PJ#016, YOU CAN SLAY THE DRAGON

[wave]

PJ 16

CHAPTER 15

REC #3 HATONN

TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1990 11:00 A.M. YEAR 3, DAY 160

ANOTHER MAJOR VIEW FROM THE MOUNTAIN

This upcoming information is another aspect and a followup approach to use separately or in conjunction with that which you have been given to this point.

This takes into consideration that whereby you have mostly all believed that you live and function within and as "one" United States of America, NO, you do not. There are more than one and therein lies your recovery hope and di­rection. You must remember that if you live in any of the 50 states making up the Union of the United States, you are a Citizen of the united states of America. You are NOT a United States citizen. The difference is so incredi­ble that it will change your stance from powerless hopelessness into a power­ful positive position. You the citizens can have the last word if you get off your assets and move!

Most of this information will be repeated mid-year as we move into a comprehensive informative Journal which will deal with the entire matter of "income taxes" and the illegality of same.

I honor one known as H. Freeman for the information which follows. He asks that we utilize his materials to the fullest extent possible but requests that we not give statistical information regarding his person for privacy and security reasons.

The following few chapters will be mostly taken from lecture material and we will basically leave it unchanged. It is given in descriptive manner and I be­lieve the readers can relate very well to the concepts given forth. Names and story-lines may be changed somewhat but the information and conceptualiza­tion are absolutely verified. The citizens of the world are greatly indebted to ones such as H. Freeman and one day soon these wonderful patriots shall he able to come forward for honor without fear for their very lives.

You on the planet known as Earth, are hostage to a few world bankers--a Car­tel set forth on a path of Global domination and ownership. They have ac­complished the task, for the world is bankrupt and all assets are held by these few. However, the game is not over, my friends, for the intent is to call a Con­stitutional Convention and replace your Constitution with the one we have re­ferred to--and then it will be over--they will own the world.

If however, you ones open your eyes, take the instructions coming forth and move into action and stand firmly upon that rock which IS your Constitution, you can reverse it and reverse it really quite rapidly. Mr. Freeman, and ones working with him, have supplied us with back-up documentation which can eventually be made available to you. We will not, however, hold the Journal from publication awaiting all the copies and clearances, etc., for the additional material for you will always be able to get additional information from Amer­ica West and you will have enough within the Journal to begin nicely and ade­quately. Study until you understand the concepts given forth in each lesson and method and you will be in knowledge of approaches and carry-through. Your backbone will grow in strength as you grow in truth.

GET SOME FREEDOM

Your Bible tells you that you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. Now that does not mean that you allow someone else to know truth and you tag along with it--it says that you shall learn the truth and then you shall be free. We can present the guidelines but if you run in and botch it up then you have been most foolish indeed. If you wish to play the game to perfection and win, you will accept that some others know more than do you and if you wish to utilize that knowledge--fine; if not, we are not interested in your on­going arguments. If you are convinced these things are not valid and will not work--they won't--and you will make the others have a much harder path. We are not interested in any "Master of Debate"--if you have something to add of positive nature--salu, if not, please remove your input.

We are bringing you some Master professors and if you perceive you already know it all--so be it; spare us the misery of wasted time. What you do with these Journals or the information contained therein is your individual business and it is none of our business what you think of them. I do suggest that you know your facts as to whether or not a thing is valid until after it has been tried or your face may well be splattered with egg--our verifications of truth are usually quite accurate.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

There is some background information which you must understand. You are dealing with a situation that exists but, at all costs, the ones that have created the situation don't want it to be made known as to just what is the situation.

The point is that America is considered a bankrupt nation. It is owned by its creditors, The International Banking Houses. Further, if it is owned by its creditors, then the creditors own the legislative bodies--both the national congress, the state legislature, all executive officers, all of your courts and YOU ARE THEIR SLAVES.
And therefore, they have to have their own legislatures pass "public policy statutes" in the interest of the nation's cred­itors.

The judges all take silent judicial notice that America is a bankrupt nation and that is exactly what the situation is. As we explain things you will see how things come down and what you can do about it. Now understand--and I re­peat; they are not yet ready to admit that this is true. At this moment the in­ternational bankers, as a group, have the entire world bankrupt. I can only ask that you go back to prior JOURNALS for I get so many complaints about repetition and the only way I can cut down on repeating is if you do your prior lessons well. The Communist world, the Free world, the Third world--all could be foreclosed. They could foreclose on every nation in the world for all nations in the world, in effect, are bankrupt.

Why don't they foreclose? BECAUSE THEY STILL DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OF ALL THE GUNS! BUT THEY ARE WORKING MOST DILI­GENTLY TO GET RID OF THAT LITTLE INCONVENIENCE. Therefore, they have to stall for a while until they get things totally arranged and can then tell you that you are all slaves and there is nothing you can do about it; that they own the world and the world will simply do as they say. They are "legally" in that position but it wouldn't be expedient at this moment for The Conspir­acy to so state. At this time they would run into too much opposition. You can imagine what would happen if you told the American people, at this mo­ment, that they are slaves and there is nothing they can do about it and "you will do as we say". You are, however, treated as though you are slaves and ac­tually they have already convinced you that you must do as they say.

What is in your favor is that you know that they are not going to admit that you are slaves at this moment and thus they have to "pretend" that America is still a sovereign nation and that the Constitution is still in force. They will ig­nore it or hide it but they dare not say it does not exist. They will, however, carry on in the cat and mouse game assuming the public will not be aware of the hoax.

Therefore, moving along with their pretending that your nation is still intact, you can move right along and benefit from their continuing pretense. You must play the game just as long as you possibly can.

LAW, EQUITY AND ADMIRALTY

Let us look at the difference in these terms. There are three jurisdictions mentioned in the constitution. The courts were set up by your founding fa­thers as courts of law, courts of equity and courts of Admiralty.

In defining the three, remember that we are speaking of "jurisdictions". The "common law" comes under what is called a "common law jurisdiction".

Equity is a jurisdiction of compelled performance and that comes under the "jurisdiction of equity". This is not 'law", it is the enforcement of contract obligations.

Admiralty is both civil and criminal but we shall refer to that later for we wish to first discuss "What is law?"

As an example; if you go into a state, for instance, and there is a sign which reads "BUCKLE YOUR SEATBELTS--IT'S THE LAW". Is it?
As a better example, Mr. Freeman uses another example of some people in San Diego who owned a Health Foods store. They sold herbs, peroxides, protein supplements and things of that type. They ran the business in their home.

Very recently, at 7:00 a.m., their place was surrounded by dozens of armed police. They demanded entry and the people, still in their night clothes, were arrested, handcuffed and taken to the police department. There was a daugh­ter also in the residence and she was able to describe the scene that ensued.

The police took the peroxide and poured it into the toilet. Then they emptied all the tablets and pills, etc., into boxes and thoroughly mixed them to the point there could be no separation of the products. They completely trashed the stores, papers and generally devastated the area.

Of course it was a preset situation because when the people arrived at the po­lice station the media was all over the place and these poor people were pa­raded up and down in handcuffs and were only allowed to change from their nightclothes and nothing else.

Now, remember that the police are only acting on orders--they are simply doing their job as ordered. Further, they make a big splash about the "possibility" of having illegal drugs, etc. They, of course, were sure to get rid of any product that could prove otherwise. "They were protecting the public from possible fraud and harm"! the headlines read.

THERE IS SOMETHING YOU MUST KNOW--ANYTHING THE GOVERNMENT DOES IS A "LEGAL" ACTION--ANYTHING! BUT--IT MAY NOT BE A "LAWFUL" ACTION! However, it will be PRESUMED TO BE A LAWFUL ACTION UNLESS IT IS TIMELY AND SPECIFICALLY OB­JECTED TO.

You must hold the above statement up front for it is most important--timely and specifically objected to.

Now what happened in San Diego happens everywhere and I have told you about some other recent incidents. It is a shock to all American people but it is occurring in a thousand different ways all over the country.

People say, "How in the world can they do that"? Well, "ANYTHING THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES IS A 'LEGAL ACTION'". You must know the difference between "legal" and "lawful". For instance, you can be charged with illegally distributing hydrogen peroxide, but is it necessarily "unlawfully" distributing hydrogen peroxide? You must KNOW these terms.

LAW DOES NOT COMPEL PERFORMANCE. The founding fathers of your nation did not want to create a nation which was just like the one that they had just fought a war from which to free themselves. They didn't want another King George or Caesar. They wanted a nation with protection of their rights and not to take away more rights. So, in creating a national government with a union of states, they were most careful to not give that government too much power.

In setting up the government they set it in such a way that congress, the leg­islative branch of the government, had no contact directly with the people. They only dealt with the STATES and the STATES DEALT WITH THE PEOPLE. There was no such thing as a law that congress passed that had any effect upon the people of your nation. They were isolated from it--they were protected by the NATIONAL CONSTITUTION AND ALSO BY THEIR STATE CONSTITUTION FROM ANY DIRECT ACTION OF CONGRESS. THAT IS STILL VALID LAW! AND ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT LAW DOES NOT COMPEL PERFORMANCE. Law is purely negative; you are free to do anything you please by law as long as you do not infringe upon the life, liberty or property of anyone else. It is only when you interfere with someone that law can take effect.

As an example: When you see a policeman out patrolling, that policeman is like a juke-box. As long as nobody goes near it is silent, but if you go over to the box and drop in a coin it plays music. Well, that is what your police offi­cers are authorized to do in America. They just patrol the streets and any­body who has been damaged by someone, he must come to the officer and say, "That man damaged me and I want you to arrest him". He must then sign a complaint that the man damaged him. That is what the law is for -- to pro­tect you from ones who damage you by interfering with your life, liberty or property.

Mr. Freeman describes the above: "I have to back out of my driveway every day. One time I looked in both directions and there weren't any cars there so instead of backing out short, I just took a big wide swing. Suddenly out of nowhere a car shows up and I backed right into the side of his car.

"Immediately I got out of the car and said, `Where did you come from'? and he said 'Well, I just pulled in here to park and you backed into me'.

"We visited a minute and then I had him follow me to the body shop to see about getting the dent out. Then after we got an estimate I asked him how he wanted the situation handled, to leave the car and have it fixed or would you prefer to have the amount he estimated and you take care of it? They were from out of town so he preferred the money. So I gave him the money and that was the last I ever saw of them".

Now, let's talk about the involvement of the police. "Suppose I backed into that car and then drove away. If they got my license number then they could go to any policeman and file a complaint and have me arrested. Now the po­liceman is like the juke-box, he has his coin and now goes out and arrests me, and brings me into court. The burden of proof is on the person who filed the complaint and he must prove that I backed into his car. If I denied the of­fense then he would have to show proof that I had actually been the one to commit the offense. It happens on Judge Wapner every day. If he prevails then the court can require me to pay the full damages.

Now, however, let us look at how law has "seemingly" changed. "Suppose you were parked right across from my driveway and suppose I backed out of my driveway like I had an overdrive in reverse and you had all sorts of heart at­tacks, etc.--but I stopped my car 1/16th of an inch short of your car and I sim­ply drove away. BY LAW THERE IS NOT ONE THING YOU CAN DO IF YOU WERE NOT DAMAGED. THE POLICEMAN, BY LAW, COULDN'T DO A THING, EITHER, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO YOU. THERE MUST BE DAMAGE BE­FORE A POLICEMAN HAS AUTHORITY TO ARREST ANYONE. Fur­ther there has to be a signed complaint filed by the damaged party.

The sad part is that in these days there is so much bribery and corruption that you can most easily be framed and set up as if you created damage and the actions of the court are to hold you as guilty until you can somehow prove your innocence. These are signs of the times and we cannot deal with all the "what ifs" in this dialogue.

Back to California and the seat belts. It is the law in California--but, that is not "law". "LAW" DOES NOT COMPEL PERFORMANCE.

For instance, "Freedom is the right of a man to make a fool of himself if he doesn't interfere with the life, liberty or property of anyone else". And who is the "God" who decides what is the definition of "fool"?

Well, in California the powers that assume to be don't want you to make a fool of yourself--after all, who gets hurt if you don't buckle your seat belt and you enter into an accident? The big guys just love you so much that they just don't want you to bump your head and they are going to look out after you whether or not you like of it. That is how it comes down to "law"--they say that they love you so much and want to protect your head so much that if they find you making a fool of yourself and not following the rule, they will relieve you of $50. Now--that is NOT "LAW", so then how is it enforced?

Look at what the real story is--. The International Banking Houses see the American motorists driving around in their automobiles and they see some fellows hitting their heads on the windshields and perhaps killing themselves. Therefore they say, "Normally we don't care about people, in general, but we own them and dead slaves don't produce anything--we must keep these fool slaves of ours alive so we can continue to get revenue out of them. Therefore--you make those fool slaves buckle their seat belts or it's going to be a fine". Then your congressmen get that instruction and they set about making these secure rules so you don't make a fool of yourselves.

Here is the point: There is a difference between public "law" and public "policy" and it is interesting where "public policy" came into force instead of "public law".

Mr. Freeman has a good example: He has not filed an income tax report since 1969. They wrote him a letter in 1974 and he responded and then he heard nothing for another five years. But then, they found that he was one of the founders of an organization of which they didn't approve and the organization had really undergone a lot of growth. So, as good little surveillance personnel the organization was infiltrated and they got the names of every one in atten­dance at a major meeting. Suddenly, every member of the organization was audited. Well, it pretty well broke up the organization for there were a lot of ones involved to simply avoid paying taxes and had no particular interest in whether or not it was Constitutional.

They did issue Mr. Freeman a notice of deficiency in the amount of $68,000. He didn't own $68,000. so how could he possibly owe such taxes under any circumstance?

This is a trick and here is a most important point and something YOU NEVER WANT TO DO--DON'T ARGUE THE AMOUNT. DO NOT EVER EVEN MENTION QUANTITY WHETHER IT BE $10,000. OR 10 CENTS. IT IS THE LAW THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU AND YOU ARE ARGUING JURISDICTION. What do you care, if the law doesn't apply to you, whether you owe $10,000 or ten cents? IT IS THAT SIMPLE--DON'T ARGUE THE AMOUNT, ARGUE THE PRINCIPLE THAT IS INVOLVED.

THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE INCOME TAX IS NOT A TAX OF INCOME. It stated that the income tax is a tax on the exercise of a government granted "privilege" and the value of the privilege exercised is measured by the income of the person who exercises the privilege. That is what the Supreme Court has said that the income tax is.

Well, Mr. Freeman took the Supreme Court documents and went to see his IRS agent and tells the story this way, "After a long threatening interview, I asked him who is your superior? After a while he gave me the name of his superior and I wrote to him. Then I got a letter back and then I wrote to his superior and got a letter back. Finally I went down myself and each time they would tell me that they didn't know anything about law but the code says this and that and the other. If I had any questions I could just apply to tax court.

"Finally I went again, in person. This time I got the Problems Resolution Of­ficer and I presented all my problems to him. He said the same as all the other ones in that 'I don't know anything about the law, Mr. Freeman, but you will either pay that amount or you'll go to tax court and there are no other points involved--that's it'. I suggested that they were bringing cases into court all the time so I wanted to know where all their attorneys were since no one seemed to know anything about law.

"He said, 'I am as high as you can go, Mr. Freeman--you can't go higher than me and I say you will pay that amount or you will go to tax court and that is fi­nal because the only one above me is the District Director'. I simply said, 'Thanks, where is he'? He said he was upstairs so I walked away and went up the elevator, got off and there was a young lady sitting outside the District Director's office. I went up to her and asked to see the District Director. She said she was sorry but he was out of the office and wouldn't be back for the remainder of the day. But whoops, I heard a man cough directly behind where she was seated and within the Director's office. Ah Ha--but don't be stu--foolish enough to counter what the lady tells you. You can be extremely sorry. Accept the secretary's word for it and don't push it.

"In this case I thanked her and walked away, took the elevator down and walked around into the Federal Building. I walked upstairs and the first office I saw to the right was Senator Simpson's office. I walked in and found a girl sitting there reading a novel and obviously not at all busy. I said to her 'When the Senator was running for office he was going to set these field offices up around the state so that any time we had a problem we wouldn't have to go down to Washington'. She just beamed all over and asked if there was any­thing she could do for me. I said, well yes, and I told her my problem and that I really thought the Director was in his office. I asked her to call up the IRS and say that this is Senator's Simpson's office and I'd like to talk to the District Director and, if you get him on the phone say this: 'This is Senator Simpson's office and I just called to find out if you're in. Could you stay there five min­utes as I'm sending a gentleman over to see you'. It worked like a charm--he was in!
"I thanked her, walked back around and into the IRS building, got on the ele­vator and got off--the girl saw me and said 'Oh, you're so lucky, he just came in this minute'.
I walked past her and he met me at the door and said 'Good afternoon, Mr. Freeman, sit down. Do you like coffee? Cream? --and all the while I just admired his view and commented on his good taste in office furni­ture and he proceeded to produce some cookies and we each took one and had coffee and cookies and a nice little chat. Then he said, 'What is it you want to see me about, Mr. Freeman"'?

Now, I, Hatonn, want you to pay close attention to the following conversation.

"'I don't believe that you read all the mail that goes out of this office over your signature.' He said, 'Oh, Mr. Freeman, that is so true. I couldn't possibly read all the mail that goes out of this office because it goes out by the bags full'. I said 'That's what I thought, and do you realize that some of those working for you are sending out letters that contradict what the Supreme Court of the United States has declared? But they are not doing it over their name--they have your name on the bottom'. He said, 'Well, this is very interesting, Mr. Freeman. Do you have any particulars on that?' I said, 'Yes', and showed him the letters they had sent me and I showed him the Supreme Court cases of documentation and I said, 'See, the Supreme Court of the United States says this; that this is an excise tax and the tax is on the exercise of a govern­ment granted privilege'. And here, your own agent -- I don't know which man wrote this letter, but your name is on the bottom but he says this is a tax on income. This seems to put you in a bad light; it puts you in contradiction with the United States Supreme Court'. And I showed him a few more such doc­uments.

"He said, 'I'm really happy you came here, Mr. Freeman. I really appreciate your visit. If you could leave those papers with me for about three days, you'll hear from me. I'm a little too busy to do justice to this right now but I'll guar­antee that you'll get your papers back and you'll hear from me in three days'. I suggested he keep the papers since I had duplicates. We shook hands and parted best of friends and everything, then three days later he called me up and said, 'I think you'll be pleased, Mr. Freeman, to know that we have de­termined that your notice of insufficiency has been withdrawn and we have determined that you are a person who is not required to file an income tax and you won't hear any more from us'. I haven't heard another peep from them from that day 'til this".

The interesting part is that the arguments he utilized were from Supreme Court cases. He realized that all his collection of Supreme Court documents gave him real knowledge and therefore he began to help some of his fellow-patriots.

"So", Mr. Freeman continued, "I had a friend who was charged with willful failure to file an income tax. I had spoken to the group which he had been at­tending and I told him, 'When you get into court, subpoena me as your wit­ness. When you get me on the stand, you ask what I said at these meetings and once you have that you can state that I had convinced you that you were not required to file an income tax, then when you didn't file, it was not willful on your part'. You see, a crime is not a crime unless it is willfully done. For example, even Hinckley, who shot Reagan, didn't understand the charges so he never went to trial. He just went stone crazy and never went to trial
--because he didn't understand the charges against him".

Well, if you don't understand the charges, nothing is willful. You see, you might accidentally shoot someone--say, while you're cleaning your gun and it fires while someone passes the window--that is not murder for it was not a willful act. The person might be just as dead but it is accidental and not will­ful.

Well, the IRS would have to prove that the action was willful, so he could get
Mr. Freeman on the stand and then he would be asked to tell the court what was said. Well, it went very well--they got Mr. Freeman on the stand and let him rattle on without interruption.

It appeared to be a cinched case and all were feeling celebration at recess and then all were recalled to the courtroom. But, in the final summation of the case the judge charged the jury thusly: "You will determine the facts of the case -- did Mr. S. file a tax return or did he not". Well, Mr. S. had openly claimed he had not filed a return so look where that left the jury. The 'law' re­quires you to file. That ended the case.

Mr. Freeman asked the judge by what authority he overturned the ruling of the Supreme Court? He said, "Those cases you gave me were old cases, prior to 1938. If you quoted cases after 1938 I would honor it but anything prior to 1938 I don't honor. Since 1938 they have passed 'public policy' statutes. All Supreme Court cases since 1938 deal with public policy and all cases prior to 1938 deal with 'public law"'. Nineteen thirty eight was the year they blended law with equity--well, how can you blend "compelled performance" with "freedom"? YOU CAN'T BUT THEY DID--IN OTHER WORDS, THEY BYPASSED FREEDOM.

1938 was also the year that the Swift vs Tyson, 1840 decision by the Supreme Court was overturned by another case when the Supreme Court ruled there was "NO COMMON LAW AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL". All these things happened in 1938 and must be kept in mind each time a stand is taken re­garding the IRS. It does not mean there are not ways to manage the situation, it is just that you must know what you are doing and avoid your own entrap­ment on technicalities because all courts will try to mix statutes with laws.

Dharma, allow us a break please.

PJ 16

CHAPTER 16

REC #2 HATONN

SUNDAY, JUNE 24, 1990 8:28 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 312

ALL YOUR COURTS ARE ADMIRALTY COURTS

How did this come to pass? All judges have taken silent, judicial notice that America is a bankrupt nation. In bankruptcy, the debtor is the servant of the lender. The lender owns you. They own the nation--they own everything. If you don't follow the orders of your masters you will pay the penalty, whatever it is that "they" choose as the penalty. All your courts today want to know is "did you or did you not OBEY THE STATUTE? GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY"?. That, friends, is all they want to know and absolutely all with which they will deal--"according to the STATUTES".

If you plead "not guilty", they are going to "simply prove" otherwise and, either way
--they fix it so YOU will NOT WIN! Either way "they" are going to win and either way you will pay the fine and penalties of not following "their" statute. That is the way the courts are now structured.

But, we remind you and you must retain upper-most in mind--THERE IS PRETENSE INVOLVED; THEY DARE NOT ADMIT THAT THE COURTS ARE OPERATED UNDER AN ADMIRALTY JURISDIC­TION. Why won't they admit it? Because if they did tell you that this court is an Admiralty court, the defense in Admiralty is quite different from your de­fense under the common-law. The defense in Admiralty is this: the judge will say, "Yes, you are in an Admiralty court". Then you reply, "Thank you, your honor", and, but your Honor, you must recognize that this court would have no jurisdiction over my person, unless there is a VALID INTERNATIONAL MARITIME CONTRACT THAT HAS BEEN BREACHED. I AM NOT AWARE OF EVER HAVING ENTERED INTO ANY INTERNATIONAL MARITIME CONTRACT
--SO I DENY THAT ANY SUCH CONTRACT EXISTS. I MUST INSIST, YOUR HONOR, THAT THAT CONTRACT BE PLACED IN EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE SO THAT I MAY CHAL­LENGE ITS VALIDITY; BECAUSE YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, NO COURT CAN ENFORCE AN INVALID CONTRACT".

See what a pickled jam you put him into? What is the international maritime contract which brought you into that court? IT IS THE NATIONAL DEBT! Therefore, they would have to bring that into the court and would have to show that the United States of America is a nation owned by its creditors. They own the Congress and they own all the legislative bodies; all state gov­ernments; all the federal government and the people are their slaves and they own all property--they even own your own house, etc. They can order you, as the slave, to do exactly that which they order you to do. Oh yes, this IS the sit­uation, no matter how you feel about it.

They would have to expose this fact if they admitted that they are operating the court under an Admiralty jurisdiction. THEY HAVE SIMPLY DE­TERMINED THAT IT IS NOT EXPEDIENT AT THIS TIME, TO ADMIT THAT AMERICA IS A BANKRUPT NATION, OWNED BY ITS CREDI­TORS--BECAUSE THERE ARE TOO MANY GUNS OUT THERE AND SOMEBODY MIGHT REFUSE AND THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL GUNS ARE ON "THEIR" SIDE BEFORE THEY MAKE ANY SUCH PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THAT SITUATION.

But, they are operating EXACTLY on that principle and you are going right along with it because you apparently have not known any better. Remember: anything the Government does is a "legal action" and it will be presumed to have been a "lawful action" unless it is timely and specifically objected to--properly. So, you ones are going to have to make an objection, or you will just continue to be a slave and obey their orders and work for their benefit.

YOU MUST KNOW, HOWEVER--HOW TO OBJECT! You must object not only timely; for a lot of patriots object, but they don't do it specifically--they just do it "timely". Two major points are at work here: "timely" and "specifically".

TAKE TRAFFIC TICKETS

Since most of you don't have time to write papers to the courts in constant manner let us look at how you can come out of traffic tickets most quickly, if you have to go in there "orally". Don't argue with a policeman; he is just a bu­reaucrat. He has orders and he thinks hardly twice about killing you if appro­priate and they think, furthermore, that they are serving God while they are doing it. DO NOT ARGUE WITH THE POLICEMEN!

But, who is giving him instructions? The prosecuting attorney and judges (who are licensed attorneys) are telling what the instructions shall be. So when you get in the court, the judge will read the charge; whether it's an IRS violation, OSHA, EPA, HUD, or just a traffic ticket--it doesn't matter, it is all "CRIMINAL" action.

Again, why does not the State charge you with a "civil" action? They could very easily say that your driver's license is a contract, that you gave up your "right" to drive when you accepted the "privilege" of driving--from the State. That is the consideration of a contract. You applied for the driver's license and that shows your agreement. Now you have the obligation to adhere to the codes as given forth to the letter of that code.

Why don't they make traffic offenses an "equity"? The reason they don't is that they will never tell you that your driver's license "is a contract" and THAT is what they are enforcing. Because if they did, that would be a "civil" action and a "civil" action between you and the corporate State has to go into a "FEDERAL" COURT. Art. 3, Sec. 2 of the Constitution says, "If the corpo­rate state comes after a citizen of that same state in a civil action, the state cannot use its own corporate court to judge its own cause". You are entitled to impartial justice. So, it says "the supreme Court has original jurisdiction". Well, if every parking ticket would have to go into a Federal court, you can imagine why they don't want to call attention to this fact. They will NEVER tell you that your driver's license is a contract. This is because you would im­mediately say, "Well, I have the right to remove this to Federal court; good­bye Judge, we are going to Federal court"! So you can see that the Federals wouldn't like it and the politicians couldn't get anything out of it if it changed to the Federal and was removed from "local" jurisdiction. Especially with traf­fic offenses, they like the income pillaged from you, kept locally entrapped. They will NEVER tell you it is a CONTRACT. If it is not a contract, then it is a criminal action.

But, there are only two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution: One is a criminal jurisdiction under the common-law and the other is the breech of an international maritime contract under the criminal aspects of an Admiralty jurisdiction
--these are the ONLY two criminal actions.

So, here is the way to handle a traffic ticket, or the IRS, if they brought you immediately into court and you have no time to file papers, correspondence, etc. Alright, if you come before the judge, he will read the criminal charges to you, and they always have to ask you, "Do you understand the charges"? If you remember Hinckley, he never had a trial because he shot Reagan but he "didn't understand the charges" so they couldn't bring him to trial. Therefore, when the Judge says, "Do you understand the charges"?, always tell the Judge, "NO, YOUR HONOR, I DO NOT"! Now, he will respond, "Well, what is so difficult about that? The statute so and so says 'you shall not drive past that school above 25 miles an hour and you are charged with driving 30 miles an hour; why can't you understand that"? You hang in there and respond, "Oh, your Honor, it is not the letter of the charge, it is the NATURE OF THIS ACTION that I cannot understand. Your Honor, the sixth amendment to the Constitution (and herein quote it), gives me the right to ask this Court the "NATURE OF THIS CRIMINAL, ACTION AGAINST ME" and upon my request it is the duty of the Court to SHOW ME the nature of this action". The Judge will then probably ask you, "Well, what is it you want to know"? ALWAYS ASK THE EASY QUESTIONS FIRST, that establishes that they are answering under your authority to ask. Then you say, "Well, your Honor, is this a civil or a criminal action"? We have told you why he is going to have to say it is a CRIMINAL action, because if he says it is CIVIL he is really in trouble because it will then go right out of his court into Federal Court. He MUST say that it is "criminal". So he says, "It is a criminal action." So, "Thank you, your Honor, let the record show that this Court has declared that this action against (your name) is a criminal action". "Now your Honor, I have another question in regard to the nature of this action". Well, he now sees that that one was easy to answer, "What is this problem that you have"? "Your Honor, the Constitution authorizes two criminal jurisdictions for this court; one is un­der the common-law but this cannot be a common-law criminal action be­cause under the common-law THERE HAS TO BE A CORPUS DELICTI OR DAMAGED PARTY BEFORE THIS COURT CAN RECOGNIZE ANY JURISDICTION and since no one has been damaged--I didn't run over any school children, or bump into any cars--nothing happened to anybody--I just went 30 miles an hour where there was a school zone marked 25. But there was no damage and no one has complained of damage so without a sworn complaint from a damaged party, this court does not have a criminal jurisdiction under the common-law", and, "But your Honor, what really puz­zles me is that the ONLY OTHER CRIMINAL JURISDICTION AUTHO­RIZED FOR THIS COURT is the breach of an international maritime con­tract under the criminal aspect of an Admiralty jurisdiction", therefore,
"I am not aware of having ever made or breached any maritime contracts, so I deny that any exist. So you see, your Honor, why I am puzzled about the NATURE of this criminal action against me. Can you explain to me what jurisdiction this court is exercising in this action against me"?

At this point the Jude will get just a little bit angry--but YOU DO NOT! He will then say something like this, "I am not allowed to practice law from the Bench. Now, if you want answers to questions like that, you get yourself a li­censed attorney. Now, if you can't afford an attorney, the court must provide you with one, but that is a question for an attorney to answer and this court is not going to answer that question". "Oh, your Honor, I don't think anyone would accuse you of 'practicing law from the Bench' if you perform your du­ties under the Sixth Amendment and just tell me the jurisdiction in which this criminal action against me is to be tried. Really, I don't know how to defend this for I don't know which jurisdiction under which I am defending". The Judge will say, "Well, it is a 'statutory jurisdiction'". "Oh, thank you, your Honor. Let the record show that this Court has made a legal determination that it has authority to conduct a criminal action under a 'statutory jurisdic­tion'. Now, your Honor, I have never heard of that jurisdiction and the Con­stitution doesn't mention any such jurisdiction, so if you can tell me where I can obtain the published rules of the criminal procedure for 'statutory juris­diction' I will be most appreciative". At this point the Judge is angry and turns from red to purple, and he will probably raise his booming voice, "I told you before, I am not answering questions of that nature from the Bench! I am not going to practice law from the Bench, and I told you that that is for a licensed attorney--if you can't afford one, this Court will provide one because you need one, and then you ask him those questions because I am not going to answer. Any further 'pushing' of this Court in that area, and I will find you in contempt of court". But, 'Thank you, your Honor, but just let the record show then, that this Court has made a LEGAL DETERMINATION THAT IT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A CRIMINAL ACTION UNDER A SE­CRET JURISDICTION THAT IS KNOWN ONLY TO THIS COURT AND LICENSED ATTORNEYS, THEREBY DENYING THE DEFEN­DANT THE RIGHT TO DEFEND IN HIS OWN PERSON".

Once you get that statement into the record THERE IS NO WHERE THEY CAN MOVE. In this instance the prosecuting attorney will probably step right forward and say, "I don't think there is enough merit in this case to waste my time or the Court's time in trying it; I move the case be dismissed". The Judge will respond, "Case dismissed".

Once in a while the Judge might say, "It is in the Law Library upstairs (or
where-ever)--the rules for criminal procedure for statutory jurisdiction".
There is no such thing but you had better make sure the Judge KNOWS that you looked it up. There is always a way to STOP or interrupt a court case--even if it is "Oops, your Honor, I have a biological necessity, I must go to the rest-room". They can't continue the case and all going on must stop with at least a ten minute recess. This gives you time to either collect your thoughts, check the reference or ask for the case to be continued until you can research the suggested references. You might just further request that someone help you with instructions as to how to find the laws, etc. Ask for an appointed lawyer to help you--that always makes the Judge agreeable and happy (sic, sic) for it will probably interfere with the upcoming case load in waiting. Ac­tually, it makes him so angry that he may even follow you out of the court to cite you for "contempt of statute" if he can find any excuse whatsoever.

One Judge has traffic violators followed from his courtroom to see if they go drive after having a license revoked even on a temporary basis. Or, fine them if he can establish that they broke some statute involving a prior infraction.

It is excellent advice to follow, to go research the statutes as directed from the Judge. When the clerk in the Law Library can't find the statutes, get her to sign an affidavit stating, 'There is not now a copy of rules for criminal proce­dure for 'statutory jurisdiction' in the Law Library and there never has been such". You will find that most Higher court personnel, such a Judges, are most ego oriented and enjoy their God-ness as King of life and death and are most unpopular with lowly clerks, etc.

Now, if you don't have time or facilities to do this research, do the following: Go back into the court and when your case is called, say, "Your Honor, I'm appealing the legal determination made by this court, that it can conduct a criminal action under a statutory jurisdiction. And in my appeal I am leaving you, your Honor, as a witness in my favor and I will issue a subpoena "dutis pecum" (which means he must bring papers with him) in which you will be re­quired to bring a copy of the rules of criminal procedure for statutory jurisdic­tion with you when you come to court". Then turn to the prosecuting attorney (who is always "in bed" with the judge) and, to make it a part of the court record, say, "And I am subpoenaing you, Mr. Prosecutor, as my witness to verify the fact that the Judge did, in fact, say that a copy of those rules are given in the Court library". This will instantly get the Judge and Prosecuting attorney off the case at the very least and new ones will have to be appointed.
Do not allow them to "slip through" if you have time to follow-up at all be­cause you will do your brother citizens a whole bunch of good. It depends on your penalties, of course, but in some traffic situations--where there is alcohol involved, or drug charges which are most frequently "trumped-up" etc., jail time can be very lengthy and fines incredibly expensive--when there has actu­ally been no damage or complaints involved whatsoever.

As you ones get into causing noticeable problems for the nerds of the "King' who make their own rules and set bounties for arrest, etc., you will be called in many times, very likely, in an effort to shut you up.

In the instance of Dharma, for instance, everything she has or will ever have, both she and all ones working in the group, will have nothing in their names to be set up or taken. The home and property have been under litigation for three years to the tune of now over $100,000. just in personal legal fees. If, however, the title had been cleared and placed in their name, drugs were planned to be planted on the property and the entire home and property confiscated as well as vehicles. GET EVERYTHING INTO THE NAME OF A CORPORATION; PLAY THE GAME MORE ASTUTELY THAN YOUR ENEMIES--THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TO HELP YOU. THERE ARE WAYS TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY IF YOU WILL BUT STUDY THESE INSTRUCTIONS AND FOLLOW THROUGH. DON'T THINK ANYTHING IS "TOO LITTLE" FOR YOUR ENEMY TO NOTICE--THERE ISNT ANYTHING THAT SMALL.

Remember, however, that these ones of the judicial system are trained in sub­terfuge and deceit, cover-up and evil greed and they WILL overstep their bounds and they will NOT want to come into public truth. These ones (here, the scribe, etc.) have "unseated" an incumbent Judge "Brent" (for we like to give credit for bad behavior) and now he is working through his prior law firm to "get them" for it.

HELP, PLEASE!

Which brings forth a request from me; please, someone from the legal profes­sion come forth to assist these ones--but, abundance will have to come "after" the case because the typical approach of attorneys has happened--run the clients out of money and the case is finally lost on default and poverty.

In this case, the Judge previously belonged to the firm of Shea and Gould (yes indeed, very large), in New York. Then Jason Brent was transferred to the Beverly Hills branch; then, following donations to the Governor's election campaign of sizable amounts, Dukmejian appointed Brent to the court bench in Mojave, Calif. The Law Firm is said to have owned an interest in Santa Barbara Savings (the now seized S&L),the one suing these ones for the prop­erty. There was foreclosure against former owners and these ones were told to go to public sale and take care of the matter--ah ha, no sale was held. There is also collusion among the Auction company, California Newspaper Service Bureau, Inc., from Los Angeles, Santa Barbara Financial, Specialized, Inc. (a subsidiary), Home Federal Savings, and on and on until it looks like spaghetti. Absolutely every day brings forth new and wondrous revelations but a firm with thousands of lawyers can cover tracks very well.

These ones have a nice young man by the name of Hornback, in Bakersfield, who is a young member of Bunker, Byrum, & Kimball et al, but the older members of the firm have ordered him "out of it" for they know the workings of the pre-arranged sales, etc. Therefore, the charges for minute amounts of work (for very little is happening, save a three Judge panel sits on July 6th to consider overthrow of Brent's prejudicial "default" judgment which only allows for living in the house at twice rental value until such time as appeal can be heard--which can take as long as another three years.) Meanwhile they are precluded from improving the property, for which there are no more funds available at any rate, and live from packed boxes because the rules are that if Brent's default ruling over improper format of court papers is upheld--out--­within some 72 hours. This case will be laid out in detail with names, places, rank and serial numbers in the Journal on Injustice; but we need help now as to HOW to earthly get this information hookup. The trail was easy until take over by the Resolution Trust Corporation for we had one feeding us informa­tion who is in service of and closes banks, etc., for the FDIC. Now the lid has come down and the worms have crawled back in their holes. Dharma and Oberli work better than 18 hours a day to get these Journals out and they are weary and have no more time for this game--HELP, PLEASE! A space cadet's word will not hold up in a United States Superior Court
--remember the rules above. Even if they have to move from the premises, the appeal is still valid so we will need the information at any rate. You can tell the lawyers for these ones' defense is being told to get rid of the case for the bill for April (in which nothing happened) was $9,500 and May in which even less hap­pened, was $4,500.
It is serious, indeed, my friends--and these are the "good" attorneys.

The young man who represents these ones is named Hornback (the opposition attorney is named Steven Horn). Hornback's child drowned in the home swimming pool the week he accepted this case; God restored the child to a state of brilliance surpassing that which was present prior to the acci­dent!! What a sad, sad predicament for a young man who is only performing to the best of his ability as taught by Law School. I have personally met with him and there is no failure on his part--but his firm proclaims him "nuts"! We shall see who has the last laugh. Unfortunately, he "finds no available time" to keep up with the Journals. So be it, for I suggest he really should keep up with the most recent ones. I remind you--it may appear God loses some of the skirmishes. No, he only sets it up so the war is faultlessly won! You ones will begin more and more, to join together and share talents--and you will prevail; it is the promise. And when you do, even in these seemingly small matters, it shall be spread across the land and the backlash will blossom and grow. If a "spotted owl" can shut down work in a forest, I think you might do as well if you ever get off your assets and link talents.

You think your work is not important enough to these dudes to "getcha"? Think again! NO MA ITER HOW CORRUPT YOU BELIEVE YOUR SYSTEM TO BE--IT IS IMMEASURABLY WORSE! AT ONSET OF THIS CASE IT WAS LAUGHED ABOUT AND SAID THAT "THIS IS THE MODUS OPERANDI" FOR GETTING FORECLOSED PROP­ERTY BECAUSE THE ENTIRE THING IS WORKED OUT BETWEEN THE "TAKING" PARTIES LONG BEFORE SALE DATE. THE RTC SET-UP TO TEND THE S&L's WAS PLANNED AND PROPERTIES SUCH AS THESE ONES' HAVE BEEN LONG SET UP SO IT WOULD REVERT BACK TO THE BANKERS AND THE S&Ls SIMPLY AB­SORBED BACK INTO THE MAJOR BANKS--BRINGING ALL PROP­ERTIES, S&L's AND DEFAULTS BACK INTO ONE SHELTER OF THE TOP BANK CARTEL. CLEVER? OH INDEED! EASY, TOO, FOR THEY HAVE YOUR GOVERNMENT WIRED, BRIBED, CONTROLLED AND TRAPPED. IF ANYTHING IS DONE--YOU--WILL DO IT! "FUNNY THING" ABOUT THE ABOVE CASE; ANOTHER ALMOST DUPLICATE SITUATION HAPPENED LESS THAN A YEAR AFTER THESE ONES' FIRST NON-HEARING IN BRENT'S COURT--TO OUR COMPUTER RESOURCE, A VIET NAM VETERAN WITH ONLY ONE LEG, AND HE WAS ABUSED, CITED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND JAIL TIME ORDERED BECAUSE OF "CONTEMPT OF COURT". HIS CAUSE? HE DEMANDED "A HEARING AS WRIT­TEN IN THE CONSTITUTION". THIS FAMILY (THE STENDERS, BY THE WAY, HAVE 7 CHILDREN), WERE EVICTED FROM THEIR HOME ON LAST CHRISTMAS DAY! MORE FUNNY--DHARMA AND OBERLI WERE ALSO GIVEN EVICTION AND COURT HEARING DATES BETWEEN CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEARS AND GIVEN FIVE DAYS TO GET A NEW LAWYER TO FILE A COURT ANSWER ON NEW YEAR'S WEEKEND OF OFFICIALLY FOUR DAYS HOLI­DAY. WHEN, BY THE WAY, THEY WERE TO HAVE BEEN IN PANAMA FINALIZING FUNDING, PRIOR TO YEAR END, FOR FACTORY CEMENT HOUSING MODULES AND COMPRESSED EARTH MACHINERY. SOME 30 MILLION DOLLARS DOWN THE TUBES AND NOW LOOK AT PANAMA'S MESS!

Another interesting point; the particular S&L's largest development loans, etc., were placed in this area of overwhelming growth.

At the onset of the case, friends wrote to Senator Thomas, Governor Duke­mejian, Attorney General Van DeKamp and Supervisor Ben Austin, among many others, regarding the case as it was so incredible. Persons called from their offices suggesting a possible County Grand Jury hearing and two sug­gested possibly bringing to the attention in hearing format to the Attorney General. How interesting that it "died" on the vine like withering grapes in drought. You ones have a long, long way to go to set these wondrous manip­ulated messes to order. But you CAN--IF YOU WANT TO.

OH YES, INDEED, THESE ELEMENTS ARE OUT TO STOP YOU AND DON'T YOU EVER LEAVE THOUGHT OF IT FOR A SINGLE MINUTE. HOWEVER, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT AS HIGHLY POP­ULAR AS IS 007, YOU ONES WOULD LOVE PARTICIPATION IN THE EXCITEMENT AND WOULD LOVE TO STOP BEING ONLY "ARM CHAIR" POTATOES.

Another funny thing; this Judge is abusive, insulting, irrational and degrading, verbally--in court. This is recorded but somehow the tapes end up "lost and missing" when the victim sets forth to get transcripts. There is such collusion that always the victim is exhausted funds-wise and cannot go on with the legal work because the "hired" lawyers are in cahoots with the dastardly con­spirators.

You either start pitching in--and talent and "knowledge" are the best contribu­tion possible, or there will be no shred of defense left against this massive people crusher rolling down upon you.

Dharma, this chapter is quite long enough so may we please break it at this point.

[wave]

PJ 16

CHAPTER 17

REC #1 HATONN

MONDAY, JUNE 25, 1990 9:37 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 313

CASE IN POINT

There is a case where the situation was as spoken of regarding the statutory jurisdiction which could be described here, but I will not take the time to do so. It dealt with a young man who was set-up on a drug charge and would have gotten a 20 year prison sentence. A new prosecutor and Judge had to be appointed and in the end the young man was too frightened to continue after an offer was made by the prosecutor for a six months suspended sentence. There is always the better part of intelligence to consider because, remember--everything "they" do is "legal" even if unlawful and they can sock you away into the never-land of the dungeon where you can't give them further problems.

In this instance the charge was very serious for your President Bush had his "drug war" and quota system of "captures" out for public attention and be­cause this young man worked in the anti-drug program--didn't and never had used drugs--he was set-up for example. If you have not yet been a set-up ex­ample, don't close your eyes--for you will be before it is over for they have you in training for subservient enslavement without recourse, and they prefer you come along without trouble.

BY PAPERWORK

The above discussed what to do if orally obligated to respond. Now we will discuss what to do if you can handle a similar situation through paperwork.

You will recall that we discussed a case in a prior Journal wherein people were raided and accused of drug dealing, etc., arrested for selling peroxides and other "practices of medicine without a license" and thus and so.

They came to Mr. Freeman and here is what they worked out--in his own de­scriptive language.

He would create a "controversy at law". He utilizes this often and tells of his own experience wherein he was charged with "driving the wrong way on a one-way street". The story is as follows:

The small town had just made a one-way street from a two-way street a
couple of days prior to the incident. I didn't notice the change (the town only has a population of 1,400 and the whole county only has 2,600 people so the necessity of one-way streets was dubious indeed), but the town fathers saw a way to pick up a little money so a one-way street was designated and police placed strategically for best benefit. So, I was one of the first to go the wrong way on the street.

I was arrested, of course, and while awaiting hearing date, I sent in papers regarding the above. I did, however, have to appear so when in court I inquired of the Judge, "Have you read the papers that are on file, that I sent a copy to you personally"? "Well", he said, "I saw some papers here but, Mr. Freeman, you ought to know better than anybody in this town that we are here to uphold the laws of this community and if you violate them you are going to pay like everybody else".
I replied, Your Honor, are you sure that you have read the papers which I sent to you personally and are in the court files"? He said, "I don't care about any papers you've sent in here. You can send and file all the papers you want but you should know better than anybody else, the laws etc., etc".

So, I said, "Just let the record show, then, that there is a controversy at law, that this court has been asked to settle. And, since this court has ignored it, this court must be held to the position laid out in the papers that is in brief".

"I don't care about your papers, Mr. Freeman", he blared, "You are gonna pay just like everybody else is gonna pay". So, he lost the case--BUT, he appealed it. And when it was appealed, the "County" Judge (he went from a Justice of the Peace to the County Judge) didn't want any part of it so he turned it over to the Supreme Court of the State. They were so unhappy over having this decision to make that they re­ported the Judge to the Bar Association and he lost his job as a Judge.

See, there are encouraging bits of information every now and then.

SETTING UP "CONTROVERSY AT LAW"

Now, let us look at exactly what to do and how to do it.

Mr. Freeman presented the following document:

'The Corporate City of city, state , has made a conclusion of law that any­one who enters the corporate territory has lost his God-given rights, guaran­teed as inalienable by both the National and State Constitutions, and upon en­tering this corporate territory the statutes and ordinances of the city are the supreme law; and upon those civil statutes, criminal charges may be made and the only due process which is allowed is the right to be heard on the letter of the statute.

"I object to that conclusion of law, my having made a contrary conclusion of law.
My contrary conclusion of law is that the God-given right, guaranteed as inalienable by both the National and State Constitutions carry with me wher­ever I travel in the 50 states; even when I enter the corporate territory of the city of ............. Before any criminal action can be levied against me, and this court take notice of this, there must be a corpus delicti or damaged party who has filed a verified complaint that I have damaged him".

"Since this court has no verified complaint of any damage, this court lacks ju­risdiction to hear this case".

Now, that was the "controversy of law" in the file.

Always remember, no administrative agency makes "legal" determinations. IRS, HUD, DEA, EPA--they all seem to be making legal determinations, but all they do is make "conclusions of the law" and YOU have a right to make a "contrary conclusion of the law". Only courts of law may make legal determi­nations.

DO IT RIGHT

The "trick" behind what you can do is that your adversary does not want to admit, just yet, what they have done.

This can be related quite nicely to the story of Daniel and old King Neb­uchadnezzar and the King's dream. Old Nebbi was the first King of Babylon and he had a dream that terrified him so he called all his psychics in to see if they could interpret the dream. So all the prophets came and they said if he would tell them the dream then they would interpret it. He said no, if they were good prophets they could tell him what the dream was AND interpret it. They couldn't do it, of course. It finally came Daniel's turn and he prayed to God and God revealed the dream and the interpretation thereof.

Daniel told old Nebbi that he had dreamed of a giant statue, of a man who had a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, a belly of bronze, legs of iron and feet of iron and clay. Old Nebbi said "Golly, that's exactly right--what does it mean"? Well, Daniel said he also saw a stone come out of nowhere and hit the image on the feet of iron and clay and they broke into bits and the whole image crashed down into dust, etc.

Interpretation; Daniel said that the head of gold "is a world system", which when Nebbi would be replaced there would be another world system which would carry on much the same as the King's system--the King being repre­sented by the head of gold, the next world system was represented by the new world order. Now, you know from history that when Babylon went down the Medo-Persians had an empire (two arms), then after that system would go down, there would be another one (belly of bronze) and they would carry on much the same as previously, and you know that was Alexander the Great (Greek Empire) and after that system would dissolve, another system exercising the same encompassing powers would replace that--that is the two legs of iron and one leg was in Rome and the other in Constantinople (Istanbul) and when Rome would go down the final world government would be replaced and the final world government is symbolized by the feet of iron mixed with clay--the iron would be strong as with Caesar who was strong as any Emperor; now, the final world government is working on the same system but it has the strength of iron as you are witnessing--but, there is clay mixed in also. Those feet of clay that will topple the iron of the world dictator--IS THE CONSTI­TUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! The Emperor ap­pears to be in total control but the foundation of such an empire meets the base of clay and when this world system tumbles, the awaited return shall come to pass as is written. So, the world system, which is only just coming into your full attention of its massive power, will fall if you do your part for it is in serious trouble.

Just picture that your nation has been taken over by the "iron" part of the world government and you are feeling the impact of that in a massive way, now.

In the colonizing of your nation you were a bit dutiful unto God and were blessed for it. You have become disobedient unto God and so you are picking up some of the backlash of that behavior which has gotten completely out of control in its rush into opposition of the God-ness.

There is good news, however, for eventually Justice prevails for God tells you that His people will prevail if there is a turn about unto Him. Further, if you turn unto Him, He would heal of your land.

It is simply that most ones are still sleeping or awfully drowsy, and don't yet realize the desperation of the situation which has befallen you. The IRS is helping you approach that situation of crisis awfully quickly now. They don't seem to recognize the better part in intelligence and thrust their "non-exis­tent" and illegal powers around like spike-balls and they are setting them­selves up for the fall; for many will eventually rebel and refuse to hear the lies any longer. Thirty million people heard it this year and filed no tax papers.

Consider the IRS your friend for they will get a lot of good soldiers on your side and you can move forward and reclaim your Constitutional rights under God. Where do you think the government will go for the makeup of those tax funds? That is correct
--RIGHT TO YOU!

GOD'S REMNANT

Consider yourself as part of God's Remnant, and KNOW that you can survive through this tribulation period. God tells you that a thousand will fall to your right hand and a thousand to your left but if you follow His instructions and listen to the teachers sent forth unto you--you shall not be touched and you shall prevail. So, we are bringing those instructions for action and educate you of God's Remnant in things that you must know and actions you MUST take. God's people will only perish if they fail to accept the knowledge being brought forth. We are herein efforting to do our portion to bring you infor­mation in truth that you will have the knowledge with which to take action and reclaim your birthright.

God has said that He sends you out as sheep among the wolves--well, I sup­pose you are beginning to recognize who are the wolves and who are the sheep for you are getting sheared and fleeced every day of your current exis­tence.

"BE WISE AS A SERPENT AND GENTLE AS THE DOVE". So be wise and act as the dove in peaceful, cooperative and friendly manner--but the wise Teacher said, "You shall know the truth and it shall be the truth which shall set ye free"! (Provided you remember you are a sheep in wolf country!)

Now if you mishear that advice and go out as "a wolf in black sheep country" and try to run off the dirty bounders, you will lose the battle post-haste. These wolves are wiser and more clever than the fox among the chickens so you bet­ter be polite, courteous, nice, smiling, agreeable--but you carry the big stick of the Constitutional LAW in perfection--not half-baked with typographical loop-holes.

Go forth as the innocent little lamb lacking understanding; and ruffle no feathers--just an innocent little person trying to act according to the only laws you can find--those of the Constitution. Let them box themselves into the corner, hopefully before they figure out what happened to them. I can promise you, it is the only thing that has kept Dharma and Oberli alive in this case; they knew no better and we have walked every step of the way with them simply frustrating the opposition to distraction at every turn of the string.

KNOW YOUR TECHNIQUES AND YOUR STATEMENTS

Your statements in a court are "not appealable". Any judge will tell you that he does not usually even read the statements of the defendants when he makes a speech in a court. The defendant thinks that whatever he states in the court goes into the record and that he can then appeal. The higher courts do not even read the documents containing statements made by defendants in court. All they do is review legal determinations made by the lower court in the jurisdiction in which that lower court operated. It is up to the defendant to set the jurisdiction of the court and pay attention, we will go through this with you. You must know HOW to SET THE JURISDICTION.

You must do it correctly!! HOW CAN I STRESS IT FULLY ENOUGH? DO IT RIGHT! You can use all the proper arguments and present them incorrectly and it will go worse for you than it would have otherwise.

YOU CANNOT APPEAL YOUR OWN STATEMENTS; ALL THAT IS DONE IN HIGHER COURT IS TO REVIEW LEGAL DETERMINATIONS MADE BY THE LOWER COURT. THE PROPER WAY IS TO ASK QUESTIONS. EVERY TIME YOU ASK A QUESTION OF THE COURT AND THE COURT ANSWERS, THAT IS A LEGAL DETER­MINATION THAT IS APPEALABLE AND YOU MUST STATE THE DETERMINATION "FOR THE RECORD". IF THE COURT REFUSES AND YOU HAVE ASKED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND THEY REFUSE TO RESPOND--THEY HAVE MADE A LEGAL DETERMINATION THAT THE COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A CRIMINAL ACTION IN DEFIANCE OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT. THAT IS APPEALABLE SO WHETHER OR NOT THEY ANSWER THE QUESTION, EVERY­THING THAT HAS GONE ON IS APPEALABLE IF USING THIS PROPER FORMAT.

IF YOU CAN LEARN TO KEEP YOUR BIG MOUTHS SHUT AND JUST ASK QUESTIONS THEN EVERY TIME THE COURT ANSWERS A QUESTION, THE COURT IS MAKING A LEGAL DETERMINATION AND THAT IS APPEALABLE. Be careful indeed, for just about every patriot makes the above error.

SETTING UP CONTROVERSIES AT LAW

NEVER USE AN ADJECTIVE OR AN ADVERB IN STATING THE CONCLUSION OF LAW OF YOURSELF OR YOUR ADVERSARIES.

Example: In Mr. Freeman's case, suppose he had just put the word "false" in there. As in, "The city of ......... has made a 'false' conclusion of law as follows:­ ......... and then stated it as before". The minute the word "false" is added, the "controversy at law" is negated. This is because that by use of the word there is an indication of your having already "judged" the case and said it is "false". The city and Judge have already judged your act as criminal so the conflict is then between two judges. Who settles a conflict between two Judges? A chancellor. What is a chancellor? A State Created GOD. YOU WILL NOT WIN!

So, be minutely careful for one judgmental word can ruin the entire case and it will be thrown out along with you.

Just state that "the city made this conclusion of law" and how do you know? Well, you saw what they did. Then reason with self--"What would the law have to be to make what they did lawful"? That then becomes their conclu­sion of law. Look at the traffic case of the one-way street. The city of ....... has made a conclusion of law that anyone who enters its corporate territory has lost his God-given laws guaranteed as unalienable by the national and state constitutions.

Do you get any rights in traffic court? Of course not, so just see WHAT THEY DO and that is the conclusion which will justify it. Their conclusion is that the state which is spawned by the Constitution and couldn't deny your rights, can create a corporation within the state that can deny your rights. So in this case in point, they concluded that city corporation and the territory has a right to deny your rights.

Now you must know that the Creator cannot create a creation superior to himself, but you don't go say such a thing. You just see what their conclusion of law is and state it succinctly and directly. Don't err in adding any embel­lishment by adverbs or adjectives just state the obvious conclusion as wit­nessed.

They had made several conclusions of law, one of which was that anyone who entered that corporate territory is under their statutes and ordinances as "supreme" law. Just state it exactly in that manner with no observations or comment.

And that the city has the right to write "civil" statutes and use those as evi­dence of the law in a criminal action. Now, that can be upheld even if consti­tutionally unlawful, so that is what they do. So, that is their obvious conclusion of law. The only due process in the criminal action allowed is the "right to be heard on the facts of the 'letter' of the statute", i.e. "Did you or did you not go above the posted speed limit"? That is the only question--the letter of the statute.

So, to determine what the conclusion would be, simply see what they do and then determine what the law would have to be to justify that conclusion. Don't say it's false or foolish, good or bad just state it better than they can state it--clearly, succinctly without judgment. You can give them an opportunity to change it if they would like. Say, "If you don't change it, although I wouldn't want to presume what exactly is the city's position, but it appears that this conclusion of law would justify what the city is doing; but, if the city wishes to amend this in their own words I will give them 30 days in which to amend it. If after thirty days they have not amended it, this is their position". Never even note that yours is a "constitutional" conclusion or any such description--just the facts!

At this point you have created a true "controversy at law" that involves a Constitutional Issue that can be carried through all appeals. This carries through with any jurisdictional situation, even the IRS.

After we have a break here, we will discuss a case dealing with the IRS as handled by Mr. Freeman. There is probably no one group that can stir up panic more than the IRS so it is past time we place them where they belong--somewhere near the garbage dump. So be it.

PJ 16

CHAPTER 18

REC #1 HATONN

TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1990 9:29 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 314

IRS--THE NIGHTMARE

To make this understandable and utilize resources which are not hypothetical parables, I shall ask you to recreate, as nearly as possible, Mr. Freeman's ver­bal dialog. I do request that names and locations are changed for protection and privacy.

We are moving into areas of great importance where you MUST function according to the "letter of the instructions" or you shall not prevail and it is criti­cal that you prevail.

Always analyze your individual circumstances, assets and tax history to avail yourself of the most advantageous mode of action. You DO NOT move from paying $150,000 or $15,000 or even $5,000 in taxes each year to utilizing tax shelters, failure to file, etc. If you do not have everything in order by filing time--then start at filing time--but do start!

You have almost half a year for personal action. Always begin with personal action because, surprisingly enough, there is where you are being eaten away. Then we can help you "manage" corporations so that you utilize your funds before you store up enough profits to owe corporate taxes. Let us take one sure step into the next and soon you will be running and not having to look back for the IRS to stalk you.

Get the Journals which discuss the Corporation Management (make sure you ALWAYS go through Nevada--no matter where you reside or WHO tells you otherwise). If there is reason not to incorporate in Nevada, you will be guided--but, rule of thumb; ALWAYS NEVADA! Then get ALL of your property out of your name and into one or more corporations depending on circumstances (see management of personal estates through "family" corpora­tions). I do not plan to repeat instructions for that herein.

As we move along, we will be writing Journals comprised of information from knowledgeable ones in every category of expertise, in understandable lan­guage of earthside input. At present, we are dealing with awakening you to the problems, urgency of the problems and giving unto you beginning actions.

For instance, we will write a chapter in this book outlining HOW you go about the using of two three cent stamps and a message of law on your first class mail (per ounce), to return to the LAW REGARDING THE MAIL/POSTAL SERVICE. Of course, at first, the mail will be returned or delivered with postage "owed". No, you pursue it right down to your post-office. While you slept you "thought" they had the right under the "law" to raise postage--NO, THEY DID NOT!

Oh, YOU think the post-office deserves the extra funds? YOU probably also think that your government deserves your hard earned funds to keep pulling your nation into the trash compactor. WELL, THEY DO NOT USE FUNDS FROM THE ELITE CARTEL WHO BENEFITS FROM YOUR DONATIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS. ARE YOU PLEASED WITH THE WAY THE WORLD IS RUNNING? OH, YOU ARE, BECAUSE "LOOK AT FREEDOM SPREADING ACROSS THE WORLD"! NO IT ISN'T, THE NEW NATIONS UNDER "FREEDOM" HAVE NOW MOVED INTO POVERTY AND ARE IN THE MIDST OF HAVING NEW CONSTITUTIONS SET UPON THEM WHICH EXCEED ANYTHING PERPETRATED UPON THEM PRIOR TO NOW. YOUR BIG CORPORATE INDUSTRIES WILL SHIFT TO THE LOW LABOR COST MARKETS AND DRAIN AMERICA OF ALL PRODUCTION ASSETS AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN AMERICA WILL BECOME THE STATE OF THE NATION.

Back to the IRS and Mr. X (John Q. Public).

Mr. X received a notice from the IRS District Counsel which said: "You will appear in XXX, XXX court house at XXX time, given date, and you will bring with you all your records and papers back to 1980 and failure to appear at this time, place and date will result in a criminal action against you under section of 7203 of the IRS Code". What could he do? He was terrified and thus in a panic.

Well, there is an answer and we will reproduce it herein for it can be adapted to almost any set of circumstances wherein you must reply to such a notice. There will be 90 day notices, and "prior to" notices and notices signed by "the big boy" and signed by the "little clerks"--all sorts of threatening notices; you remain calm and alert and you can modify responses to suit your cir­cumstance. Stop the "what if" and look at that which is in your hands and con­form your response within the direct format but responding to the demand on the "notice". SET FORTH A "CONTROVERSY AT LAW".

Here is a "what if" and we will work our way right through it as if it is YOU. Now assume you had failed to file, they contacted you and now, instead of going away--they send you follow-up demands. They will if you have been a good red-blooded beet up until now and you have withdrawn the blood and turned into a pale, anemic turnip. What are you going to do? We are going to word for word type in the response to this particular circumstance men­tioned above and you will be able to see how it can be modified to suit YOUR needs.

"IF" there is a signature on your "notice" it will be most insignificant as you "begin" the correspondence; then it will get more pointed and finally, it will bear the names (and authoritative titles) to shake you up a bit more. Finally the correspondence will bear near top authorities, usually under more au­thority of the District Director and finally head of the IRS, I suppose. DO NOT FEED INTO THEIR FEAR GAMES.

Let us remind you of the "two" United States for it impacts heavily on what you do next. Let us go over it briefly again so it is straight in your minds.

WILL THE REAL UNITED STATES PLEASE STAND!

The first two United States: One is the United States, the Union of the 50 states under the Constitution and the "REPUBLIC' that has three branches of government to it. Now, the remaining entity comes from a flaw in the Con­stitution (oh yes, there were some flaws) which is Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. That gave "Congress", the legislative branch exclusive rule over a given territory and the people living in that territory.

Whenever a governing body has exclusive rule over a prescribed territory and all people living in the territory, you have a nation. So, the Founding Fathers created a Constitutional Republic and within that Constitutional Republic, they created a Legislative Democracy. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, gave Congress exclusive rule over a body of people. When you have exclusive rule, YOU ARE NOT BOUND BY ANYTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION--ANYTHING YOU WANT TO DO IN WHICH A MAJORITY OF CONGRESS VOTES "FOR", YOU CAN DO AND THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED A LEGISLATIVE DEMOCRACY.

YOU HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC but you notice it is always called a Democracy. Well, what they are doing is pretending that you are un­der the Legislative Democracy.

Dharma, copy the response example please:

* * * * *

From: John Q. Public
Shootyoudead, TX
XXXXXXX

DATE: ......................
TO: U.R.Rippingme ............... (example: District Director)
Internal Revenueer.rnce, Inc.
Shootyoudead, Texas

Dear Sir:

Looking at 18 U.S.C. Section 2, I find that you fit the definition therein of what is termed "a Principal": concerning unlawful actions being done in your name by others under your direction. The two individuals engaged in said unlawful actions under you, the Principal, are your Counsel, Headly Gunman from Shootyoudead, and your Agent, D.U.R. Will from Ripoff, Texas. Per­haps they have overstepped the authority that you delegated to them, so I must make you aware of the nature of their unlawful behavior before damage results by their actions without your being aware of what is being done in your name.

By what is called: The Separation of Powers Doctrine the Preamble Citizens, and their heirs, of this nation were guaranteed a three branch government, known as a Republic, and called the United States of America. That Doctrine further guarantees that no single branch of the three branch Republic will as­sume the prerogative of exercising the duties of either of the other two branches. Now we know, that in any legal dispute between a citizen of this na­tion, and either the Legislative, or the Executive, Branches of our gov­ernment, that it is the duty of the Judicial Branch of our government to re­solve the issue. We can also see, that it is an offence against the United States, as a nation, for anyone in the Legislative or Executive Branches of our government to presume the prerogative of a Court of Law in making a legal determination on an issue of National Law, wherein only in Article III Judicial Court, exercising Judicial Power, is authorized to perform that function.

Since you are the Principal in an offense against the United States, which of­fense is being performed by others in your name, it is my duty to inform you of the fact, and to acquaint you with the specifics of a felony taking place, before substantive damage results bringing in other charges.

A study of the file your agency holds, with reference to my name, will show that there is an unresolved issue of law contained therein: between Contrary Conclusions of law involving a National, or Constitutional, issue that only an Article III Judicial Court, exercising Judicial Power, can resolve. Those who speak in your name, and supposedly under your authority, have taken unto themselves to make a legal determination on this issue of law, so that they may press forward on a "fact issue" that can be handled in a Legislative Tri­bunal. Having settled the law issue in their own favor, (unlawfully) they are now proceeding under color of Law to take depositions on "fact issues" which may, they hope, establish a Legislative Jurisdiction over my person and prop­erty, which does not presently exist, yet, to secure its existence, they are acting under pretended law, or under Color of Law, to deprive me of rights pro­tected by the Constitution of the United States in clear violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 242, wherein the penalty for same is spelled out. That is the second felony, resulting from the first, wherein your Legislative Agents have impersonated a Judge at law, which offense is against the United States, and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, the very foundation-stone of our Republic.

For your convenience, I will outline the Contrary Conclusions of Law, upon which a felony has occurred in your name, and wherein you are the Principal. The action of your Agents is based upon their Conclusion of Law that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in its passage, repealed the first 10 Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, and thereby, gave Congress the au­thority to write the civil statutes, known as 26 U.S.C., wherein no rights exist in either civil or criminal actions, based upon those civil statutes, except the right to a hearing before a Legislative Tribunal, which rules upon the letter of the Civil Statutes in both Civil, and Criminal, cases.

To the above Conclusion of Law the accused citizen, under that conclusion of Law, has made his OBJECTION known, declaring his Contra Conclusion of Law to be the following:

The accused citizen has concluded: that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, did not repeal the Bill of Rights, embodied in the first 10 Amendments, and, in fact that it did not grant any new authority to Congress, which Congress did not already have under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, and that it was under that authority that Congress wrote the statutes now embodied in 26 U.S.C. That code may be lawfully applied over the territory mentioned in Clause 17, and the persons, be they individuals or corporate entities, residing in that limited territory, are subject to the jurisdic­tion of the Congress, which wrote the Code for residents of that limited terri­tory generally known as the District of Columbia, and other enclaves, specifically mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.

The accused citizen further concludes that since he does not now, nor has he ever, resided, worked or had income from the limited territory, wherein Congress was granted exclusive rule and jurisdiction over the residents thereof, that he is protected from any jurisdiction of Congress over his person and property, by both his National Constitution and by the State of Texas Constitution, Texas being the State wherein he resides! Therefore, until an Article III Court, exercising Judicial Power, makes a legal determination against his Conclusion of Law, in favor of the Conclusion of Law assumed by the Principal in opposition to him, he is not under the Legislative Jurisdiction granted to Congress by Article I, Section 8, clause 17.

Now the Principal in this offense against the United States by his Agents, and the one to be charged with a conspiracy to deprive accused citizen of his rights protected by the U.S. Constitution under a Color of Law Action (the penalty of which is outlined in 18 U.S.C. 242), may free himself of all charges by removing the delegated authority, which Counsel Headly Gunman and Agent D.U.R. Will have assumed was delegated to them, forcing them to employ lawful means to resolve the Contrary Conclusions of law, in a proper court for resolving Constitutional conflicts, before they make any more attempts to move forward under Color of Law to resolve a "fact issue" that is without a legally determined jurisdiction.

In any event, the Principal has been notified, in specific detail, of both the law, and the facts, of a controversy, which involves him, even though the unlawful actions were not performed directly by him. Any further encroachment upon the rights of the accused citizen, may be deemed to be willful upon the part of the Principal following this official notice of the facts, and law which applies to them.

Cordially yours,

John Q. Public

AFFIDAVIT

I, John Q. Public, declare that I have examined the copies of this letter being sent to the following three parties: The District Director of the Internal Rev­enue Service at Shootyoudead, Texas, Mr. Headly of Shootyoudead, Texas, and Mr. D.U.R. Will of Ripoff, Texas, and I certify that they are true and ex­act copies of the original, which Mr. John Q. Public is holding in his posses­sion.

I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing letter and know its contents, and to the best of my knowledge the statements therein are true and correct, except as to those matters upon which I rely on information and/or belief, and as to those matters I do believe them to be true and correct.

Dated: ........ day of ........

/s/ .................................

(Either have notarized or at least two witnesses to certify signature(s). i.e. as below; keeping in mind that if you have a "joint" situation (as in Mr. & Mrs.--both will need to sign).

(NOTARY PUBLIC'S JURAT)

OR
DATED: ........DAY OF ......, 19 ...

WITNESS .................

WITNESS .................

WITNESS .................

THE CASE IN POINT

The "real" person in this case sent in the above letter and then went to the meeting at the appointed time, place, etc. When he arrived for his meeting, there was no one at the place to meet him.

He told the clerk that he was to have a meeting and showed the time and place and she said that no one had told her about any meeting. He pursued it and suggested that perhaps someone was in the courtroom, would she please check. She checked and no one; then she looked at the papers and record of hearings and said, "No one told me anything, maybe it has been cancelled". So that was the end of that--and I sincerely mean it was the END of it with no follow-on--simply no further contact.

Now, some of you are asking, "Why didn't you just run that whole thing about `unlawful', indirect v. direct taxes, non ratification of the 16 amendment, etc"? NEVER OVERKILL! YOU ALLOW CHANCES FOR ERROR IF YOU SHOOT ALL YOUR AMMUNITION. HAD THESE ONES COME BACK TO MR. PUBLIC, HE WOULD HAVE NEEDED AMMUNITION TO CONTINUE THE REBUTTAL.
USE WHAT WILL DO THE JOB AND HOLD THE REST IN RESERVE!

WHAT WAS ACTUALLY DONE IN THIS CASE?

We TIMELY and SPECIFICALLY challenged a "Separation of Powers". Here you had executive officers making a legal determination that this man was "required" under the code. Now, he had set up a Controversy at Law; he had shown what their conclusion of law is, he had timely objected to it by showing what his conclusion of law was. So you have established a Contro­versy at Law.

Only an Article III Judicial Court exercising judicial power has any authority whatsoever, to resolve that issue of law. And therefore, your executive agen­cies
--the Legislative Courts--can't do a thing. If they do, they are violating the laws of the United States, the very basic foundation of the Nation. Separation of Powers: No Legislative Agency can perform a judicial function. So, instead of them charging you with violations of the laws of the United States, they are found to be violating the laws of the United States.

As a result of that violation, they have created a felony against YOU, because Title 18, Sec. 241-242 (in this case 242 was chosen because we wanted to make the District Director the Principal). (Title 241 says: "If any two persons con­spire to deprive any citizen of rights, guaranteed by this Constitution, under power of law, they shall be fined not more than $10,000 or ten years in jail, or both").

If any Principal does it, his felony is named in Title 242. So you see, you have told them what the crime is, you have completely described it for them--every­thing is spelled out very clearly.

Dharma allow us to close this segment and then we shall move on with some other important discussion. You are at the point wherein the International Bankers could foreclose on everything in the world. They could foreclose on the United States, England, France, Russia and on and on. Every nation has borrowed more and promised to repay in substance and no one has the sub­stance. So be it.