#matt david

[xkennashs]

the most important

[thesunalsorises21]

Tumblr people! I need you! Can you get me this frame from the last The Vampire Diaries episode in hd? I would be so thankful!

[forbes-salvatoredaily]

[forbes-salvatoredaily]

l 'm going miss them 😭😭

[who-is-matthias-david-blog]

Ex-con blames FBI for his own sins

   Matthias David / Peacock seems to acknowledge some culpability in his fraud conviction.  Yet, David/ Peacock oddly places some blame on the FBI for his criminal conviction.   He wrote to his probation officer, in part, as follows: “If I had not gone to prison I would have gone back to New Mexico to open another school in Roswell, and possibly another in Ruidoso.  However, under the circumstances, I would rather not return to that area because of the damage done to my reputation caused by myself and the FBI investigation.”  (Matthias David letter to H.L. Haun, dated Aug. 5, 1978, page 1.  Please see attachment herein to Order Denying Motion for Reduction in Sentence, filed 8-31-1978.)    It is unclear as to what impact the fraud conviction ostensibly had upon the reputation of David / Peacock.  Nor is it clear what relevance the role of the FBI agents had upon the con game that David / Peacock had run upon his onetime friends, acquaintances, and ex-karate students in New Mexico.  Regardless, the FBI merely was doing its job and David / Peacock clearly brought the arrest on himself.  Yet, why does the ex-con blame the FBI for harm to his reputation?  The federal investigators merely followed the evidence that led to David/ Peacock’s conviction.    (Note:  In the 1990s, after opening another karate and kickboxing gym, this time in Spokane, WA, Matthias David / Peacock would relish in bragging about how he had fractured an FBI agent’s ribs during sparring.  One wonders how an ostensibly ”nonviolent” or professional martial arts instructor would take delight in boasting how he had injured a law enforcement officer – even if this had occurred during sparring.)

[who-is-matthias-david-blog]

Money was stolen, not loaned (part 2)

   Matthias David begged the court for a reduction in his five-year prison sentence.  He wrote letters in his application, which were quite self-serving and not written under oath of law.  “On May 11, 1978, I was sentenced to five years on a charge of Wire Fraud in your court.  I borrowed money (sic) from my friends and relatives and gave them a false reason for borrowing (sic) the money.  I pleaded guilty to the charge because of the false reason I gave them and because I did not want to go through the embarrassment of a trial.”  Matthias David wrote that he wanted out of prison so that he ostensibly could, “repay the money I borrowed from my friends.”    David/ Peacock did not want to be placed under oath in a federal court of law and compelled to outline the details of the scam.  Of course, let us acknowledge that nobody is compelled to take the witness stand in his own defense.  However, no sound in the courtroom is as deafening as the accused man’s silence when he is accused of an offense that he ostensibly did not commit.  When a man is accused falsely, it should take a team of horses to keep a man off the witness stand to proclaim loudly and repeatedly that he is not guilty of the crime.   David/ Peacock did not testify, of course, because he was guilty.  There is no other valid reason for his failure to do so.  If he were innocent, David/ Peacock should have told this to the only persons who matter, the jury or the judge.  Instead, he wrote to the judge and tells news reporters – while NOT under oath

– that the money was not stolen by “borrowed” as “loans.”  How self-serving.  David/ Peacock shamelessly tries to deny his crimes.  Does this sound like a man with any semblance of self-respect, of integrity, of character, of honesty, or of decency?    Can we accept that honest people do not get convicted in federal court for merely borrowing money.  A karate instructor with integrity would not have to have lied to get money from his relatives, former students, and “friends.”  He downplays the impact of his crimes and attempts to identify with his victims.  “I want to make restitution and I always have.  So, I’m not the only one that is being hurt by my confinement.  The longer I am in prison the worse it is for me and for my friends.”   Sure, “worse” – for me.  Waah. But there was an easier way: Do not lie in order to get money under false pretenses in the first place.  (Matthias David letter to the Hon. Ewing T. Kerr, pages 1-2.   Please see attachment herein to Order Denying Motion for Reduction in Sentence, filed 8-31-1978.)    Via his guilty plea and his own hand, Matthias David / Peacock admitted the charges, regardless about his self-serving denials and fabrications.  “Borrowed”?  Matthias David/Peacock wrote during dissolution proceedings circa 1995 in Spokane, WA, that he was incarcerated for only about 4 months of his term in Terminal Island federal penitentiary in San Pedro, CA.  The duration of his time in lockup is uncertain from the documents.  What is certain is Matthias David/ Peacock was convicted to a five year prison term, later given two years of probation.  The probation was extended from 2 years for 3 more years to a total of 5 years, which apparently was designed to allow him to pay restitution to his victims, which Matthias David/ Peacock apparently did, to the satisfaction of the federal court.   Firstly, consider why the money was “loaned” to David/Peacock. He obtained the money under false pretenses, claiming that the money was supposed to be going toward the medical expenses of the injured, paraplegic girl.  David/ Peacock in fact was NOT the injured girl’s uncle, which is the blatant lie that he had told his former karate students and acquaintances in order to obtain the money in the first place.      Next, David/Peacock in fact never gave any of the money to the charitable fund that had been created to benefit the injured girl; he never intended to do so.  David/Peacock and another cult member were accused of making up phony hard-luck stories to raise money that Matthias David reputedly said went to support cult leader Immanuel David, who was under investigation for wire fraud charges at the time that he committed suicide.    Even an imaginative interpretation of David/ Peacock’s claim that the stolen money was “borrowed” money fails.  Let’s say that your ex-karate teacher claimed that he was an “uncle” to a seriously injured girl, and that Uncle Matt hit you up for a contribution of money toward her medical costs.  Would you consider that money to be repaid as a “loan” -- which is what David/Peacock claimed only after his arrest and conviction?  What would be that rationale: Is the paraplegic girl somehow supposed to recover, get a job, and miraculously repay your “loan”?  The description by David/ Peacock of the stolen money as being “loans” rings false.  Even years later, David/Peacock could not admit taking actions that he clearly knew were wrong.    The cult members may have claimed that they were doing the work of their lord by soliciting this money.  But the money was gathered for illegitimate purposes, as the FBI investigation revealed.  Actually, the cash in part went to pay for the $90 a day hotel room in Salt Lake City and other trappings of material wealth that cult leaders Immanuel and Rachel David had enjoyed.   Matthias David now makes self-serving protestations and lamentations about his innocence.  Yet, prison inmates often say anything in order to make themselves look better.  And Matthias David is all about looking good.   He was arrested and intentionally chose not to testified in his own defense; he otherwise would have been compelled to testify under oath and would have been open to cross examination about all of his money-gathering activities on behalf of the Family of David.  And his ego would not allow for his testimony in open federal court.    If Matthias David was innocent of wrongdoing, why does he not dissociate himself from the cult or disavow the activities of the false prophet Immanuel David (who used deceit, manipulation, and suicide as his means to the so-called promised land)?  Matthias David cannot be “a little bit guilty.”  That would be a ridiculous claim, like being a little bit pregnant or a little bit dead.  David either was or was not guilty.  He cannot have it both ways.  Matthias David pleaded guilty and admitted his culpability in a federal crime.  The more than $11,000 he had swindled from his friends, acquaintances, and former karate students was stolen and not borrowed.  Enough said.

[who-is-matthias-david-blog]

Money was stolen, not loaned (part 1)

   In January 1978, Heidi Lindsay, age 9, sustained injuries and was paralyzed from the waist down in a traffic collision that killed both her parents.  The girl was treated at a hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah.  The tragic case got news media coverage.  Heidi’s uncle and aunt did not and never were acquainted with Matthias David, according to an FBI investigation and statements in the federal Complaint for Wire Fraud against Matthias David.   Again, the Lindsay Family did NOT know any Matt David or Matthias David and did NOT receive any money that Matthias David reputedly collected on the injured girl’s behalf.  Nor had the family authorized Matthias David to collect any donations while invoking the name of the injured girl Heidi Lindsay.  Clearly, David/ Peacock lied.  (See federal Information for Wire Fraud against Matthias David.)   The scam began in April 1978, when Matthias David contacted his onetime students who had patronized his then-karate dojo in Alamogordo, N.M., falsely claimed that he was related to the injured girl Heidi Lindsay, and solicited contributions with the

pretext of giving those contributions to the benefit of the injured girl.  According to results of an FBI investigation mentioned in court documents (filed with the U.S. District Court, District of Utah – Central Division, case No. CR-78-00063), Matthias David concocted the scheme, and he did not give ANY of the solicited contributions to the hospital or the injured girl.  Matthias David blatantly lied to get the money, $11,268.65, which the federal court ordered him to repay to his victims as restitution.    Matthias David and another cult member were accused of making up phony hard-luck stories.  According to sources quoted in Washington Post and Chicago Tribune news reports, Matthias David apparently gave the “donated” money to his mentor Bruce Longo AKA Charles Bruce Longo AKA Immanuel David, a religious zealot.  See news article “Father Was the ‘Target” of Fraud Investigation,” Salt Lake Tribune, Aug. 4, 1978.)    Ultimately, the ruse that con man Matthias David had created was not very sophisticated, just like the man himself.  Apparently, the con man assumed that, since both parents had been killed in the fatal automobile collision, the girl Heidi Lindsay was rendered an orphan.  But the con man did not count on the fact that Heidi had an aunt and uncle -- who later told the FBI they didn’t know Matthias David and had not tasked him with collecting any money on Heidi’s behalf.  Oops, big mistake, con man.   Matthias David’s actual sisters -- not his cult “sisters” -- reportedly turned him in to authorities and shunned him.  On 10-03-1978, Matthias David pleaded guilty to wire fraud charges.  A guilty plea basically is an admission of guilt.  A defendant tells the court, “Yes, I committed that crime.”  He was convicted on charges of wire fraud in U.S. District Court, Central Division of Utah, United States of America v. Matthias David, #CR 78-00063.    Note that, in his self-serving requests for a shortened sentence (which were denied), David/ Peacock begged for early release, so that he could live with his brother and sisters in the Spokane area.  He failed in his immediate motion to reduce the five year sentence.  (Order Overruling Motion for Reduction of Sentence, filed 8-31-1978.)  Instead, the court ordered defendant to get a psychiatric workup.

[who-is-matthias-david-blog]

From the archive: Utah mystery: How did zealot get money? (August 5, 1978)

   A Chicago Tribune report speculates as to how the religious cult leader Immanuel David and his Family of David obtained money.  Clearly, the money was used to pay for luxury hotel rooms, expensive pianos, and big-ticket items -- not material goods that one would associate with a so-called prophet or the reputed incarnation of a deity.