An Attorney declares that the RV NDA is not a threat. Read it here.

Subject: An Attorney declares that the RV NDA is not a threat. Read it here.

This positive article regarding the RV Non-Disclosure is visible on the TNT forum site at

http://tntdinar.activeboard.com/t55738139/as-an-attorney-here-is-my-amended-response-to-judge-dales-co/.

The writer claims that most of JUDGE DALE's opinions about the NDA are wrong or misguided

and that there is little or nothing to fear when signing the Non-Disclosure Agreement at the bank when converting currency.

There are still unanswered questions such as:

- Why can't the NDA be distributed for reading before we go to the bank?

- If all 179 nations agreed to use the NDA to hide the fact that a global currency reset and RV occurred, how can the NDA be enforced?

- If the purpose is mostly to prevent movies, newspaper articles, books, and other exposure methods, what prevents a spouse or relative from spilling the 10-year history of the
        RV. It could be any person who lived with or communicated regularly with a holder of foreign currency?

- Since the NDA ties us up for 10 more years in silence, and since it threatens us with fines, prison, and court dealings, therefore a lawyer should review the document to help us interpret the scope of the threats.  However, no one has the final copy - only drafts so far.

- For ten years dozens of web sites and forums made the Currency Revaluation opportunity visible to the public, so the secret is out already.  Congressmen gave foreign currencies to their staff as Christmas bonuses. It's no secret that many of the elite have already exchanged.  The secret is out. 

The content below refutes the idea that the NDA is threatening.  Can we be sure?

The writer is a lawyer of 39 years experience - but I don't see his name in this forum document.

===-===

As an attorney, Here is my amended response to Judge Dale's comments.
Here is my amended response to Judge Dale's comments.  The statements put out by Judge Dale are inaccurate constitute fear mongering, and are mere speculation at best.                I know there are a lot of people who are convinced that the US. is going to have Marshal Law in December, 2013 or 2014 sometime, the US Dollar is going to crash, that President Obama is going to declare Marshal Law to stay in office, there are Nukes that will be detonated on the East Coast and the government is planning to live in underground cities.  They believe that DHS is above the law, and we have lost all of our Constitutional rights and protections.  I admit there have been Constitutional violations by the Fed Gov. agencies, but this is nothing new.  You can read Supreme Court cases throughout history where a law was declared unconstitutional.   Did not the Supreme Court in recent years declare that the Second Amendment gave individuals a Constitutional Right to bear arms to protect them from tyrannical government actions?   Other people are very concerned about conspiracy theories that have some factual basis, but those same facts can be viewed differently.   The government operates in secrecy, and this is why people come up with alternative reasons for certain actions, such as the building of FEMA camps, underground cities, and the like.                As a lawyer of 39 years, I have handled close to 50,000 cases, and I have seen justice rendered time and time again.  Yes, there are exceptions.  NDA contracts under both Federal Law and State Law are given a strict interpretation, so as not to take away the rights of the person.  Also, in both the Federal Courts and the State Courts the judges have held that the court abhors forfeitures as a maxim in equity.   It would be unjust if in this case  an innocent disclosure causes a forfeiture of all money and assets received by the currency RV.   A total loss of money and investments from that money post RV would be too stiff of a penalty.   A penalty has to be reasonable.  Unless a penalty is reasonable in relation to the seriousness of the disclosure, it will be declared to be too harsh.   In fairness and good conscience, a court of equity will refuse to permit an unreasonable forfeiture. This maxim has particularly strong application in NDA actions.   Who is to say that the disclosure came from another source?   Also, tntdinar.com, dinarrecaps.com, dinarguru.com have published thousands of words and updates to the world.com.  There are no restrictions.  Anyone can look up and read these sites.  Knowledge of this Global Currency Reset is all over the world.  If millions of people know someone who has suddenly become rich, they will research the internet to see if the opportunity is still available.  People will discover the news about the GCR. There is little chance of a forfeiture of money and assets acquired post RV for every day normal communication.  If you get on a radio show or t.v. show, or write a book, etc.  In fact, tnttony plays a song talking about the RV.   If that CD is sold and played somewhere, what happens then?   I am a California lawyer, and Federal Courts follow the substantive law of the State where the Federal District Court is located.   Even if there are strict nondisclosure clauses in the NDA, California Civil Code section 1442 provides, “A condition involving a forfeiture must be strictly interpreted against the party for whose benefit it is created.”  The Court in Chase v. Blue Cross of California (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1157 held that “Forfeiture of a contractual right is not favored in the law”.  Also, in Deutsch v. Phillips Petroleum Co. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 586, 592 the Court acknowledged the “statutory doctrine” that the law abhors forfeitures and will indulge a strict construction against the party seeking to benefit from the forfeiture.  The Court held in Balian v. Rainey (1952) 115 Cal.App.2d 10, 18 that “The law abhors a forfeiture. [Citations.] It cannot arise by implication, but can be effected only by clear and unambiguous language.”  Similarly,  Milenbach v. C. I. R. (2003) 318 F.3d 924, 936 held that “Where there are two possible interpretations of a contract, one that leads to a forfeiture and one that avoids it, California law requires the adoption of the interpretation that avoids forfeiture, if at all possible.”   In conclusion, in my legal opinion this equitable doctrine against forfeiture should make people comfortable signing the NDA. Also, if you do things in good faith, this would count in your favor.  The main thing is do not try to "profit" off of your RV currency exchange by telling the story on the internet, newspaper, as the plot of  a book, as scenes in a play, as a script of a movie, on an interview on nightly news.  This is being stupid.   Yet, ordinary conversations to your lawyer who will hire your CPA, and they have the privilege of confidentiality is okay.  Your lawyer is not going to reveal the source of your wealth.   He would be disbarred.  If you say a prayer at Thanksgiving for God's blessing in front of your family, that would not be a violation.   It has to be a commercial transaction of some kind.  In other words, do not be paranoid.               Judge Dale says, "If you violate any provision of this particular NDA you will be arrested as a domestic terrorist under the National Security Act. This, in turn, alters what was formerly a civil contract into one that incorporates grave and serious criminal penalties."             First, anyone you have spoken to before signing the NDA is automatically "exempt" because they had prior knowledge.  Also, you cannot stop those whom you had spoken to who tell others about your good fortune.  This would not be a violation, but it would be a good defense.  There are so many ways to defend a government lawsuit against you in a complaint alleging that you violated the NDA.               Second, the government has other restrictions against them that a business does not.  An NDA cannot constitute a "waiver" of the government's restrictions against violation of the due process of law clause in the 5th Amendment and the government cannot rob you of your rights to equal protection as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.                  Third, you cannot be convicted of a crime connected with a Contract unless "fraud" or some other intentional wrong is proven.  Fourth, Mr. DC on Tony's program made it clear that they are going to look for people who makes the "story" a book, movie, or sits in and "reveals all" to the Enquirer or CBS, NBC, or Fox News.   The government still owes due process of law.   Furthermore, in order to be guilty of a crime, the crime has to be by "Statute", not by contract.  The government cannot violate your Constitutional rights.                  Judge Dale admits that such acts would be unconstitutional.  He said,  "You might think to yourself "They can't do that. It's unconstitutional" True enough. However as a US citizen and defined by law as an entity - a corporation - your corporate personhood has no rights except those granted to you by the government."  He admits the actions would be "unconstitutional" but then he gives the "excuse" that you have no Constitutional right, but the only rights you have are those defined by politicians (or people in Homeland Security?).  Sorry to say, Judge Dale is way off base here.   He will be tagged and declared to be "out."               Also, if the government claimed that you "breached" the NDA, they have to prove "damages".  What damages are there except "revealing" to the world that a whole bunch of "privileged" congressmen and other "special" people exchanged their Dinar prior to all the small guys.                 Personally, I have litigated for both Plaintiffs and Defendants many business NDA agreements, and they have failed almost every time.   All you have to do is point to someone you told BEFORE the NDA was signed and the matter will be dismissed.  There is "freedom of speech", and every contract has to be receivable, and if the government is involved, it cannot take away the rights guaranteed under the Constitution.                 The facts Judge Dale states are wrong.  For example, he says that you can only wire transfer up to $4,999.99.  This is wrong.  The restriction is $499,999.99.   When people state wrong facts, then who can trust their other statements.                Also, I am sure he is an intelligent professional, but he seems to have a predisposition.  He said, "For years I had been telling family and friends that the United States government had become infiltrated by communists during the Wilson Administration and the entire federal system is a foreign corporate fascist group masquerading as the US government.   Unsurprisingly, these statements of mine were regarded by family and friends as both unpatriotic and "conspiracy theory."                Judge Dale  asserts that our government first infiltrated by Communists and is now the same as the Fascist government in WWII Germany.  Our government is nothing like Fascist Germany under Hitler.                  I am not the only one who thinks Judge Dale has a predisposition.   I wonder if he is really a retired judge as his statements sound radical.  I am glad I never had a client that had to appear before judge Dale.                 He said, "Dinar gurus suddenly emerged on the scene, encouraging readers to invest and get rich overnight. Unknown at the time was the fact that most of these gurus were connected to or were themselves currency brokers."    He accuses "most" of the gurus are making money behind the scenes as "CONNECTED" TO OR WERE THEMSELVES CURRENCY DEALERS."  For one, TNT Tony has made it clear that he does not own nor does he get a fee by "promoting" any exchange dealer.  If is point is that if a guru is "connected" somehow to a currency dealer that this made their intel questionable, then since TNT Tony is not connected, then his intel should stand up under scrutiny.  He has nothing to hide.            Judge Dale states, "As time went by I discovered the devaluation of the Iraqi Dinar was planned by the Secretary of the Treasury and Vice President and had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq. It was about the Military Industrial Complex making another killing on a foreign investment off the backs, lives and misfortune of the Iraqi people."  Again, this shows his predisposition toward various conspiracy theories.  He is subjective, not objective.                 Judge Dale tries to give you legal advice about taxes.  He said, "A currency exchange is traditionally a barter (equivalent value changing hands between private parties) and thus it is a non-taxable matter. However, this NDA contract requires you to agree to pay a Capital Gains Tax that has yet to be established. I'm hearing 10% but what happens if it turns out to be 50%? The currency brokers and wealth managers associated with the Federal Reserve banking establishment are recommending that you set aside 50% of your assets to cover taxes."                Again, Judge Dale is citing bad law.  He says that the NDA requires you to pay taxes on a currency exchange if profit is made, but in truth, the Internal Revenue Code clearly states that if you profit more than $200 in a currency exchange, then you are required to report that profit as earned income.                      Judge Dale says, "The Iraqi dinar currency exchange and its accompanying NDA is clearly a trap. The corporate US government is banking on the fact that you will agree to their terms in order to profit from your investment. However, if you make any financial moves in excess of $4,999 you will run afoul of DHS disclosure regulations. Given your signature on the NDA you won't be able to disclose Source Of Funds and will likely end up in prison. How's THAT for a rigged game?"              This is utter nonsense.  You can get a letter from the bank stating that your money is good, clear funds of non-criminal origin.  To say you cannot do a transaction above $4,999.99 is ridiculous.                     Also, it is groundless to say that "Given your signature on the NDA you won't be able to disclose Source Of Funds and will likely end up in prison."  This is an absurd statement.                 Who is to say this guy is not a plant to keep you from getting your just rewards?  Actually, the NDA is a good thing in that you need to keep incognito after the RV anyway.   Protect your privacy; otherwise, all your in-laws and outlaws and everyone who calls you friends will be coming to you for a handout.                   Yet, just sign the NDA, stay incognito, enjoy life, buy your real estate, get letters from your bank that the funds are good, clean funds of non-criminal origin, and you will be okay.  Have a Happy Thanksgiving.  -- Edited by biblitarian on Wednesday 27th of November 2013 04:33:14 PM