel me? None of this should have happened and you folks don't have to believe a single word I say. Just let me make myself pointedly clear: I am not satisfied with his CHOICE to walk away. Doing so only makes him all the more guilty in my eyes of a corroboration previously unknown to many of us, as it was veiled behind fantastic data analysis and a golden-boy persona. Scooter receives no apology from me. Aloha, chuckst3r

Here's the thing, folks: I meant every word during my post, down to the letters themselves. And I still do. Call me disrespectful, arrogant, pompous, whatever. Sticks and stones as far as I'm concerned. I still, for the life of me, don't see what the big deal is. What I find are overly-emotional responses to an otherwise well-intentioned inquiry. Let me ask you this: just how many of you took the time to listen to that portion of the Conference Call AFTER hearing Scooter's intial explanation? To me, it just doesn't add up and it troubles me to see him making a concession speech (which is precisely what he did) with the amount of time it could've taken him to address my initial question by contacting Rudy and getting to the bottom of this--not only for me, people--but for EVERYONE! Scooter shouldn't have needed to read it from Adam - he wrote of CREDIBILITY and TIME as if they are equals, yet as Scooter clearly showed us yesterday, it appears CREDIBILITY > TIME after all. I enjoyed his analyses and commentary. I really did. But it's hard to enjoy a five-star meal surrounded by flies, you feel me? None of this should have happened and you folks don't have to believe a single word I say. Just let me make myself pointedly clear: I am not satisfied with his CHOICE to walk away. IN MY OPINION, doing so only makes him all the more guilty of a corroboration previously unknown to many of us, as it was veiled behind fantastic data analysis and a golden-boy persona. Scooter receives no apology from me. Aloha, chuckst3r

Did I miss something?

Scooter, How's the due dilligence coming along RE: "you know what"? It shouldn't take this long--or should it? Aloha, chuckst3r

Adam Montana, Thank you for taking the time to address the details of this thread. tmcgraw, Thank you for your support and contribution to providing said FACTS. Much appreciated! Scooter, I second what Adam said. Also, it appears to me that I may have been a bit coarse in my earlier reply to you. Consider this my public apology for whatever offenses or hurt feelings you incurred on my behalf, valid only AFTER your full compliance to the terms expressed by Adam Montana above. Sorry, but that's just how I California Roll. At any rate, nice job on this afternoon's DD webcast and keep it up! Aloha All, chuckst3r

Exactly! Thank you, tmcgraw. That's the problem not only in these dinar forums but in virtually every aspect of American society--too many sheeple accepting what they're told and NOT asking QUESTIONS and holding one another ACCOUNTABLE for their words and deeds. It's disgusting, really. George Carlin's ghost is t**bagging me as I write this for having even given credendce to any of this. LOL! To BAN, or not to BAN? Cyber crybabies amuse me. The choice is simple: either READ, or NOT READ. It's that simple. Screw the dinar. I should invest in Kleenex.

Scooby Doo, Listen here, dude. Believe me when I say that age and briefcases don't mean a godd**n thing in the world away from the keyboards and computer screens, so I could care less how old he or she might be when I smell the initial whiff of BS seeping from their mouths. Suppose I did try to reach him privately. What's the probability he'd ever reply in a timely manner? I don't know. Where's the incentive? Again, I don't know. What I DO KNOW is the power of an online public forum and I had a feeling he understood this, too. Besides, this isn't a personal matter between him and me. No, it's much bigger than that. You see, I knew Rudy was no good. I am much more interested as to verifying the legitimacy and credibility of the ones still standing atop their respective reputations in the dinar community. Now you tell me what's more disrespectful: calling somebody out on their double-tongued banter when it JUST SO HAPPENS to involve the likes of guys comprised of conspiratorial characters like the BH *G*, or...somehow being involved in their fraudulent schemes and serving as an accomplice? As I said, "you are the company you keep." You can't sit there and tell me that DD, Scooter, or any of these other dinar commentators weren't aware of Rudy's BS. But wait--there's MORE! Logic would lead me to believe that the buck simply doesn't stop there at Rudy. Look to his partners and associates. Like attracts like. It's about time people stood up and voice their dissatisfaction with the profligate horde, identify them, and expose them for what they really are. Aloha, chuckst3r

I refuse to accept the cavalier attitude of those who choose to mislead and deceive the rest of us. I expect respectful and honest commentary to accompany these geopolitical/financial conference calls, webcasts, and posts. Enough of the kool-aid drinkers. There just so happens to be real people sitting behind these computer screens, not just a bunch of 2-bit sheeple nodding their heads to everything and anyone deemed more "capable" or "intelligent" or "important" than they are. Persistence. That's what it's called. Drink up.

Scooter! Nice job with the DD webcast tonite. Good stuff. Keep it up! Aloha, chuckst3r

Listening to DD's Radio Tidbit webcast right now and I can't help but laugh. Brad is a total joke. Notice how he doesn't mention Rudy and the "30 remaining seats" available in the "Iraqi Hedge Fund II" ...lol! What a piece of work. Now here is is, blabbering about his philanthropic efforts and commitment to dinar education. Give. Me. A. Break. Doesn't DD have any clue who he's promoting here?! I guess not. And why, do you suppose, did DD fail to mention the Iraqi Hedge Fund or it's "manager" Rudy C. like he used to? Something smells fishy, and I ain't talking fishsticks.

Scooter, We're only SEVEN minutes away from your DD Tidbit Radio guest appearance, along with The Law Offices of Scott L. Soelberg & the one-and-only BH *G* fraudsters. As always, I'll be listening very carefully. One word of advice: leave the "jokes" aside and stick to the data. Good luck. Aloha, chuckst3r

Dare I say, "BOOYAH"?! tmcgraw, thank you for spending time to digest my post for what it's worth and for your contribution to disrupting the DECEPTIVE acts of a specific few. I'm going to read every single word of it. And Scooter, if you're reading this, please stay away from those who seek to prop their fraudulent agendas upon the acclaim and reputation you've spent years building with your insightful research and positivism! Aloha, chuckst3r You got it all wrong there, pal. You might wanna turn down the volume on the FOX News channel and re-read the post from start to finish to fully absorb the breadth and depth of what's actually being exposed here. But that's ok. You do what you please. In the meantime, I'm going to ensure that Scooter and those responsible for last night's BH *G* Conference Call will be held accountable for their words. Don't forget: the Devil is in the details. aloha, chuckst3r

Well, well, well...lookee what we have here! Much thanks, tmcgraw. One problem: your "READ THIS LINK!" isn't working properly. Is there a way you can repost another link? Thanks! Aloha, chuckst3r

As am I, speculatorsRIDE. My strength of interest is nothing short of impregnable.

BINGO.

You're telling me, usndiver. I was expecting a - count in the triple digits! Thanks for the advice, but I'll stick to my gameplan for now. Aloha, chuckst3r

Scooter, Thanks for your explanation. And you're right! It wasn't Charlie--it was Brad--who alluded to Rudy C.'s interview with "O'Reilly" taking place. I apologize for my mix-up with respect to my original transcript and I'm thankful for your clarification to keep the facts straight. Allow me to re-post the REVISED transcript of what was said on last night's XXX Conference Call. Just a quick name change, that's all. For those of you who wish to follow along, dial (712) 432-1085 and use access code: 157219# The subject under fire can be found at or around the 42min mark, depending on how long it takes to enter the access code. Charlie E.: I just brought up on weather.com, uh, we may know why we don't have Rudy. Right now they've got, uh, supposedly gusting winds of 41 miles an hour and just massive, uh, lightning strikes. Brad H.: Yeah, he was saying it's really bad. Charlie E.: Yeah, I uh... Scooter: (laughing) Charlie E.: I've got one other number... Scooter: Yeah, and here I was giving him a bad time. I feel bad now. Charlie E.: Well, he'll get this. We'll just tell 'em that Scooter has a mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maximo culpa here. Scooter: No, don't tell him that. (shared laughter) Scooter: Then he'll expect me to be nice! (laughter) Brad H.: I think--I think, Rudy got a little uh, positive press last night. I believe he was on, uh, either the radio show or the TV show with O'Reilly and um, uh, I'm pretty proud of 'em. Scooter: Yeah! Yeah, I mean, um, from what I understand he was holding his own and going right after O'Reilly, you know, right back! So...yeah! Brad H.: Very interesting. ///// END ///// Now let's get down to brass tacks, Scooter. You and I both know that regardless of what transpired in private conversation between yourself, Brad, Charlie, and Rudy, it doesn't justify the statements that were made on last night's phone call with respect to Rudy's "interview". Prior to your post I didn't have any bones to pick with you. Your "Trifecta Theory" coupled with your analyses are insightful and fascinating. I mean, let's face it: it's exciting stuff! But when you risk your credibility and reputation to mingle with dishonest, controversial characters like Rudy (and his "associates/partners") it creates a feeling of discomfort in me comparable to a papercut on the eyelids. Like the old adage goes, "you become the company you keep". Having listened to this portion of the conference call upon reading your explanation, I find you to be deceitful within your response to me. That's right, Scooter. Deceitful. You mixed in a little bit of truths and then garnished them with half-truths so as to conceal your corroboration (for whatever reason) of Brad's allusion. Tell me I'm wrong here. I am highly-skilled in the art of sarcasm and caustic wit, and let me tell you something--you can't BS a BSer. So my question to you is simple: why, Scooter, WHY?! What's the motive behind your involvement with Rudy and his cast of shady characters? Here's some ECON 101 for the masses, no spreadsheets or elaborate mathematics to understand this one: we are human beings, and human beings respond to incentives. So what's your incentive, Scooter? As I said, your "Trifecta Theory" and supporting docs, along with your knowledge and speculation surrounding the VERY REAL IQD Investment is solid, in my opinion. I got no squabbles there, dude. But you must understand my suspicions when somebody of your reputation and notoriety within the dinar world would associate himself with anyone involved with the dishonest practices exemplified by people such as Rudy. I mean, seriously. The guy's name is BANNED from mention on this very site! I wonder why? I think I know. Check this out: (taken from http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1029116/pg1358) By- Anonymous Coward User ID: 1349728 4/20/2011 10:34am Proof that one of these vaunted "Dinar experts" is a filthy liar: Rudolph "Rudy" (this person was banned and is an off limits topic. postures himself as a currency expert and is one of the more "respected intel" providers in the Dinar RV area. He's been interviewed by "another site" many times and is a regular fixture on Brad Heubner's weekly another site conference calls. From another site's February 24th Tidbits call: Starting just before the 16 minute mark Rudy claims to having been a Vice President at JP Morgan Chase who managed a 500 million dollar portfolio. He says he left JP Morgan in 2005 due to health problems, he needed a liver transplant. He needed more than a a liver transplant, he needed a lot of help from the community to pay his medical bills. From the March 15th 2005 North County Times: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/article_620f9730-9e5c-50d3-8459-4fefafa82704.html ".,..TEMECULA —— Life took a sharp turn for Rudolph (this person was banned and is an off limits topic. when he found out last fall he had Hepatitis C and needed a new liver. He had to quit his job, accumulated $100,000 in debt from medical bills and may lose his Temecula home where he and his wife are raising their four daughters. <Snip> While (this person was banned and is an off limits topic. anxiously waits for a donor match, friends and neighbors are rallying around his family, planning fund-raisers to help with the burgeoning debt. Two have been planned so far. The first is Wednesday evening at Stadium Pizza on Highway 79 South. From 5 to 10 p.m, 30 percent of the sales from customers who say they are there for the fund-raiser will go to the family, manager Erika Thomson said...,." IF Rudy was a VP at JP Morgan at the time he needed a transplant, why didn't he have health insurance? VPs in charge of 500 million dollar portfolios tend to have pretty good insurance coverage. VPs in charge of 500 million dollar portfolios don't tend to need pizza party fund raisers to pay their medical bills. We know Rudy (this person was banned and is an off limits topic. needed a new liver in 2005 and there are several online sources like the one above which show how the community of Temecula California stepped up to help him get one. Now Rudy claims to have been a wealthy and powerful man with a major investment firm when he needed his liver but he didn't even have health insurance. What can be proven about Rudolph (this person was banned and is an off limits topic.'s work history is that he was a mortgage broker. Alt-A Subprime mortgage loans in both California and Florida. But as we all know those loans helped destroy our economy when the real estate/banking bubble burst. Google his name with JP Morgan and try to find a search result prior to 2010, it can't be done. Google his name and mortgage and you'll find results like this one: [link to mortgagegrapevine.com] And credit where it's due, I found most of this information at this website: [link to www.realscam.com] ///// END ///// "Anonymous Coward" also later posted on 4/20/11 at 3:33pm saying, "... Rudy C. has been caught in a lie, a very significant one. And the proof is available to you. Listen to the another site call linked above and hear him say in his own words (at the 16 minute mark) that in 2005 he was a VP at JP Morgan Chase and in charge of a 500 million dollar fund until his liver issue forced him to step down. Then read the newspaper report from 2005 where the kind people of Temecula California pitched in to help him with his medical bills. Doesn't it make you wonder why a VP at JPM didn't have health insurance or why someone in charge of a half a billion dollars needed pizza parties and garage sales to pay his expenses? It doesn't make a lick of sense unless he's lying about what he did for a living. And that is the problem, he IS lying about having worked for JP Morgan. He has a provable history of selling subprime mortgages and for selling a few multi level marketing deals. He can not prove nor has anyone asked him to prove he's ever worked on wall street or in the investment industry. He's saying the things some people want to hear and he's willing to lie about his background to bolster those lies. Which, is pretty much exactly what Tim Turner did and a year from now you'll be spitting when you say Rudy's name too." ///// END ///// Now, Scooter, do you see why I feel particularly bothered by your involvement with someone like him? It causes me a great deal of concern regarding the legitimacy and credibility of your involvement with anything associated to him in this worldwide dinar community. As for myself, I've been invested in IQD since May of 2005 when I received my notes from THE Bank of Baghdad while serving in Iraq. Two men (whom I greatly respect and equally fear) decided to share this investment opportunity with me. I have been quietly following from a distance ever since. Only recently have I felt compelled to leave a digital imprint on what this investment has mutated into today. Rest assured, this investment is REAL and WILL HAPPEN when it is time. What is suspect to FALSEHOODS and MISLEADING information are those human elements among us who seek to profit and benefit from the ignorance and ineptitude of "sheeple" until the RV does, in fact, occur. I seek the truth. I demand accountability. I accept the strengths and shortcomings of myself and others. And I absolutely DEPLORE those who seek to DECEIVE and MISLEAD others in an attempt to further their own ulterior interests. Stay TRUE, Scooter. Be real, and keep up the good work with your research and data analysis! Aloha, chuckst3r

Thanks, Scooter, but I will agree to disagree. That statement didn't appear to be peppered with a joking tonation and your follow-up reply suggested you yourself had heard and/or seen the interview. In any case, I am looking forward to reading your reply. Credibility is key. The only reason I brought this to the attention of the online public forum was to see for myself if, in fact, there presides any modicum of validity to not only the contents of said conference call, but the validity--and credibility--of its facilitators and participants. Aloha, chuckst3r

I transcribed the following dialogue from the another site Weekly Conference Call, dated 6-13-11. Brad H.: I just brought up on weather.com, uh, we may know why we don't have Rudy. Right now they've got, uh, supposedly gusting winds of 41 miles an hour and just massive, uh, lightning strikes. Charlie E.: Yeah, he was saying it's really bad. Brad H.: Yeah, I uh... Scooter: (laughing) Brad H.: I've got one other number... Scooter: Yeah, and here I was giving him a bad time. I feel bad now. Brad H.: Well, he'll get this. We'll just tell 'em that Scooter has a mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maximo culpa here. Scooter: No, don't tell him that. (shared laughter) Scooter: Then he'll expect me to be nice! (laughter) Charlie E.: I think--I think, Rudy got a little uh, positive press last night. I believe he was on, uh, either the radio show or the TV show with O'Reilly and um, uh, I'm pretty proud of 'em. Scooter: Yeah! Yeah, I mean, um, from what I understand he was holding his own and going right after O'Reilly, you know, right back! So...yeah! Charlie: Very interesting. ///// END///// I couldn't find anything online to verify Rudy (this person was banned and is an off limits topic.'s radio/TV appearance with O'Reilly. Can anybody verify that this, in fact, took place? And if so, where can we recover the video and/or audio of his interview?

The article in question was originally released by the U.S. State Department on May 19, 2011. You may view it here: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/05/163826.htm editor's note: this is my first post on DV, hehe!