Refuting , Paul Grignon author of Money as Debt


Most of you have probably heard of “ Money as Debt “ by Paul Grignon who is the artist & creator of MAD 1,2,3 , however those of us who study MPE which predates Paul Grignons work by 40 odd years have categorically concluded that Paul has stolen or plagiarized most of his ideas from the MPE thesis without first conversing with Mike Montagne the original author/engineer of mathematically perfected economy. Consequently Paul is evading any formal discussion with Mike Montagne in relation to this matter.

As a result therefore “Money as Debt” is a purposed misrepresentation of MPE, which not only distorts the facts about today’s monetary system & the banks purposed obfuscation  of our promissory obligations we have to one another , “ Money as Debt” purpose appears to be purely for self profit or gain in the order of millions for Paul Grignon himself.

The very title “Money as Debt“ is a contradiction & misinforming in itself simply because by the very definition of the word * debt * does not entail a theft, but rather the assumption pertaining to the legal definition of debt which implies a bank gives up lawful consideration of its own in a would be loan which is commensurable or equal to a debt that might otherwise justify interest. This is not the case at all today because there simply is: NO  BORROWER  , NO LOAN & most certainly NO DEBT owed to any bank.

As a result of Paul Grignon ‘s purposed misrepresentation of MPE disguised as “money as debt” we now have a plethora of 11th hour pretenders just like Paul himself who not only advocate Paul’s plagiarized work of MPE only as if it was entirely his own work, they likewise promote his videos & CDs ( making him millions ), in turn they also advocate the same lies of economy within the portrayed distortion of MPE  known as  “Money as Debt “ . This in turn has put the mind set delusion in many individuals/ parrots  today  suggesting  the possibility of * competing debt free currencies * which is preposterous to say the least simply because:

1) Money is not created as a debt under the ruse of banking, but instead created by one of us ( the obligor or alleged borrower ) only to have it stolen from the get go . Its a theft nothing more & most certainly not a debt where the bank steals the sum of principal via the purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations before any book entry, & thereafter as a result  the bank steals a further sum of principal again by charging interest on what is a *falsified debt* which is not even a debt at all really, considering the very definition of the word debt  its a * falsified debt * that equates to a * MONUMENTAL CRIME OF THEFT * * ONE BIG MONEY LAUNDERING RACKET *.

2) Money is a debt instrument not a debt itself.  Money only becomes a debt when its exchanged or redeemed for goods & services or exchanging our labor & production to each other that also represents entitlement thereafter, however unlike MPE the money is stolen on conception creation today by thieving banks who are purposely falsifying a debt to themselves by intervention upon our contracts with each other, which is the core obfuscation & first crime where the bank is neither risking or  giving up consideration commensurable to the falsified debt it imposes on the people, essentially stealing principal representation on conception creation. In effect we are really exchanging our labour & production that the banks have already falsely claimed as their very own by merely pretending to loan a sum of principal to the alleged borrower that the alleged borrower actually created upon signing & issuing a promissory obligation * before any banking book entry *.

The only reason why you have money in your bank account today is because criminal government representatives, politicians in breach of trust who work for banks (NOT THE PEOPLE), are perpetually reflating circulation with irreversible sums of national debt,  borrowing back the same money we all first create & paid out of circulation over the past years on our personal  falsified debts to all the local banks who only steal & launder money out of circulation into the  hands of a central banking system.

3) The very reason why MPE™ shouldn’t be implemented on a micro level in any community small or large is because it will result in competing with another local currency & if we exchange money or property with another local competing currency that has a volumetric disposition such as Interest for example logically we may well inherit the other currencies volumetric impropriety by simply exchanging any money or property subject to that other currency.

NOTE : MPE™ has to be done on a national level at the very least so we can keep the money at home for starters if we are ever to compete or trade with another nation & its currency. If we did implement MPE™ on a micro level we could allow another currency to artificially manipulate MPEs 1.1.1 ratio or adversely effect the volume of circulation per represented property value making it impossible for everyone to pay down & retire the circulation without someone defaulting on there obligation through no fault of their own .

The idea of microeconomics or competing currencies fails at its core concept by not addressing the nations volume of circulation on a macro level & the act of exchanging money & property subject to artificial manipulation with another currency opens up the door for one currency adversely effecting another that wouldn’t otherwise have an adverse volumetric disposition or impropriety .

Micro currencies competing within any nation is an epic fail of rudimentary logic & is stupid as stupid gets .

4) Paul Grignon ‘s also suggests in his latest video “MAD 3 “ or rather his latest plagiarist attempt (morphing closer & closer into MPE) is to not only to deny sovereign people to issue their very own personal obligations but allow government /corporations to issue their own promissory obligations who will be essentially obfuscating their own promissory obligations (instead of ours) to create a sum of interest as well as the sum of principal.


BEWARE, if we comply with government representatives or corporate entities  that solely claim they only have the right to issue promissory obligations (money creation) as Paul Grignon suggests in his * alleged solution * you may as well have a purported full reserve bank doing the same thing, which will be handing  your right & ability as sovereign individuals to issue a promissory obligation over to a corporate entity on a silver platter, thus losing our true representation of wealth to each other for good, opening up the door once again for complete & utter exploitation based on Paul’s mere assumption you would be too scared to issue a promissory obligation for pottery & haircuts which is not only absurd, but an idiotic assertion beyond any intellectual reasoning because this is not the case at all in MPE simply because these everyday costs are paid with earned profit that merely circulates further only to be retired on someone else’s promissory obligation.

What Paul is suggesting is not only the removal of our right to & ability to issue a promissory obligation to each other,  but he is likewise suggesting a further obfuscation of promissory obligations in the hands of thieves & criminals which will more than likely allow corporations to give up a disproportionate & or give up no consideration of value of their own whatsoever, much like banks do today that wouldn’t be commensurable or equal to a would be, or more than probable * falsified debt *

Here is a an example from Paul’s webpage (see third flash down from the top) where he merely assumes 100% of interest can be spent into circulation presumably by these corporate entities (NOT YOU)  where the * alleged lender * or corporate entity in his example will be spending $1,100 in interest into a circulation that’s only ever comprised of $550 in principal? It is clearly obvious Paul needs to repeat 2nd class mathematics?

Logic tells us here again (see third flash down from the top) the * alleged lender * is spending more than whats been created  so how is it then possible to spend more than whats created?  Well, the alleged interest of  $1,100 in Paul’s example is NOT INTEREST AT ALL, but rather its a sum of principal regardless that is also created  & spent into circulation by the *alleged lender*.  For an *alleged  lender * to spend (not loan) but spend $1,100 & then loan $550, logically a sum of $1,650 has to be created first. Now if $550 is loaned & retired  we have $1,650 – $550 = $1,100 left in circulation which is * $1,100 without representation * Whether you call it interest or principal  it matters not really, because this would not only be a case of a volumetric impropriety (circulatory inflation) but as a result we would have out of control inflation & deflation imposed by *gargantuan government* ultimately controlled by corporations , possibly giving sweet heart deals of unearned profits to each other much like today spending  &  taxing * unaccountable * or * disproportionate * sums of money like there is no tomorrow. The only difference is we the people will have totally lost our true representation of wealth to each other for good.

Now If Paul suggests we the sovereign people don’t lose our * true representation of wealth to each other * in his alleged solution using any one of his plagiarist contradictions (Eg: truly liberated system of exchange,  where anyone would have the freedom to issue self credit) or rather have the ability to create the sum of interest as well as the sum principal by issuing a promissory obligation. The question begs to be asked why then do we create the interest if we are only ever paying or spending principal into circulation for its intended representation such as a house for example?  Why then are we loaning or  borrowing the money we create even if we do create a sum of Interest & a sum of Principal as Paul likewise suggests in contradiction to his  former suggestion where government /corporations should be the main issuers of self issued credit or main issuers of promissory obligations, when its WE the people who are already the main issuers of promissory obligations today.


In all seriousness even if interest is ”allegedly” spent into circulation only to be retired on a falsified debt as Paul & other pretenders ignorantly  suggest , why even impose a sum of interest on a falsified debt to begin with when you are only ever spending principal?  Unless you are a thief of course who wants to falsify a debt to yourself pretending to loan money . Spending any sum of interest into circulation only so it can be retired is therefore stupid as stupid gets & fails all rational intellectual reasoning. If Interest is the inherent fault that irreversibly multiplies artificial debt & It does, why not eliminate interest altogether & rectify the falsified debt into what it ought to rightfully be, rather that trying desperately attempt to preserve the very hand that steals from all of us today?

I therefore challenge * Paul Grignon * even mainstream academia in economics or law to debate on TNS radio, contact me here , anything else is taken as clear evasion of fact.

(Published : Jan 08 , 2013)

Return home

comment full 2

12 thoughts on “Refuting , Paul Grignon author of Money as Debt”

  1. I agree: Grignon’s videos are dodgy. My experience is that they normally describe the existing bank system accurately enough, but they then advocate a series of conspiracy theories and the like which don’t stand inspection.

    • Hey Ralf

      I think you will find the only reason why Paul has got the banking system partly right is because he has partly stolen his ideas from the MPE thesis, however he nonetheless missed any accuracy in regards to the banks purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations for a reason, which is to advocate that same crime of theft in his purported solution, so sure hes promoting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories because its ethically & rationally impossible to even loan money into circulation, make no mistake a promise is never a loan, yet Paul would otherwise have people irrationally believing it is only in a poor attempt to preserve the crime of banking, but hey, thanks for your comment Ralf.


  2. Further Dave, you have given the dictionary definition of plagiarism, are you saying that Mike Montagne agree’s with that definition or is it just you. And further i havent said anything about ACR yet, but like i have said already i shall. Also regards Paul Grignon, he was challenging you and Mike Montagne to get in touch after bringing a claim of character deformation against you both(ill root out the document for you if you want) It was on that that you both backed of. I am not a advocate of his work and that is a UNQUALIFIED ASSERTION. Seems its ok when you or the group do it eh? And i will also say, i do know MPE. So theres another UNQUALIFIED ASSERTION.

    • You can dig out what you like Derek because I have seen the email correspondence that’s already transpired between mike & paul in respects to any debate which is quite pathetic in regards to paul’s correspondence I must say ,nevertheless I will not be entertaining anymore of your contradictions & purposed misinterpretations of my words which only equates to utter trash & waste of my time at the end of the day doesn’t it now MATE & finally if I may leave you this quote to ponder on DEREK.

      ” Contradiction is ones own enemy, one who strives to eradicate contradiction is one who not only strives for sanity but order of consciousness itself ”
      ( David Ardron )

  3. Dave what is all that you have written? It seems you have misunderstood me. When i said i will answer each issue in parts, i meant in separate posts. I will deal with my plagiarism claim in the first post. Then i will deal with the ACR issue in the last post. Of course if Mike Montagne isnt the sort to back out of a challenge then we can arrange a call from him, and i can put all of this to him directly. Although it will be the third time i have tried to get him to do so, all to no avail. Now the reason i asked for what Mike Montagne accepts as a definition for plagiarism, is simply because its important because of the following difference. Does taking part of someones work constitute plagiarism, or does it have to be the whole work for it to be concidered plagiarism, by Mike Montagne’s own measure? These are easy questions requring easy answers. So even though you answered my last post Dave, you have failed to give me direct responsive answers to my questions. all you have done is make loads of assumptions nothing to do with my basic questions and they have amounted to nothing other than what you keep on bicameraly calling, and are indeed by your own measure, UNQUALIFIED ASSERTIONS. Now lets stop wasting time, so i can get on with the matter in hand of proving my claim.

    • You are asserting I haven’t answered your questions when anyone can clearly see I indeed have in much detail already Derick so there is no misunderstanding by myself here whatsoever really .

      Your Question 1:
      1, would you say that it is fair for me and Mike Montagne to have a like measure in this matter? what i mean is would you say it would be correct and just, to use the same measure as that which Mike Montagne uses to decide what constitutes plagiarism.

      My Answer:
      Regardless if its fair or not Mikes definition of plagiarism is the same definition found in any dictionary Derek.
      As for mike having the same measure of a definition of plagiarism as you or anyone else Well lets look at what any dictionary defines as plagiarism shall we Derek, which is ” to use another person’s idea or a part of their work and pretend that it is your own “ .

      Your Question 2
      2, you have implied above that, the whole of E. C. Riegel’s work is what constitutes plagiarism, is this correct and in line with what Mike Montagne claims?

      My Answer :
      NO I HAVEN’T IMPLIED THIS AT ALL, NO ITS NOT CORRECT & I HAVE MADE THIS MORE THAN CLEAR ALREADY DEREK? , once AGAIN going by the very definition of plagiarism its clear neither mike nor myself have implied or suggested the whole of E. C. Riegel’s work or the whole of any purported solution is what constitutes plagiarism only you have so far Derek. Logically if a solution Is taken as a whole or in its entirety its evidence of a theft of intellectual property its then a copyright violation in regards to MPE , so informally mike has been advocating his solution since 1968 & formally with the 1979 proposal oF MPE to the Regan administration & subsequent copyright which is there to stop people stealing the entirety of the one & only solution & selling it to you to make a fortune or someone using it as their own only to exploit you further, if you alter MPEs core principals in the slightest it becomes a non solution GOT IT & if you think the idea of no banks & the people issuing their own money upon trade free from intervention constitutes MPE or mike is plagiarizing E. C. Riegel’s work ” Flight From Inflation “ you have to articulate how exactly keeping in mind this particular erroneous pamphlet in regards to its very title was originally published posthumously by editors at the Heather Foundation in 1978 purportedly taken from a transcript found in Riegel’s papers at that time, but we both know people were issuing their own money as far back as 2000 years ago free from intervention or exploitation so this concept of issuing our own promissory obligations or notes is nothing new even in regards to Riegel’s earlier works that he neither articulates in the true sense, actually in his earlier works of 1944 Riegel suggests the creation is upon a book keeping entry , even in his Valun system which is not the case at all Derek simply because the obigors signature upon the issuance of a promissory note or obligation logically comes before the any book entry contrary Riegel’s contradiction that its created on the book entry & issued thereafter by a signature on a cheque that’s also the creation somehow that nevertheless orders a payment of money from a bank account or from his Valun exchange in the course of an exchange but regardless of any accounting or any exchange that’s logically needed in any economy where exactly has mike plagiarized Riegel’s accounting or mathematics here ,which begs the further question how on earth does Riegel’s *franchised Valun exchanges* even remotely resemble the CMI?.

      Now here is the slam dunk that categorically constitutes plagiarism Derek,, are you ready,, now think hard,, who was the first to identify & articulate exactly how any sum of interest is the inherent fault in any purported economy subject to banking? Now where does Riegel or any other money reformist for that matter identify that its the very interest we the people pay on our personal but falsified debts that’s the inherent fault that not only irreversibly multiplies artificial debt to always pay the former sum of artificial debt but likewise the primary cause of price inflation on a whole since the very conception of banking?, now of course one could simply plagiarize a simple fact interest is the inherent fault that multiplies debt right DEREK? without articulating how exactly failing all along to even identify the root cause of price inflation much less the banks obfuscation of our promissory obligations only to then attempt to preserve exploitation for what appears to be always personal gain, selling books & videos full of half truths & lies that can only confuse & divide people further which is in turn fracturing the very essence of any order left in consciousness into smaller fragments of what can only be further disorder thus preventing mankind’s evolution into something far greater just so some pretender can make a buck at your expense who is no better than any exploiter, banker or politician at the end of the day really , which is exactly what Paul is doing here like so many other pretenders out there just like him who have stolen from the MPE thesis without even any genuine consultation with mike first only to then get his & all their interpretations CATEGORICALLY WRONG & as a result sell further exploitation as a purported solution. SO then, where does Riegel even identify & articulate the banks purposed obfuscation of our promissory obligations *before any book entry* so mike or even Paul here for that matter can actually plagiarize all this from Riegel’s work Derek? keeping in mind here logic has to be likewise applied in identifying the inherent faults in this lie of economy today so one can come to the correct solution.

      Now as for your continues assertions that imply mike is somehow backing out of any formal debate or phone call with Paul is only demonstrating you clearly cant see that Paul has already irrationally declared victory before even entering in any debate with mike using me as some absurd excuse based on lies he cant prove, actually I have proved here already that his lies are nothing but a fabrication based on what someone else primarily wrote only to categorically confirm that very assertion with Paul’s very own words now Derek , now I’m not repeating myself again in regards to all this , its already articulated here in the comments section if you care to even study it Derek , get this into your head mike has made it clear he will debate Paul but Paul’s method of madness is similar to yours in some respects where Paul is turning it all around to worm out of any debate with mike before it even starts, & there’s mike sitting there gob smacked saying to himself OK lets debate Paul,, regardless of your alleged victory by some preposterous defamation of character default you have now declared based on lies you have fabricated about Dave which is only a purposed diversion or distraction on Paul’s behalf & likewise for his readers to worm out of any debate at the end of the day.

      On the contrary its not me wasting your time here Derek rather its you wasting my time insisting I haven’t answered your questions when I clearly have in much detail already ,which only further demonstrates at the end of the day your just another one of these disgruntled individuals who flat out refuses to do any homework of your own & as a consequence you cant deal with cold hard facts thus its clearly apparent now your only here on my blog either testing my patience out of willful blind ignorance or attempting to play me for a fool ,,or BOTH.

      Just shoot the messenger why don’t you Derek & after that shoot yourself because it appears you have already proven you are your very own worst enemy not only here but in many other areas & respects Derek, unbeknown to the reader here of course, which I will refrain from going into in any depth because you like so many other individuals out there with the same irrational circular reasoning can only cause further division & confusion in others with a deranged opinionated distortion of the evidential facts at hand mate.

  4. Thank you for your reply what i am going to do is answer what you have said in your reply to me in a few parts. ACR i shall address last. And my plagiarism claim shall be first. As for Paul Grignon, i can only say that i cant see how we will come to a suitable solution. We will just keep batting the issue back and forth without any resolution. I mean you will just deny what i say, and i will no doubt do likewise. So moving on to part one. first of all i need to ask you a few questions. 1, would you say that it is fair for me and Mike Montagne to have a like measure in this matter? what i mean is would you say it would be correct and just, to use the same measure as that which Mike Montagne uses to decide what constitutes plagiarism. 2, you have implied above that, the whole of E. C. Riegel’s work is what constitutes plagiarism, is this correct and in line with what Mike Montagne claims?

    • To be clear here Derek there is only one suitable or should I write sustainable solution in relation to this lie of economy we all live in today & to suggest there is more than one solution is to likewise suggest 2 + 2 = 5 , 8 ,24 or whatever, no matter how one extends a mathematical equation whether its 1+1+1+1 or 2+2 you will still get the correct answer or solution of 4 which indicates if we likewise use a little logic that’s also needed to extend any mathematical equation there is Zero tolerance for pretended solution or compromised adulterations of singular mathematical solution, which is to the latter clearly evident in Paul Grignon’s purported solution imposing further exploitation in the form of loans or falsified debts which is a poor attempt to preserve exploitation using what he learned limited as is from the MPE thesis if anything, therefore we are batting back the issue of unqualified assumptions & lies in defense of what is & has always been an irrefutable proof of singular solution or defending an irrefutable truth that has withstood many of attack for the last 45 years.

      As for mike having the same measure of a definition of plagiarism? Well lets look at what any dictionary defines as plagiarism shall we Derek, which is ” to use another person’s idea or a part of their work and pretend that it is your own “ , now I don’t recall mike telling us Paul actually conversed with him personally beforehand in regards to Paul’s film’s “money as debt” & I don’t recall mike being mentioned in the credits either, not that mike would agree with Paul’s purposed adulteration of singular solution allowing to use his name of course because Paul has clearly plagiarized MPE morphing even closer & closer to MPE on each & every version of his money as debt series 1,2 & 3, which indicates to me that you haven’t even studied MPE in any depth to in turn identify plagiarism & its ramifications either way here Derek, so NO I’m not in denial of what your writing here because your own words can only prove to us all you haven’t even done the basic homework to begin with let alone citing or quoting the amendment that gives any credit to your former unqualified assertion alleging ACR is some false subjective philosophy.

      Now as a result of this clear lack of effort on your behalf Derek it appears your method of madness in trying to turn it all around suggesting MPE is a plagiarism of E. C. Riegel’s work in what can only be a poor defense for Paul Grignon here who is advocating blatant exploitation? furthermore you’re now repeating a false assertion that merely assumes what I have formally written of all things is a purported confirmation of mike plagiarizing the whole of E. C. Riegel’s work which is a preposterous & absurd suggestion to say the least here, & if anyone was to read my former reply they would clearly see I have made NO such claim of confirmation because the only real similarity between mikes work & Riegel’s work is that there is no banks, now if you think mike has stolen or plagiarized what can only be described as rudimentary logic in relation to people issuing unexploited promissory obligations with no intervention that Riegel I may add does not articulate with any mathematical proofs in relation to an irreversible multiplication of artificial debt caused by unwarranted interest on our personal but falsified debts let alone proving how to solve any adverse volumetric improprieties within a general circulation you could then likewise irrationally suggest mike has plagiarized what has been around since 2000 BC couldn’t you now ,which are unexploited promissory obligations that represent intrinsic value or have consideration of value in the form of clay notations from the very origins of money in ancient Mesopotamia ,predating both Mikes & E. C. Riegel’s work of some 2000 years.

      Now In conclusion here Derek I can only reiterate you have proven nothing with your preposterous unqualified assertions which is to me & possibly the reader here who has genuinely done their homework is therefore concluding your distorted assertions or what I personally perceive as a premeditated attack here from the get go ( ACR INCLUSIVE ) which is not only based on what can only be described as rather weak arguments in defense of Paul Grignon at best that I might add can be readily dismissed with little to no effort at all using rudimentary logic alone, but indeed further indicates your arguments are really coming from a world of willful blind ignorance sadly.

  5. Very good Dave. Now we just need a good article on how mike montagne has plagiarized E.C. Riegel and called it MPE. Also a really good follow up to that would be his false subjective philosophy called ACR. Also Grignon did challenge both you and mike montagne about your claims, and it was mike montagne who didnt get back to him.

    • Anyone can clearly see E.C. Riegels ” Valun Private Enterprise Money System ” is similar in one respect to MPE & that there is NO BANKS , Riegel conceived money is simply number accountancy among private traders with no intrinsic value failing to even go near how money is actually created, immutable representation of promissory obligations that have consideration of value , 1.1.1 ratio & how money is to be retired to solve circulatory inflation for that matter assuming that every person or corporation is entitled to create as much money – by buying, as he or it is able to redeem by selling.

      It is only through unexploited promissory obligations in MPE we are entitled to create money in respect to our issue worthiness & remaining consumption left of the related property, anything else is a further representation, where we are not creating money on every trade, moreover Riegels assumes money in his purported solution has no nationality or boundaries inferring a one world currency is likewise the solution failing then to take into account that each nation has different production rates in relation to their population, skills, natural resources etc which have to be factored in relation to a nations imports & exports or national trade.

      I could go a lot deeper Derek however if any one claims mike has plagiarized Riegel’s work all they really have in their defense is a few similarities at the very most here & that is there are no banks & the only conceivable logical result if there are indeed no banks there are likewise no loans & lastly in both systems the people issue their own money, HOWEVER Riegels cant prove or demonstrate how his purported solution will solve inflation & deflation?

      Anyone who thinks MPE is a plagiarism of another purported solution first has to prove how that purported solution identifies the inherent faults in today’s banking system in order to solve those faults , so there is no real comparison here admittedly Riegel vaguely touches upon some symptoms of the obfuscation, but hasn’t even come close to what MPE articulates & solves in my opinion & nor is the Valun System a solution either,, far from it.

      As for your unqualified assumption alleging ACR is some false subjective philosophy, well what can I say Derek you haven’t even proved this is the case , NOT even citing or quoting parts of the amendment that are even suggesting there is a false subjective philosophy & this assertion has absolutely nothing to do with E.C. Riegels purported solution NOT even close as far as I can see.

      Now for Grignon I suggest you read the comments again if you haven’t already , its clear Grignon is using me as an excuse to worm out of any debate with mike, which I may add are excuses based on lies he can neither prove or demonstrate, contrary to your assumption mike actually did converse with Grignon many times & indeed ready to debate regardless what Grignon or yourself asserts.

    • You never agreed to debate mike, you only claimed to LOVE to debate him, then you laid a deluge of preposterous allegations through all of which mike only continued to ensure you that he is still willing to debate you anytime.

      The next excerpt is from Paul Grignon’s youtube channel.

      * I will just quickly outline to the reader why you absolutely have no credibility Paul? *

      Please note the follwing is from Paul’s web page claiming without proof or qualification that these words are belonging to chotaboy66?

      Please note the following excerpt is from Paul’s you tube comments, exact same words * NOT * belonging to chotaboy66?


      See further evidence here of Paul’s purposed miss quote, hoping you the reader wont do your homework.

      I suggest if you are going to quote anything Paul, you should source from this blog or directly from the ” perfectedeconomy ” web page, misquoting & failing to source evidence or relevant links with your preposterous assertions only assures the reader they are being duped by a mere charlatan, but I guess its too late for you now, oh yes Paul, did I forget to mention, we record & document everything including your evasion.

      The next excerpt is likewise from Paul Grignon’s web page.

      I guess you have disqualified your self Paul because I have just proven to the reader here that:.

      1) chotaboy66 has NOT attacked or insulted you at all, ( See HERE & HERE folks ) rather asking questions, holding your words accountable, words that appear to be deception & what is blatant plagiarism of MPE.

      2) I have just proven using your own words that you have made false claims of unsupported evidence against chotaboy66, ” alleging “ he called you a liar, when this was clearly not the case at all, BUT what appears to be a purposed misquote . ( exact wording indicate this is a purpose obfuscation to deceive your readers PAUL )

      3) Likewise I have also proved using your own words once again, that indeed, its you who are lying about the statement of your opponent, merely fabricating evidence for your readers pertaining that mike approves your ” alleged allegations “ against chotaboy66 , that you Paul, can neither prove, qualify or demonstrate.

      However after all this, even after you meticulously took a still shot from one of my videos, merely attempting to make me look insincere on your web page, it matters not, mike is still prepared to debate you PAUL, even though you have clearly disqualified yourself, or should I write fallen on your own sword, with your very own statements & words already . 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s