The mystique of money is probably a bubble that needs bursting, if the manner in which it is accumulated is typically, as revealed by the tale of David Purdue and Kevin Clayton, two experts in the money management profession, fraudulent

The spouse wants me to write a letter to the local paper to question how come Georgia’s one term Senator, David A. Perdue, Jr. got away with selling his three and a half million dollar mansion to FRG investments LLC, an enterprise owned and operated by Kevin L? Clayton of New Jersey for eleven million, while even today the appraised market value and tax assessment is just $3.8 million. I can’t do it for the simple reason that David Perdue, the tenth richest U.S. Senator, has such a track record of financial manipulation that this apparent compensation for his recipitous removal from office is a minor matter.

Perdue would seem to be the very model of financial success achieved at someone’s, or many people’s loss. From the time he moved into management consulting to his most recent effort to gain the Georgia governor’s office, Perdue has been on a trajectory of failure to advance his own monetary cache.

I suppose it could be called legal thievery, a contest in which the victim is not left visibly injured because “it’s only money.” As I have said before, money is not the “root of all evil”; it just disguises the evil by making it symbolic.

Of course, under U.S. law, which insists on criminal intent, injury to a person is difficult to prove when the accumulation of a figment of the imagination is involved (a matter that is currently being tested in the legal actions filed by New York State against the fictional entity known as Trump, Inc.).

The U.S. legal code is totally materialistic. Since the termination of the ties to gold, U.S. currency is worthless, weightless impersonal fiction. Are documents recording monetary transactions, valuations and commitments going to be sufficient to demonstrate illegal taking? In a sense, it is the same question as in the stolen documents case.

A corollary issue: will it be affirmed that speech is not to be censored because, in the long run, words recorded are evidence of mal intent? Is Donald Trump going to be hoist on his own words?