PJ 16
CHAPTER 5
REC #3 HATONN
MONDAY, JUNE 18, 1990 5:20 P.M. YEAR 3 DAY 306

REPEAL?

7. Did the 16th Amendment repeal any part of the original Constitution?

You have to consider another example of a situation in which an Amendment was repealed in order to have any relative comparison. We shall consider the 18th Amendment and its later repeal.

The 18th Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale, transportation, im­portation and exportation of intoxicating liquors, and was ratified January 16, 1919. Because it was a daring thing to do at the time, suite likely more people started drinking alcoholic beverages than would have if the 18th Amendment had never existed as that is the nature of human behavior. At any rate, it cre­ated many problems and was not a popular amendment in the aftermath. The point is, again, that people think they will solve problems with absolutely no notion of that which they are doing. Therefore, those who have a driving desire to have a thing happen make sure it happens while the rest, the unin­terested parties, wait and dream on. So, on December 5, 1933, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

Now this is extremely important so please pay close attention for you are to get some valid truth regarding the nonsense around the 16th Amendment.

Here is the wording of Section 1 of the 21st Amendment:

"The eighteenth article of amendment of the constitution of the United States IS HEREBY REPEALED".

In all the amendments to your Constitution do you see anything similar re­garding the 16th Amendment? Of course not--in fact, you can clearly see, there is NO such wording in the 16th Amendment to indicate anything is re­pealed, nor in any Amendment following. The 16th Amendment clearly and succinctly states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on in­comes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration".

Neither did the 16th Amendment repeal any portion of the U.S. Constitution, but rather it is a restatement and clarification of the general and permanent taxing laws of the United States in regard to "income tax".

Therefore, this brings us to your sixth, and perhaps most important, question.

6. What was the purpose of the 16th Amendment?

Here again, the U.S. Supreme Court answers. Notice carefully the words and phrases used by the court, such as forbids, prohibited, maintaining the limita­tions, harmonizing their operations, prevented, prevention, making clear, and simplifying the situation.

The court's use of these words supports the statement that the 16th Amend­ment is a restatement and clarification of the general and permanent laws of the United States in regard to "income taxes".

Having demonstrated what the disastrous results would be to the U.S. Consti­tution, IF Mr. Brushaber's erroneous propositions and contentions were ac­ceded to, the U.S. Supreme Court said:

"This result instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and de­structive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion".

After having paraphrased some more of Mr. Brushaber's erroneous con­tentions, the U.S. Supreme Court continued:

"Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Consti­tution and harmonizing their operation".

Then in the Stanton Case, the U.S. Supreme Court said:

"The Sixteenth Amendment conferred NO NEW POWER of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress FROM THE BEGINNING from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged....".

The U.S. Supreme Court said that the 16th Amendment must have obviously been intended to simplify the situation and make clear the limitations on the taxing power. The court also said that the 16th Amendment was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operations. The court further stated that the 16th Amendment simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation pos­sessed by Congress FROM THE BEGINNING from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.

Was an amendment to the Constitution really necessary just to make clear and maintain the limitations of the taxing power given the federal government in the original Constitution? What was the problem? Who was being pre­vented from taking the power of income taxation that Congress always had from the beginning out of the category of indirect taxation to which it in­herently belonged? Had somebody done that before? If so, why?

Since it is a FACT that an income tax inherently belongs in the class of an in­direct tax which is a tax imposed upon revenue taxable events or activities, how could it have been taken out of its proper class? After all, indirect taxes are the only class of taxes that can be laid without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. Perhaps there is another reason for the 16th Amendment.

Let us investigate other statements made by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Brushaber Case in regard to the Pollock Case. These will not explain, but will tend to reveal, what is undoubtedly the main purpose for which the 16th Amendment was adopted; that is, being "drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided", and to forbid "the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case".

"The Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided". and,

"The command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived, forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case..." and yet, the Brushaber Court said:

"The Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word direct had a broader significance since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership...".

Let us consider just what was the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided. What rule was applied in the Pollock Case? What did the court mean when it said the ruling in the Pollock Case was that the word "direct" had a broader significance since it embraced also taxes levied directly on per­sonal property because of its ownership? Let us dig a little bit.

Today many people wrongly believe that the Pollock Court held that an "income tax" is unconstitutional. Others wrongly believe that the Pollock Court held "income taxes" to be direct taxes, and that the 16th Amendment removed the need for apportionment, but the Brushaber Court clearly shows that this was not the holding in the Pollock Case when it clearly states:

"The conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the CONTRARY recognized the FACT that taxation on income was in its nature an EXCISE entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was con­cluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty (meaning the duty of the court) would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which oth­erwise as an excise would not apply to it".

It becomes more obvious that you are going to need some additional back­ground information if you are to really understand the reasoning behind the Brushaber opinion. Therefore, let us regress somewhat so that you can gain some information on the man who delivered the Brushaber opinion and also information on some of the prior cases which he cites. Wouldn't this have been easier and a lot less messy if you had learned this all in school?

Chief Justice Edward Douglas White delivered the opinions in both the Brushaber Case AND in the Stanton Case. He had been involved with this "income tax" issue for a long, long time. He was even on the Supreme Court in 1895 and had delivered a somewhat fervent dissenting opinion in the Pol­lock Case. Yet, he had no argument with the FACT that the power of income taxation belongs in the category of indirect taxation, and was in total agree­ment on this point. His dissenting opinion in the rehearing of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan Assn., 158 U.S. 601 can be found within the last few pages of the documented case at 706-715. Edward Douglas White was appointed Chief Justice by President Taft in 1910 following Chief Justice Fuller's death. He was commissioned to the Supreme Court in 1894.

The reason White dissented in Pollock was the fact that the majority opinion of the court was going to disturb what he considered to be a settled point in case law. It had always been assumed by courts, from the time of 1796 in a case referred to as the Hylton Case down through 1880 with the Springer Case, that a tax imposed upon personal property was not actually on the property by reason of ownership, but rather upon its use (activity) or the con­sumption of a commodity (activity). It had also been assumed by the courts that if a tax was neither a capitation tax nor a tax on real estate, which were direct taxes, it must therefore fall into the class of an indirect tax. White also expressed concern that if a tax on the income from property was considered a direct tax requiring apportionment, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reach through taxation the large amounts of invested capital. As always, when there is a will there is certainly conjured up a way--so, don't be concerned, for a way was found, and that way was with the special, and clever, use of words in the later taxing statutes and the 16th Amendment.

Let us read his dissenting opinion in the Pollock Case,. White refers many times to the Hylton Case, which established what he then believed to be the "judicial construction" for almost 100 years.

The Hylton Case, 1796

"This was a writ of Error directed to the Circuit Court for the Dis­trict of Virginia; and upon the return of the record, the following pro­ceedings appeared. An action of debt had been instituted to May Term, 1795, by the attorney of the district, in the name of the United States, against Daniel Hylton, to recover the penalty imposed by the act of Congress, of the 5th of June, 1794, for not entering, and paying the duty on, a number of carriages, for the conveyance of persons, which he kept for his own use. The defendant pleaded nil debet, whereupon issue was joined. But the parties, waiving the right of trial by jury, mutually submitted the controversy to the court on a case, which stated 'That the Defendant, on the 5th of June, 1794, and there­from to the last day of September following, owned, possessed, and kept, 125 chariots for the conveyance of persons, and no more: that the chariots were kept exclusively for the Defendant's own private use, and not to let out to hire, or for the conveyance of persons for hire: and that the Defendant had notice according to the act of Congress, enti­tled "An act laying duties upon carriages for the conveyance of per­sons", but that he omitted and refused to make an entry of the said chariots, and to pay the duties thereupon, as in and by the said recited law is required, alleging that the said law was unconstitutional and void. If the court adjudged the Defendant to be liable to pay the tax and fine for not doing so, and for not entering the carriages, then judgment shall be entered for the Plaintiff for 2000 dollars, to be dis­charged by the payment of 16 dollars, the amount of the duty and penalty; otherwise that judgment be entered for the Defendant'. After argument, the court delivered their opinions; but being equally divided, the Defendant, by agreement of the parties, confessed judgment, as a foundation for the present writ of error; which was brought merely to try the constitutionality of the tax". (As was the first proceeding).

"The court delivered their opinions seriatim in the following terms. Chase, Justice. By the case stated, only one question is submitted to the opinion of this court; whether the law of Congress, of the 5th of June, 1794, entitled, 'An act to lay duties upon carriages, for the conveyance of persons', is unconstitutional and void"?

Let us now consider the opinions and whether or not they rendered a judicial opinion on the constitutional meaning of the word "direct".

Chase, Justice: "I am inclined to think, but of this I do not give a judicial opinion, that the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, a capitation, or poll tax, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on land. I doubt whether a tax, by a gen­eral assessment of personal property, within the United States, is included within the term direct tax".

Patterson, Justice: "I never entertained a doubt, that the principle, I will not say, the only, objects, that the framers of the Constitution contemplated as falling within the rule of apportionment, were a capitation and a tax on land".

Iredell, Justice: "As all direct taxes must be apportioned, it is evident that the Constitution contemplated none as direct but such as could be apportioned". and, "Perhaps a direct tax in the sense of the Constitution, can mean nothing but a tax on something inseparably annexed to the soil: Something capable of apportionment under all such circumstances".

Now, you come into some interesting facets: Three other justices were on the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Wilson had ruled on the case in the Circuit Court of West Virginia and continued to uphold his sentiments in favor of the constitutionality of the tax. Thus, he was able to vote twice on the issue. His vote in the U.S. Supreme Court made it a unanimous decision regardless of the actions of the next two justices. Conveniently left out of the records are the names of both judges before whom the case was argued in the Circuit Court. Funny how records and files still disappear from court records at ever increasing rates.

There were two other judges but Justice Cushing had been indisposed, and having not attended the arguments, also declined taking part and Justice Ellsworth had just been sworn into office on that very morning and declined taking part in this decision.

The only issue before the court was whether the act itself, as written, was un­constitutional. The justices really didn't have to give an opinion on the consti­tutional meaning of the word "direct", and actually, they didn't. They each concluded that a duty on carriages came into the class of duties or excises and therefore did not require apportionment. Good show! Each, however, came to his conclusion by different reasoning. Do you see how vulnerable you really are? By the way--the New Constitution is incredibly more ambiguous than is the original document. You won't have a chance of any type with all the bribery of today's fountains of wisdom and truth that you send to Washington and your state legislatures.

At any rate, the language, and not a ruling, in this case, being that the only di­rect taxes contemplated by the Constitution were capitation taxes and taxes on real estate, was carried down through the years in the arguments in the various tax cases. It was merely assumed that if the tax was not a capitation tax or a tax on real estate, it would therefore be considered an indirect tax. Just like "they" assume you won't notice your imprisonment until after the fact.

Then there was the Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586. This was much like the Hylton Case; both cases claiming a 'duty' was a direct tax and void because it was not apportioned among the states in accordance with the Constitution. No question was presented to the court in either case as to whether or not the tax actually applied to the individual involved.

I think you get the picture without further prattling about individual cases at this point. They are all out there for your viewing if you ever need to cite them.

DIRECT TAXES ON REAL ESTATE

Compared to other forms of taxation, the assessment and collection process involved with a direct tax on real estate requires far fewer records, and also a smaller number of administrative personnel; especially if the evaluations which are already established in the state records are used. All of this results in lower tax collection costs for the entire nation. Also, a direct tax on real estate is more "up front", as compared to the many indirect taxes which are "hidden" in the price of the various articles of consumption, thereby allowing the citizen to be more aware of government spending.

As stated earlier, Congress has not imposed a direct tax since the days of the Civil War. Today, many people erroneously believe that the "Victory Tax" of 1942 was a direct tax on wages, but it was only an additional amount added to that indirect excise tax called the "income tax", which is only properly applied to revenue taxable events or activities. On the surface it seemed quite lawful and will be attempted again, my friends, if the need arises--and "they" will see to it the need arises if you allow of it.

Had Congress used its power of direct taxation to pay the bills as you have gone along, there would be no federal debt today. Also, Congress might well have spent more wisely and created fewer bills each year, or the people may have elected some new congressmen. This is truly the essence of no taxation without representation, and the reason for which the rule of apportionment required for all direct taxes was adopted. YOU CAN DO IT IF YOU WANT TO!

If direct taxes were imposed on real estate by the federal government, the property holders, of course, would then want answers from their congressmen as to where all the tax money was to be spent. The congressmen, in turn, would be forced to have some pretty good answers. To the extent the cost of direct taxes on real estate is passed on to tenants, even the tenants would have an interest in the spending habits of their congressmen. Under this type of tax collection, the individuals are able to exert better control over the spending habits of their congressmen and thusly surfaces the reasons it is NOT being done in this manner.

Also, under this type of tax collection, the property holder does not waive his Fourth Amendment right to privacy of papers, or his Fifth Amendment right not to witness against himself under penalty of perjury as happens when a "taxpayer" completes a 1040 form for the so-called "income tax".

Dharma it has been a long day of work so we will sign off and take up the subject of State Income Taxes when we sit in the morrow. Thank you, chela, and good-day.

Hatonn to stand-by, please.



PJ 16
CHAPTER 6

REC #2 HATONN

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1990 11:13 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 307

STATE INCOME TAXES

People believe that state "income taxes" are in the class of "direct" taxes upon the money received as income. Let us dispense with this erroneous assump­tion immediately.

State income taxes are modeled part and parcel after federal income taxes. They are copied in both form and substance, and are therefore indirect taxes also, which apply to revenue taxable activities. Does this sound repetitious? Good--it shows you were paying attention before now. However, these indi­rect taxes are also being applied and enforced AS IF most individuals are en­gaged in revenue taxable activities or events, just as does the federal govern­ment, when in fact most people are merely exercising their God-given and constitutionally secured right to exist, which is an activity that is not taxable for revenue purposes. Ho Hum-m-m. Please tell me that thought forms are tak­ing shape!

The state public school systems teach the students how to fill out tax forms AS IF they are ALL going to be engaged in activities or events that cannot be pursued as a matter of constitutional right. The students are forced to gradu­ate in ignorance and perpetuate the lie--many go on to become lawyers, doc­tors, merchants and chiefs as well as butchers, bakers and candle stick makers and all simply go forth and practice the lie as fed to them as outlaid by the conspiracy to destroy the Constitution.

Students go forth without having the slightest idea that there is a difference between a revenue taxable activity as opposed to the free exercise of the con­stitutionally secure right to sustain one's self and to acquire property (income or other compensation).

Why don't some of you daring teachers and parents give a copy of these Journals on the Constitution and the 16 Amendment to your young people and see if they don't light up like light bulbs. You undersell your children--they know the facade of society for that which it is--a lie. Why don't you really give your children a legacy of hope and freedom and allow them to learn truth and they will stop the vulgar, obscene attentions to drug and Satanic groups and bring you back into freedom. The youth only awaits its purpose; they refuse to longer be gun fodder. Show them the way and allow them truth and they will act in honor, respect and unity and you won't have to worry about flag burners, my dear friends.

They are given no input as to the fact that they can lawfully contract their tal­ents and labors in innocent and harmless activities for lawful compensation without penalties and robbery from the criminals you have sent to your houses of government. It isn't your fault for you, too, were in ignorance--BUT NO MORE! NO LONGER ARE YOU IN IGNORANCE IF YOU HAVE READ THIS FAR IN THIS JOURNAL
--YOU NO LONGER HAVE HONEST COP-OUT. IF YOU CHOOSE TO CONTINUE IN THE LIE--FACE IT; IT IS YOUR CHOICE AND SIMPLY TELL YOUR CHIL­DREN YOU WERE AFRAID TO PURSUE TRUTH. DOES THAT PROSPECT APPEAL TO YOU AS PARENTS CLAIMING TO WANT THE BEST FOR YOUR FUTURE GENERATIONS? YOUR FUTURE GENERATIONS AT THIS POINT ARE SELLING DRUGS TO BURY THEIR FUTURE FOR THEY INNATELY KNOW HOW BAD IT REALLY HAS BECOME.

There are several ways to demonstrate that state income taxes are not being applied as if they are direct taxes on the money received as income. Compare the property tax on real estate, which is a direct tax, to the state income tax. Property taxes are measured on the basis of the value of the property which an Individual holds at any one period of time. Few people have all of the money on hand at any one period of time which they earn during the year. Yet, income taxes are measured by the amount of income derived during a year regardless of how much of this income is on hand at any one period of time. This demonstrates loudly and clearly that the income tax is not on the money that one holds, but is on the revenue taxable activity and is merely measured by the amount of income derived from that activity during a year--therefore, the tax itself is constitutionally UNLAWFUL.

Additionally, consider that property taxes on a particular home, for instance, are the same amount regardless if the home owner is single, married, has no dependents or has 20 dependents. If the amount of tax on like dwellings were higher for the single person with no dependents than for a married person with 20 dependants, it would amount to unequal protection under the law! The law can allow much more latitude in regard to the application of taxes on revenue taxable activities, because the nature of a revenue taxable activity is such that it cannot be pursued as a matter of constitutional right. There is simply no way to construe income taxes to be LAWFUL under the Constitution no matter how we might twist and fidget with the writings. Therefore it boils down to man tampering with the Law within the Constitution just as he has tampered with God's laws within the Holy Books--to suit his own power and greed hungry status.

UNEMPLOYMENT AND DISABILITY INSURANCE TAXES

Yes, incidentally, the so-called "state unemployment taxes" and the so-called "state disability insurance taxes" ARE ALSO INDIRECT TAXES AND THEREFORE UNLAWFUL ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION. The only persons who are subject to these taxes, therefore, are those who are engaged in revenue taxable activities and we will enlarge on this when we get to the dissection and smashing of Social Security. Does it begin to seep into your minds that you have been acting against the very laws of the Constitution for some time now? Well, what are you going to do about it? Complain, moan and groan about Hatonn's doom and gloom revelations? That is en­tirely up to you. The very ones who are in the criminal element of actions are benefiting from your gifting of hunks of your rightful, constitutional property--using a weapon to boot, to take it from you!

By the way--they plan to get all your weapons from you and have a built in police force, all armed and written into the "New" Constitution to insure you have no protection whatsoever. A mentally deranged man (who listens con­stantly to Satanic mental brain-manipulations) goes forth and shoots sonic people and you ones line up to DEMAND that the government take your guns. ARE YOU PLANNING TO SHOOT A BUNCH OF PEOPLE? I THOUGHT NOT! YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET THE WEAPONS AWAY FROM THE CRIMINALS--ALL YOU ARE GOING TO DO IS DISARM THE VERY ONES WHO MIGHT IMPACT YOUR SECURITY. SO BE IT, THAT IS ANOTHER SUBJECT WHICH I SHALL MOST SURELY COVER IN ANOTHER JOURNAL. IT IS A CONSTITU­TIONAL RIGHT AND YOU HAD BETTER BE LOOKING MOST CAREFULLY AT YOUR CONSTITUTION FOR YOU ARE ABOUT TO "VOTE" IT GONE!

With a reasonable amount of knowledge and sound reasoning, one can see that the so-called income taxes are correctly operating as indirect taxes. However, one can also see that they are being misapplied to individuals who are not involved in any revenue taxable activity and are therefore not subject to these so-called income taxes or other revenue taxes, and are not within the purview of such tax laws.

The main point of this little chapter is to enforce the truth of the situation which flows from state to federal and back to state and never even bothers to become lawful in the process.

The main message is that the "income tax" has been judicially determined long ago to be an indirect tax in the nature of an excise, and is actually imposed upon revenue taxable events, occasions, incidents, or activities which cannot be pursued as a matter of constitutional right, and the individual who is merely exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to lawfully acquire property (income or other compensation) by lawfully contracting his own la­bor to engage in innocent and harmless activities for lawful compensation is not subject to such a tax. The receipt of income, in and of itself, DOES NOT DETERMINE TAX LIABILITY. It is the nature of the activity that determines liability, and the income derived from the activity is used only to mea­sure the amount of the tax imposed upon the revenue taxable event, occasion, incident or activity. The so-called "income tax" CANNOT BE LEGALLY ENFORCED AS IF IT WERE A DIRECT TAX ON THE MONEY RE­CEIVED, NOR CAN IT BE LEGALLY APPLIED TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY REVENUE TAXABLE EVENTS, OC­CASIONS, INCIDENTS, OR ACTIVITIES.

WAIT A MINUTE, PLEASE

Now, lots of you are fully up in arms at this point and you are thinking of "doing" something even if it's wrong. Just hold on another few hours and then do something
--but do it RIGHT! I am going to give you some sources of in­formation to insure you handle things properly. They won't, however, have the most useful information to keep you leaders out of the courts in the first place.

Unless you are eager to get into the system and be shot at, "legalized" to poverty, etc., you take upfront measures to begin properly. First, if you have assets tucked here and there and assets that show all over the place--THINK CAREFULLY! You have half a year before they will come with the guns and you can do unimagined wonder in six short months. See if it is applicable to set up a corporation or two and shift your assets
--you have nothing to lose ex­cept attention and the IRS police force.

Again, I tell you to go through Nevada--even if you spend extra to allow busi­ness to be done in your home state in almost all instances. It is the ONLY state in your Union which has no state income tax and no reciprocity with the Federal Government and/or IRS. Avoid open confrontation in the courts un­til you know what you are doing--if you "show" no worthwhile assets, there is not point in harassing you to any great extent as long as the law of the Consti­tution is on your side. I tell you now, that millions of your brothers and neigh­bors pay no income taxes and nobody bothers them about it. The big show of power is to terrorize you into submission and cause you to ASSUME that that which they tell you and do unto you is legal. What worthwhile activity or property could you acquire if you were able to keep your property and money for your own use or guide your contribution to the governmental system to suit truth and your needs?
I hope you think very carefully upon these things. It is urgent indeed. The door is open wide to change it all before your blinking eyes and then it will be too late for action.

IF YOU ALLOW THIS THING TO COME UPON YOU--DO NOT BLAME GOD! GOD HAS NOW SENT THESE ONES TO BRING TRUTH UNTO YOU, SO KEEP RESPONSIBILITY FOR INACTION TO SOURCE. THERE IS A LIBRARY FILLED WITH PROOF OF THIS TRUTH. IT IS UP TO YOU TO BRING IT INTO THE OPEN LIGHT OF INFORMATION FOR THE MASSES.

THE WELFARE RECIPIENTS (OF WHICH THERE ARE MORE THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE) WILL AT FIRST BE AGAINST YOU. THEY SEEM TO FEEL THE WELL SHALL NEVER BE DRY. IT WILL RUN DRY AS SOON AS THE CONTROL IS SHIFTED IN TOTAL TO THE DICTATORIAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE NEW CONSTI­TUTION. WELFARE, AS YOU LOVELY RECIPIENTS NOW RECOG­NIZE IT, WILL BE ENDED AND THE OPPRESSION WILL BE BE­YOND YOUR DREAMS. THE WELFARE SYSTEM AS UTILIZED AT PRESENT IS STRUCTURED TO ENSURE YOUR ENSLAVEMENT WITHIN IT AND IT REQUIRES THAT A PERSON IN NEED OF HELP BECOME ENSLAVED.

All your governmental systems are based upon foundationless assumptions which have no bases in fact. They are conjured systems for your entrapment and to render you helpless. It will only come to be if you sit and allow of it to happen to you. Take back control of the government by the people, for the people and of the people--you have simply forgotten the truth of the path laid forth for your journey.

Allow us to have a bit of respite and we will cover the W-4 Form for I am del­uged with projections of queries. If we might, please, let us give extra time to this Journal and see if we can get it to the public quickly. People can follow up with their own research as they come into attention of the possibilities. We must also cover the full ramifications of the gun control lobby as to your pro­tection and Constitutional rights and time grows so short for action through knowledge. If man fails to act after we have brought forth truth; 'tis his re­sponsibility--we will have carried forth our mission, chelas. We have many other things to do and build, but this is our mission first and foremost--to bring truth unto a floundering, transitioning world in service unto Creator/Creation. May we ever press forward that we not regret in having tarried too long in our work. We must be most careful to keep priorities in proper sequence.

Make sure that Charles and John are given the information sent from Patrick Gage for you will need all that information regarding shelters, etc.

Something to ponder in point regarding shelters. Is it not strange that the very ones in your government who insist upon the security and lack of need for shelters--continue to update yearly all facets of shelters and survival? COULD IT BE THAT YOU THE PUBLIC ARE THE EXPENDABLES AFTER ALL? IT REQUIRES NO SPACE CADET TO SEE WHAT IS GOING ON ABOUT YOU. THE TRUTH IS KEPT FROM YOU AND IT IS TIME YOU STOP ALLOWING OF IT FOR THERE ARE PLACES TO GLEAN TRUTH IN SPITE OF THE CONTROLLERS. YOU SEE, THERE ARE ONLY A VERY SELECTED FEW WHO ARE REALLY AND ACTUALLY A PART OF THE PLANNED SURVIVORS IN THE NEW ORDER
--THE ONES WHO ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE TOOLS AND BELIEVE THEY ARE GETTING THEIR PLACE IN SAFETY HAD BETTER WAKE AND SMELL THE COFFEE. THEY WILL BE THE FIRST SEVERED AND LEFT TO CONTINUE THE LIE. REMEMBER, THE ONES WHO START AND DECLARE WAR ARE NOT THE BODIES WHO STAND WITH THE GUNS ON THE BATTLEFIELD! PONDER IT.

Hatonn to clear.