My reference to Sexual persuasion has nothing to do with the Petters Ponzi scheme. It is a reference to the people who are posting on this blog of yours. It is apparent that it is a blog for liberal homosexuals who hold God in great contempt, and because you really cant take on God, you choose to bash anyone that might have views which would lean towards Gods view which he shares through the Holy Bible. My point would be that you choose to bash a guy like Frank Vennes without knowing anything about him other than he is a Christian.
If Pete wants to pin a pink triangle on me, I'll wear it proudly. Pete's homophobic smear is yet another reason to carefully look at the character and motives of Vennes supporters.
There is a discussion about this over at the Topix forum. A comment from "whats really going on":
The real issue here is: how in the hell is Vennes not in jail? Take everything he ever earned from this Ponzi scheme and give it back to the people he ripped off. He sold himself as a God ordained authority on money. This is no different than a creepy TV evangelist recruiting donations, enriching the cult leader.
Vennes did in fact give a lecture in February of 2007 at something called the "God and Money Dinner" (audio here).
A reply from Vennes supporter "Mike":
Before you write like this maybe you should learn how to read the news article. Let me help you. FRANK VENNES WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE SCHEME HE WAS A VICTIM LIKE OTHERS, HE WILL ALSO LOSE LIKE ALL THE OTHERS AS HE HAS ALREADY COMMITTED EVERYTHING HE HAS TO PAY BACK THOSE THAT BORROWED HIM THEIR MONEY. It really isnt very complicated now is it! If you need another picture read Hebrews 10:32-39 in your bible if you have one, if not borrow one, it is very good reading and often times relevent to our own lives. Let me know what you think.
"Whats really going on" replies:
First, "Mike," you should watch your snide, belittling tone when you communicate with people on the internet. It makes your brand of Christianity look small, irrelevant, backwater, and unappealing. You sound like a snobby jerk. Second, I would caution you not to blaspheme. The passage you quoted is in reference to people of faith, suffering even unto death, in their pursuit of spreading the word of God. They actually physically suffered (hunger, famines, beatings, enprisonment) for their faith. Paul, Peter, or any other of the apostles didn't spend their life recruiting investors into a Ponzi scheme. They weren't rich, didn't revolve their lives around the gaining of wealth. Your pal's main focus for 15 years of his life was in encouraging people to put all their eggs in his basket. He made hundreds of millions of dollars off of a Ponzi scheme. How dare you immortalize him as some kind of hero, enduring a of holy trial.
There actually is evidence against him. Perhaps you should read some of the trial transcripts or wire tapes played in court (they're available online at the United States Attorney's website). There is also evidence that Tom informed Vennes that some of the notes were compromised, and Vennes did nothing about it. Read the search affidavit. There are plenty of things that have come out that, if you're paying attention, should make you pull your hat out of his ring. Where there is smoke there is fire. And if you can't see that, you're a blind fool.
You make Christians look like idiots.
At the hearing for the Frank Vennes' work-out plan Friday, there was a great deal of sympathy expressed by attorneys for the plight of the group of investors who lost fortunes when they trusted Frank Vennes Jr. who in turn invested their money in Tom Petters' Ponzi scheme. As Petters receiver Doug Kelley pointed out at the hearing, the Vennes investors are demanding to go to the front of a long line of investors - getting 35 cents to 50 cents on the dollar instead of the estimated 5 cents on the dollar the the other investors will likely receive.
From a conservative, free-market perspective, the Vennes investors deserve little or nothing - they gambled on a risky investment and lost. They made the investment based on faulty judgement. Unlike the Petters investors, they had knowledge, as did Michele Bachmann of Vennes' prior felony conviction (money-laundering, drug and gun trafficking). If the Vennes investors had done their due diligence, they would have also been wary of the high rate of return, a red flag for fraud. We were told some of the Vennes investors put all their savings eggs into the Petters/Vennes nest - any book on investing recommends spreading the risk. If Vennes acted as an investment counselor for the victims, he should have advised a diversified approach.
Compensation for the poor investment decisions of the Vennes/Petters victims should not come out of the pockets of other Petters victims.
