Saturday, June 24, 2017


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Four Republican senators broke ranks with their party’s leadership Thursday, vowing to vote against the GOP’s latest healthcare “reform” bill, the Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017.
Senators Rand Paul (Ky.), Ted Cruz (Texas), Ron Johnson (Wis.), and Mike Lee (Utah) issued a joint press release upon announcing their decision to oppose the legislation being dubbed Trumpcare.
“Currently, for a variety of reasons, we are not ready to vote for this bill, but we are open to negotiation and obtaining more information before it is brought to the floor,” the quartet explained. “There are provisions in this draft that represent an improvement to our current healthcare system but it does not appear this draft as written will accomplish the most important promise that we made to Americans: to repeal Obamacare and lower their healthcare costs.”
Senator Paul issued a separate statement, stating that he didn’t run on passing “Obamacare lite.” "The current bill does not repeal Obamacare. It does not keep our promises to the American people. I will oppose it coming to the floor in its current form, but I remain open to negotiations,” the self-described constitutional conservative added.
“It looks like we’re keeping Obamacare, not repealing it,” Paul commented during an interview on MSNBC.
Paul isn’t new to the fight to prevent party powerbrokers from shoving voluminous bills down the throats of the rank and file. Just one day prior to the release of the healthcare proposal — a bill hammered out behind closed doors by Republican leadership — Paul announced his intention to reintroduce a bill that would require senators to read legislation before they voted on it.
His “Read the Bills” measure would mandate that all lawmakers be given time to study the legislation they are being asked to consider by requiring that all bills be made public for one day for every 20 pages of content prior to being placed before the body of the Senate for its deliberation.
“Legislation is too often shoved through Congress without proper hearings, amendments, or debate, as the secrecy surrounding the Senate's health care bill and the pressure to vote for it with little time to fully evaluate the proposal once again remind us,” Paul wrote in a statement published Wednesday.
The Better Care Reconciliation Act, as released by the Republican Party leadership on Thursday, comes in at 142 pages, thus Paul’s bill would give legislators eight days to plow through the proposal before being asked to impose it on the American people.
In the coming days, many journalists (perhaps even this one) will analyze the Republican version of federally imposed healthcare. There is a place for such an exercise. The whole of the matter comes down to one issue and one issue only: Does the Constitution grant power to the Congress (or the president or the federal courts) to legislate in the area of healthcare? If the answer to that question is “No,” which I assure you that it is, then the next step along the critical path of constitutionalism is the 10th Amendment, which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The next step, then, is for the states to reject any attempt by the federal government — regardless of the party affiliation of the act’s authors — to impose upon them any programs or policies associated with the healthcare provided within them.
If it were properly understand and exercised, this tack is the “rightful remedy” to all unconstitutional acts of the federal government.
It is now as it was when Thomas Jefferson described it as such in the Kentucky Resolutions.
Jefferson wrote, speaking of efforts by many federal lawmakers to usurp the authority rightfully retained by the states in the Constitution:
Therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them.
While the commitment made by Senators Paul, Cruz, Johnson, and Lee is commendable and they are to be lauded for their fidelity to their oaths of office, the fact is, state legislators have taken a similar oath to “support the Constitution” (see Article VI).
How can one be honestly said to support the Constitution other than by insisting that its intent be followed, its enumeration of powers be adhered to by federal officers, and that the states unapologetically reject every act made by those elected federal officials that exceeds the authority given to them in that sacred document?
Should these senators lose the battle against Trumpcare, the war to restore this Republic and the Constitution is not lost. State lawmakers must step into the breach and refuse to enforce all 141 pages of that bill, standing firmly within the territory of the 10th Amendment.
According to sources on Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is pushing to get a vote on the bill before lawmakers head home for the Fourth of July holiday.
It is ironic, for sure, that McConnell is leaning on lawmakers to get Trumpcare — the Republicans’ repackaged proffering of ObamaCare —  passed before Independence Day, a day our ancestors asserted their right to be free from a government “pursuing invariably the same Object [which] evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.”
 5 GOP senators oppose new health care bill 
 Published on Jun 22, 2017
Four conservative Republicans came out against the plan too, including Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson
 Senator Rand Paul: 'Four + Republicans won't vote for Republican health care bill'
ALSO: Sen. Dean Heller explains his disapproval 
of GOP health bill


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The Democratic attorney general
 of California, most known for filing criminal charges against the man 
who recorded undercover videos of his talks with Planned Parenthood 
officials, has now banned state employees from traveling to Texas in 
protest of a law protecting faith-based adoption agencies from 
punishment for operating in accordance with the tenets of their 
He also banned government travel to Alabama and South Dakota over his objections to similar adoption laws, as well as to Kentucky.
“I am announcing today that I am adding four states to the list of states where California-funded or sponsored travel will be restricted on account of the discriminatory nature of laws enacted by those states,” Xavier Becerra said in a statement on Thursday.
“While the California DOJ works to protect the rights of all our people, discriminatory laws in any part of our country send all of us several steps back,” he opined. “That’s why when California said we would not tolerate discrimination against LGBTQ members of our community, we meant it.”
 As previously reported, while the Texas legislation—signed last week by Gov. Greg Abbott—doesn’t mention specifics, some have construed the law to mean that Christian adoption agencies may choose married couples over unmarried, Christian couples over non-Christian and heterosexuals over homosexuals.
“A governmental entity or any person that contracts with this state or operates under governmental authority to refer or place children for child welfare services may not discriminate or take any adverse action against a child welfare services provider on the basis, wholly or partly, that the provider has declined or will decline to provide, facilitate, or refer a person for child welfare services that conflict with, or under circumstances that conflict with, the provider ’s sincerely held religious beliefs,” House Bill 3859, also known as the “Freedom to Serve Children Act,” reads in part.
Bill author Rep. James Frank, R-Wichita Falls, denied that the bill was discriminatory against homosexuals.

“This is really to give quick, clear certainty to providers so they can take care of children instead of fighting lawsuits,” he explained. “We want to make reasonable accommodations so everyone can participate in the system. Everyone is welcome, but you don’t have to think alike to participate.”
“My guess is if you have an LGBT agency they’re going to pick an LGBT family, and if you have a Baptist agency they may be more likely to pick a Baptist family,” he also noted. “They’re free to do that and should be free to do that.”
Becerra also cited Alabama’s H.B. 24, and South Dakota’s H.B. 149, in his statement, which he opposed out of his belief that they likewise could permit faith-based organizations to decline to place children in homes with two men or two women.
He additionally expressed objection to Kentucky’s S.B. 17, which declares that “[n]o recognized religious or political student organization is hindered or discriminated against in the … selection of leaders and members, defining of doctrines and principles, … or in its determination that only persons committed to its mission should conduct these activities.”
Becerra asserts that the law could permit public schools and universities “to discriminate against classmates based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
The attorney general issued his travel ban in light of a new California law that prohibits state-sponsored travel to states that have laws on the books deemed to be discriminatory against homosexuals.
California already prohibits state employees from traveling to North Carolina, Kansas, Mississippi and Tennessee.


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Many of these “hate crimes” were just crimes: “The ACLU listed several burglaries in Alabama that targeted mosque donation boxes. But according to a police statement, authorities found ‘no evidence that these crimes are hate crime related.’ Another example involves a 16-year-old boy who set fire to a mosque, but authorities do not believe the arson was a hate crime. The ACLU also lists the murder of a young Muslim woman outside a mosque that occurred Sunday. Police currently believe the crime was a ‘road rage incident’ and not a hate crime….Ellison mischaracterizes some of the incidents CAIR reported by calling them ‘attacks,’ exaggerating instances like hate mail by including them in the 35-number from his tweet.”
This is all familiar. For years, Islamic advocacy groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have wildly exaggerated the incidence of anti-Muslim hate crime, often misrepresenting crimes committed by Muslims themselves as anti-Muslim hate crimes, in order to portray Muslims in the U.S. as victims of widespread persecution. In reality, FBI statistics show that Jews are twice as likely to be victims of hate crimes as Muslims.
The objective is clearly to deflect counter-terror efforts, claiming that Muslims are more victimized than victimizer, and that counter-terror efforts are part of that victimization.
Ellison has multiple links to the Muslim Brotherhood, so this is no surprise coming from him.

“FACT CHECK: Have There Been 35 Mosque Attacks Under Trump?,” by David Sivak, Daily Caller, June 21, 2017:
Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison tweeted Sunday that there have been 35 “mosque attacks” in the Trump era.
Verdict: Unsubstantiated
Ellison exaggerates an outdated and imprecise statistic. However, there have been a number of hate crime incidents directed at mosques in recent months. It remains to be seen whether these incidents are part of a growing trend.
Fact Check:
In his tweet, Ellison links to a Buzzfeed article that claims there have been around 35 “incidents of threats, vandalism and arson at U.S. mosques since January.” The figure is roughly based on an outdated statistic mentioned in a March press release from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
To establish a more current estimate, The Daily Caller News Foundation analyzed an ongoing list of incidents compiled by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The analysis found alleged incidents at about 60 mosques across the country to date. Many of the incidents noted by CAIR are included in the ACLU listing.
The ACLU’s list relies on local news reports, so the number of incidents could be higher if news outlets did not cover an incident or if the ACLU could not find all instances reported by local media.
The number of “anti-mosque incidents” the ACLU compiled may also be overstated because not all incidents were investigated by police as hate crimes. In addition, the list includes more subjective “incidents” like zoning disputes over the construction of new mosques.
The ACLU listed several burglaries in Alabama that targeted mosque donation boxes. But according to a police statement, authorities found “no evidence that these crimes are hate crime related.”
Another example involves a 16-year-old boy who set fire to a mosque, but authorities do not believe the arson was a hate crime.
The ACLU also lists the murder of a young Muslim woman outside a mosque that occurred Sunday. Police currently believe the crime was a “road rage incident” and not a hate crime.
Police reports and investigations are not infallible, but “anti-mosque” statistics issued by groups like the ACLU should be taken with a grain of salt. According to the FBI, “only when a law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, should an agency report an incident as a hate crime.”
Ellison mischaracterizes some of the incidents CAIR reported by calling them “attacks,” exaggerating instances like hate mail by including them in the 35-number from his tweet….

Both Ellison’s tweet and the Buzzfeed article frame recent mosque incidents in the context of the Trump era. The article looks at incidents since January, the month President Donald Trump was inaugurated. However, evidence of a link between Trump’s presidency and attacks on mosques is unsubstantiated….


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 LOS ANGELES, Calif. — A Christian school in 
California has reportedly fired a preschool teacher after giving her the
 choice of leaving the pornography industry or losing her job working at
 the faith-based institution.
Nina Skye told Fox11 News this week she was informed by the school, which has not been identified, that her lifestyle was in violation of the conduct agreement that she signed when she began working at the facility.
“[They said] I couldn’t work there because it goes against their statement of faith [and] that it goes against their views of fornication, like sex before marriage, and that’s what I’m doing,” she explained. “They say it goes against the paper I signed saying I wouldn’t do that.”
Skye said that officials tried to offer her help and a way out of the industry, but she declined.

“They were really trying to pull me away from staying in the industry. They just really wanted me out. They offered help and advice, but I don’t really want out of the industry,” she admitted.
She went further, telling reporters that she “loves sex” and that working as a porn actress is her “dream job.”
“It is easy money,” Skye said. “For my very first scene, I just did a regular boy on girl scene and I got paid $2,500 on the spot. I never had that much money, ever, just handed to me in my life.”

She has also performed in lesbian scenes as well.
On June 13, Skye posted to her social media page that her employment had been terminated, and seemed to disagree with the decision, writing “smh,” short for “shaking my head.”
“Got fired from a religious school just because I do porn. smh,” Skye tweeted.
She also wrote on Sunday, “Happy Father’s day to all the daddies I use to flirt with when I was a teacher and then some.”
1 Thessalonians 4:1-5 and 7-8 reads, “Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication—that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor, not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God.”
“For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness. He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us His Holy Spirit.”


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
 They were supposed to be coming to supply a labor force that would make 
up for Germany’s declining birthrate. Instead, they’re going on welfare,
 which shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone, since the Qur’an says 
that non-Muslims must pay for the Muslims’ upkeep (9:29). Germany has 
imported a huge drain on its welfare system. What could possibly go 
“Refugee reality: Germany admits 75% face long-term unemployment and life on benefits,” by Simon Osborne, Express, June 23, 2017:
THREE quarters of Germany’s refugees will be long-term unemployed and claiming benefits for years, it was admitted today.
Aydan Özoğuz, commissioner for immigration, refugees and integration, told the Financial Times that only a quarter to a third of the newcomers would enter the labour market over the next five years, and “for many others we will need up to 10”.
The Institute for Employment Research (IAB) found only 45 per cent of Syrian refugees in Germany have a school-leaving certificate and 23 per cent a college degree.
Statistics from the Federal Labour Agency show the employment rate among refugees stands at just 17 per cent.
It said 484,000 of the refugees are looking for work, up from 322,000 last July — an increase of 50 per cent.
Of those, 178,500 are officially unemployed, meaning they not only have no work but are not enrolled in any training programmes or language courses — up 27 per cent on last July….
It was hoped the arrival of so many working-age, highly-motivated immigrants would help end Germany’s skills shortage and solve a demographic crisis posed by its dangerously low birth rate….


 Children are being diagnosed and dosed with toxic drugs at a staggering rate
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“Take a child who wants to invent something out of thin air, and instead of saying no, tell him he has a problem with his brain, and then stand back and watch what happens. In particular, watch what happens when you give him a toxic drug to fix his brain. You have to be a certain kind of person to do that to a child. You have to be, for various reasons, crazy and a career criminal.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
First, here are a few facts that should give you pause:
According to NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness), “More than 25 percent of college students have been diagnosed or treated by a professional for a mental health condition within the past year.”

NAMI: “One in four young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 have [we claim] a diagnosable mental illness.”
According to, 6.4 million American children between the ages of 4 and 17 have been diagnosed with ADHD. The average age for the child’s diagnosis is 7.
BMJ 2016;352:i1457: “The number of UK children and adolescents treated with antidepressants rose by over 50% from 2005 to 2012, a study of five Western countries published in European Neuropsychopharmacology has found.”
Getting the picture?
Children are being diagnosed and dosed with toxic drugs at a staggering rate.
But, as I have shown in many past articles, NO so-called mental disorder is based on a lab test. No blood, saliva, genetic, brain test. ALL 300 or so official mental disorders are defined by menus of behaviors concocted by committees of psychiatrists.
On that foundation, the diagnoses and the drugs are handed out.
Let’s look at just one of the drugs: Ritalin (or any similar ADHD medicine). After a creative child is seen fidgeting in class, looking bored, studying what he wants to study, ignoring classroom assignments, focusing on what interests him, he is diagnosed with ADHD. Then comes the drug.
In 1986, The International Journal of the Addictions published an important literature review by Richard Scarnati. It was called “An Outline of Hazardous Side Effects of Ritalin (Methylphenidate)” [v.21(7), pp. 837-841].
Scarnati listed a large number of adverse effects of Ritalin and cited published journal articles which reported each of these symptoms.
For every one of the following (selected and quoted verbatim) Ritalin effects, there is at least one confirming source in the medical literature:
* Paranoid delusions
* Paranoid psychosis
* Hypomanic and manic symptoms, amphetamine-like psychosis
* Activation of psychotic symptoms
* Toxic psychosis
* Visual hallucinations
* Auditory hallucinations
* Can surpass LSD in producing bizarre experiences
* Effects pathological thought processes
* Extreme withdrawal
* Terrified affect
* Started screaming
* Aggressiveness
* Insomnia
* Since Ritalin is considered an amphetamine-type drug, expect amphetamine-like effects
* Psychic dependence
* High-abuse potential DEA Schedule II Drug
* Decreased REM sleep
* When used with antidepressants one may see dangerous reactions including hypertension, seizures and hypothermia
* Convulsions
* Brain damage may be seen with amphetamine abuse.
Under this chemical assault on the brain, what are the chances that a creative child will go on in life to become an innovator, rather than a victim of psychiatric drugging?
Make a list of your favorite innovators. Imagine them as bored distracted children sitting in classrooms…and then diagnosed, and then hammered with drugs prescribed by a doctor.
This is happening now.
The institution of psychiatry is making it happen.
What about the consequences of diagnosing clinical depression in larger numbers of young children? What about the antidepressant drugs?
Here is just a sprinkling of information about antidepressants, from a huge body of literature:
Psychiatrist Peter Breggin: February 1990 American Journal of Psychiatry (Teicher et al, v.147:207-210) reports on “six depressed patients, previously free of recent suicidal ideation, who developed `intense, violent suicidal preoccupations after 2-7 weeks of fluoxetine [Prozac] treatment.’ The suicidal preoccupations lasted from three days to three months after termination of the treatment. The report estimates that 3.5 percent of Prozac users were at risk. While denying the validity of the study, Dista Products, a division of Eli Lilly, put out a brochure for doctors dated August 31, 1990, stating that it was adding `suicidal ideation’ to the adverse events section of its Prozac product information.”
An earlier study, from the September 1989 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, by Joseph Lipiniski, Jr., indicates that in five examined cases people on Prozac developed what is called akathesia. Symptoms include intense anxiety, inability to sleep, the “jerking of extremities,” and “bicycling in bed or just turning around and around.” Dr. Peter Breggin comments that akathesia “may also contribute to the drug’s tendency to cause self-destructive or violent tendencies … Akathesia can become the equivalent of biochemical torture and could possibly tip someone over the edge into self-destructive or violent behavior … The June 1990 Health Newsletter, produced by the Public Citizen Research Group, reports, ‘Akathesia, or symptoms of restlessness, constant pacing, and purposeless movements of the feet and legs, may occur in 10-25 percent of patients on Prozac.’”
The well-known publication, California Lawyer, in a December 1998 article called “Protecting Prozac,” details some of the suspect maneuvers of Eli Lilly in its handling of suits against Prozac. California Lawyer also mentions other highly qualified critics of the drug: “David Healy, MD, an internationally renowned psychopharmacologist, has stated in sworn deposition that `contrary to Lilly’s view, there is a plausible cause-and-effect relationship between Prozac’ and suicidal-homicidal events. An epidemiological study published in 1995 by the British Medical Journal also links Prozac to increased suicide risk.”
When pressed, proponents of these SSRI antidepressant drugs (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) sometimes say, “Well, the benefits for the general population far outweigh the risk.” But the issue of benefits will not go away on that basis. A shocking review-study published in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases (1996, v.184, no.2), written by Rhoda L. Fisher and Seymour Fisher, called “Antidepressants for Children,” concludes: “Despite unanimous literature of double-blind studies indicating that antidepressants are no more effective than placebos in treating depression in children and adolescents, such medications continue to be in wide use.”
In wide use. This despite such contrary information and the negative, dangerous effects of these drugs.
There are other studies: “Emergence of self-destructive phenomena in children and adolescents during fluoxetine treatment,” published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1991, vol.30), written by RA King, RA Riddle, et al. It reports self-destructive phenomena in 14% (6/42) of children and adolescents (10-17 years old) who had treatment with fluoxetine (Prozac) for obsessive-compulsive disorder.
July, 1991. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Hisako Koizumi, MD, describes a thirteen-year-old boy who was on Prozac: “full of energy,” “hyperactive,” “clown-like.” All this devolved into sudden violent actions which were “totally unlike him.”
September, 1991. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Author Laurence Jerome reports the case of a ten-year old who moves with his family to a new location. Becoming depressed, the boy is put on Prozac by a doctor. The boy is then “hyperactive, agitated … irritable.” He makes a “somewhat grandiose assessment of his own abilities.” Then he calls a stranger on the phone and says he is going to kill him. The Prozac is stopped, and the symptoms disappear.
For money, for profit, for status, for control, there exists a professional class called psychiatrists. They approach children—particularly creative children who refuse to fall into lock-step with a regimented program of learning—as outliers, as ill, as strange, as maladjusted, as threats to the system. And this professional class takes action. Diagnose the children, drug them, bring them back into line, make them “normal,” reduce their curiosity and independence and drive and will power.
Instead of using overt physical force, they use relatively invisible chemical force.
Under the banner of caring, they perform, on the young, a scientific ritual of sacrifice, a rite of passage into the dead world where they, the elite rulers, exist.
This article first appeared at

  republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Updated: Jun 23, 2017 – 8:11 AM
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – A televangelist and so-called “prosperity preacher” with ties to Charlotte has been indicted by a federal grand jury.
Pastor Todd Coontz is accused of failing to pay taxes and filing false tax returns, as well as hiding assets that were paid for by donations. The U.S. attorney said, “This is a classic example of, ‘Do as I say, not as I do.’”
WSOCTV reporter Jim Bradley began investigating Coontz nearly five years ago.
As a cable TV evangelist, Coontz promised financial miracles for people who sent money to his ministry.
“You need to plant the $273 recovery seed. I’m only going to give you two to three minutes to respond,” Coontz once told his viewers.
Coontz posted videos on Twitter as recently as Wednesday, promising financial blessings to the faithful.
“Suddenly miracles are happening. I want to work with your faith for quick things, swift things,” Coontz said in the video.

In February 2013, a WSOC investigation revealed some of Coontz’s own “blessings,” which included a $1.38 million condo at a building on the corner of Providence and Sharon Amity roads. In the garage of that building was his Ferrari and his Maserati.
A federal criminal indictment on Thursday pointed to those exact same assets in WSOC’s investigation.
The condo was purchased by Coontz’s Rockwealth Ministries as “parsonage” for him, according to the indictment. The court documents said the cars were also titled in the name of the ministry.
The U.S. Secret Service started looking into Coontz and Rockwealth Ministries as a result of the WSOC investigation.
The indictment revealed delinquent tax returns from as far back as 2000. From 2010-2013, Coontz owed more than $326,000 in taxes.
Investigators said he also hid his income from the Internal Revenue Service by cashing checks he received from churches and ministries for travel and speaking engagements and then claiming that same travel as business expenses.
The indictment also revealed he used business funds to pay for personal expenses, such as more than $227,000 for clothes, $140,000 at restaurants and more than 400 charges at movie theaters.
Coontz’s defense attorney, Mark Foster, said the indictment makes allegations but isn’t proof.
“He’s otherwise is a good man,” Foster said. “He’s tried to do the right thing all his life and he has no criminal record. We’re going to fight this out.”
Foster said Coontz trusted others to manage his finances and taxes for him and was shocked to find out he was under criminal investigation by the IRS.
Coontz has been ordered to appear in federal court in Charlotte.
Statement from Coontz’s attorney:

“William Todd Coontz has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Charlotte on several criminal tax charges. Coontz unequivocally asserts his innocence of these charges. 

A grand jury is tasked only with determining whether there is probable cause to believe that a defendant has committed a federal crime. The government presents its evidence to the grand jury in secret and the defense cannot be present. Thus, the grand jury’s indictment of Coontz is not a determination of guilt — it is merely a preliminary finding that is necessary before the federal government can prosecute someone. 

The government has chosen to make a statement to the press about Mr. Coontz’s indictment. It must be remembered that Todd Coontz is presumed innocent. Todd Coontz has retained veteran federal criminal defense attorney Mark Foster to represent him in this case and will vigorously defend himself against these charges. Todd Coontz has always endeavored to follow the law and to be a good citizen, father and minister. He trusted others to manage his finances and taxes for him and was shocked to find out he was under criminal investigation by the IRS.
 Pimp Preacher Todd Coontz