659 pattern

(Accounting entanglement trail 1,475.97 - 816.00 = 659.97)

This is a minimum requirement to understanding the accountant's patterns.

An accounting entanglement is intentional confusion and conflict that the accountants plant in their accounting and make it appear as if it came from their clients. It is used as cover and as a wedge and takeover tool. Whoever controls the accounting entanglement controls the people and assets that are entangled. The accountants have control and no accountability and their clients have no control but are made accountable. Small amounts are used to make them appear insignificant, as if the issue were the amount and not that they entangle.

The CPA Joanne Barnes created the accounting entanglement 1,475.97 - 816.00 = 659.97 by reporting different amounts to different entities when the amounts should be the same. For the Trust, she reported 1,475.97 to the Court and 816.00 to the IRS when the amounts should be the same. For the estate, Edward White reported the difference of 659.97 to the Court and to the IRS.

One indicator of the significance of 1,475.97 - 816.00 = 659.97 is the degree that the accountants who created it, reported it, framed me [Trustee Anthony O'Connell] with it, and approved it, don't recognize it. If you recognize the dynamics in this simple example you can recognize the same dynamics in the more complicated examples. As a reminder of this simple example other accounting entanglements will often be referred to as a "659".

659 pattern: does it/is it:

(1) Create confusion and conflict?
(2) Created by the accountants?
(3) Made to appear as if their clients created it? [frame]
(4) Give the accountants total control of the family and assets it entangles?
(5) Make their clients powerless? For as long as the accountants want?
(6) Create cloud cover of confusion and conflict under which the accountants can do anything they want without the evidence being seen; and sine jusgements can't be made on evidence that can't be seen, judgements by default are based on position of power, and power always wins?