PJ#101, THE BREATHING DEAD AND CEMENT CHILDREN

[wave]

PJ 101

CHAPTER 7

REC #2 HATONN

WED., JUL. 6, 1994 1:14 P.M. YEAR 7, DAY 324

WED., JUL. 6, 1994

COMMUNISM vs, ZIONISM

I want to move right into THE USURPERS today but I am con­fronted with so many arguments about Communism vs. Zionism as to be worthy of a moment of response. The question comes up in obvious order of sequence, "Are all Zionists Commu­nists?" and the reverse. Of course not--at least not moreso than "Are all Mormons Communist Zionists?" Mormons declare themselves to be "Zionists". Zionism is based on Communism and the early Mormons WERE IN THE MOST EXPRESSIVE SENSE OF THE TERM, COMMUNISTS--AS IN "COMMUNAL CARETAKING". In the Mormon Church you have the GREAT SECRET RITUALS and the RESTRICTED TEMPLE and thus and so--all evidence of a base upon Freema­sonry. So, are all Mormons bad, good or in-between? None of the above--THEY ARE WHATEVER THEY CHOOSE TO BE.

Ah, but going back to the "first" observation and question--the one REALLY being asked is: "Are Jews Communists?" That becomes more difficult to answer for if you take the absolute de­fined term "Jew" you must come up with the fact that the term itself was made to FIT THE LABELING OF THE CATEGORY OF KHAZARIANS CALLED ZIONISTS. The facts are that there has NEVER been a true circumstance recognized politi­cally as "COMMUNIST". That which is practiced as "Communist" is only a severe form of "Socialistic Fascism" or at the best, Socialism. So, it is factual that this form of POLIT­ICAL PARTY called COMMUNIST is a construction of Zionists, calling themselves and being self-styled Jews moving into Russia (the Bolsheviks), who STARTED Communism.

In discussing this question let us look at it briefly, and someday as we have time we will take up the subject of "What is Behind Communism". At the moment we will refer to it briefly so that we can turn our attention back to our subject of recognizing some of the usurpers of your nation in the U.S.A.

To fully understand the breakdown you have to go back to the competitive movements around the 1880s and remember that Communism and Zionism took hold among the Jews of the Pale of Settlement as a competitive movement. I do not wish to go into that subject again just now.

When the Bolsheviks took over Russia in 1917, they sought to impose their way of thinking on the entire Jewish population. As Jews, the Bolsheviks adhered to the belief that Jewish nationalism should be preserved, but they believed it should be oriented toward Communism. The Communists regarded Zionism as an impractical scheme, wedded to British Imperialism, and impossible of achievement . The Zionists, consisting of the more religious and orthodox Jews, stubbornly resisted this concept [OF NON-ACHIEVEMENT]. As a result, the Communist Party established a special Jewish section to deal with the Zionists. They attempted, with only partial success, to win over the children of the Zionists by prohibiting the teaching of Zionism to children under twenty. Now, before labeling this as "anti-Semitism", it has to be remembered that the "Zionist" Jews are NOT SEMITES but even in the "accepted" terminology it was that there were measures imposed by one section of Jewry upon other Jews, and it must be remembered also that Christians received no such preferential treatment.

This fight between Communists and Zionists has lasted right down to today wherein it isn't even longer understood or recognized as being different one from another.

When the state of Israel was established, tens of thousands of Zionists were permitted to emigrate from Russia and satellite territories to Palestine, in a move which continues. Communist authorities have been pretty reluctant to permit young Jews to emigrate and in many cases permission has been denied--but it is political in cause. WHAT YOU HAVE TO KNOW, READERS, IS THAT THIS IS A BATTLE BETWEEN JEWS! Whether Communists or Zionists, they retain their Jewishness as accepted in description, and they stand somewhat united against all non-Jews. Facts or truth of the matter have long since ceased to be considered.
Here, however, is the fact of the bad news for ALL factions: both Communism and Zionist Jews have the same common goal--domination of the world. Both work and plan for the day when the self-labeled "chosen race" shall "inherit the Earth".

The separation of factions has long since become impossible to define, just as is the "Holocaust" difficult to historically prove. The historical TEACHINGS do not bear truth--and the truth is lost in the replacement by the LIE. The RUSSIAN people are neither Jewish, Zionists, nor Communists in any true definition of the terms.

Let us turn back, now, to the ongoing writings shared from:

THE USURPERS. Part 6:
by Medford Evans

Western Islands (publishers), Belmont, Mass. 02178, 1968.

Names to keep uppermost in mind as you read: DEAN RUSK, WALT ROSTOW, ROBERT McNAMARA, CLARK CLIF-FORD, ABE FORTAS,
N. deB. KATZENBACH.

Since portions of this book have already been offered in prior papers and journals I have to ask that you readers refer "back" to those writings for we will move right directly ahead with:

CHAPTER IV: WASHINGTON D.C.

In an America where power now has changed hands by coup d'état, where the "Vietnam nightmare" is not just terribly real, but is Administration policy, one is forced to ask: Who's running this country anyway?

Is anybody running it? Or is it just drifting? The answer seems to be that its direction is too consistent to be the result of drift. Since the end of World War II in August 1945, our po­sition in the international power scale relative to that of Soviet Russia has moved steadily down. This has occurred while our economy has maintained unprecedented vigor for over twenty years, and while our military and diplomatic expenditures have far exceeded anything ever spent before, in such a period of time by any nation. Since the end of World War II, and espe­cially since the beginning of the Korean War, it could be said of the United States, never has any country had so much power to do itself so little good.

[H: As you read along here I am pushed to offer all the per­tinent writings of this author so that you can see the amount of work and attention which is given these players and cir­cumstances. I fear, however, that what will be lost is the CONNECTIONS and REAL REASONS for actions which were being taken back in 1968 of which there is no way this author could have much realization of the drug running, the mind-control programs, etc., already well under way and being TESTED at the time. You, as readers, are asked to keep these things in mind as we have shared them hereto­fore--we do not have time for such repetition as to offer it all again.]
To find out who is really running the country, we have to be­gin by looking at those who are supposed to run it.

This means, most prominently, besides the President himself, members of the President's cabinet, certain heads of indepen­dent agencies, leaders in Congress, and Justices of the Supreme Court. Congress, which should be primus inter pares--first among equals--of the three branches of our government, has abdicated much of its responsibility. Only a rarity like Louisiana's Rarick undertakes to represent his constituents [H: And I bet that not more than three of you readers have any notion as to who was "Rarick".]. The weakness and timidity of the Congress are balanced by the audacious effrontery of the Supreme Court. Theoreticians of conspiracy could have pre­dicted that the Court would grow in power while the Congress declined; first, the Court, being numerically smaller, would more readily succumb to takeover by hard-core conspirators, and second, what difference does it make what the law says if you can control what it means? Congress determines what it said, the Supreme Court what it means. Chief Justice John Marshall established the doctrine of judicial review early in the life of the Republic, but it remained for Chief Justice Earl War­ren [H: By the way, this Justice Earl Warren, you will find, was on the Committee of 16 and was privy to the as­sassination plans (helped make them) of President Kennedy. It was prior preparation and planning that set forth the Warren Commission--so I guess you can now see how the re­sults of the crime study would be WHATEVER THE COMMISSION DECIDED IT WOULD BE.] to establish in our day the now accepted practice of the Court in (1) construing legislation without reference to the normal meaning of language, (2) issuing what amounts to executive orders for the carrying out of the Court's decrees.
The outstanding example of the Court's independence of the English language
--which of course, means indifference to any written Constitution--is its adherence to the principle of "one man, one vote". Nothing could be plainer than the language of the U.S. Constitution in direct contradiction of any such principle. Consider Article V, which provides that no amendment can be made which would deprive any State, without its own con­sent, of equal representation in the United States Senate--as provided by Article I, Section 3. Of course the establishing, through the "Great Compromise", of equal representation in the Senate for all States, regardless of population, provided the cor­nerstone of the Constitution. There is no argument about that. It is a universally recognized fact of American history. The Supreme Court does not deny it. The Supreme Court very evi­dently just doesn't care. The Supreme Court has its own rea­sons for asserting that the formula of "one man, one vote"--which first began to circulate as a Mau Mau slogan in Kenya, Africa, in the early 1950s--is somehow part of the Constitution of The United States, Articles I and V of that document to the contrary notwithstanding. I think we are due to hear from the Supreme Court that the Constitution is un-Constitutional! That would be no more cynically contemptuous of the common sense of mankind than have been a dozen decisions of the court since 1954. The crowning irony is that this court is not elected. Still, the Supreme Court on its own cannot make its rulings stick. Andrew Jackson's comment, "John Marshall has made his deci­sion, now let him enforce it", still applies, mutatis mutandis. The Executive Branch carries out the Law.

It is practical wisdom when the man in the street calls a po­liceman "the Law". The Law operates most obviously when somebody arrests you. If you have never been arrested, you don't really know what the Law is. Historically, the most powerful preservative of local self-government in the United States has been the lack of any national police. Nothing else so adorns the career of J. Edgar Hoover as his statesmanlike refusal to permit the Federal Bureau of Investigation to become a national police force. Liberals such as the late Bernard De Voto who complained of a "Gestapo" quality in the FBI knew they were far from the truth, for if the FBI had been a Gestapo the Liber­als would not have dared say it was. To be sure, many of them now evidently hope that it may become one, and with this end in view they wait somewhat anxiously for Hoover's removal or retirement.

Nothing more seriously marred the reputation of Bobby Kennedy than his efforts, as Attorney General of the United States, to make of Federal Marshals a national police force. But even with the deterioration of traditional Americanism that we have seen, it still remains true that if you get arrested this year you will probably be arrested by a city policeman, a county sheriff or his deputy, or a State Policeman (and the last named will be after you for a traffic violation).

The United States has not yet reached the point where the or­dinary citizen has to fear arrest--the knock on the door at mid­night--by a Federal police officer. Indeed, there are only three areas in which the ordinary citizen has to give much thought to punitive Federal laws. These are the areas of: (1) national de­fense, notably draft laws, (2) the Federal income tax, (3) alleged racial discrimination. With the power of the Federal Govern­ment growing as it is, however, how long may we expect to re­tain the freedom we now have? America is in a transitional era, when things can still move either way. We may see a further development of central authority until every man is "afraid for the terror by night", or we can deliberately revert to the princi­ple underlying the whole Constitution--the principle of checks and balances--according to which the power of the Federal Gov­ernment is not only apportioned and limited within itself
--among the three branches--but is also limited in its totality by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and by the informing principle of the whole Constitution. Of course, the basic reason for any nation to have a written constitution at all is to put a permanent re­straint on the power of the government.

That power in any case remains formidable. A government which is not formidable cannot operate. Any government that operates is formidable. John Locke, America's philosophical progenitor, defined government as the power to kill people--which rather graphically reminds us why government ought to be limited. Of course the definition is true. Two kinds of killing are essential to any government: (1) capital punishment,
(2) war-making. People who categorically oppose capital pun­ishment and war are categorically, whether they know it or not, anarchists. And anarchy, on the record, results in more killing than does government. As Jefferson said, Government is a necessary evil. And as someone else has said, it is like fire, a val­ued servant but a fearful master.

Who, in this year of Our Lord 1968, are the public servants who--through growing usurpations of power--show every sign of straining to become fearful masters? They are primarily: the President and the heads of his main executive departments. Ar­ticle H of the Constitution establishes the importance of the executive departments by taking their existence for granted. "The President", says Section 2 "...may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officers in each of the executive departments...".

PRESIDENT'S CABINET
IMPORTANT POINTS

The details of the President's cabinet are not specified in the Constitution, even the word cabinet is not used and the makeup of the cabinet has changed from time to time during the history of the Republic. Four officers, however, are essential, and have been from the start. George Washington's first cabinet was composed of Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State; Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury; Henry Knox, Secretary of War; and Edmond Randolph, Attorney General.

The War Department is now subsumed under the Department of Defense; otherwise, these same four officers still determine, or indicate, the direction of national policy, though the cabinet as a whole now comprises eleven officers, and the executive branch as a whole includes a bureaucracy so vast and so "automated", one fears it would operate a century at least even if the President and all cabinet officers died in their chairs and were never replaced.

[H: For instance, do you REALLY think that Joycelyn Elders [Surgeon General], one of Hillary's Hell Cats--REALLY HAS ANYTHING MUCH TO SAY ABOUT ANYTHING? OF COURSE NOT--IT IS A GIANT SHOW OF JUST HOW CONTROLLED YOU ARE AND DON'T EVEN SEEM TO NOTICE!]

EXECUTIVE BRANCH

It is the executive branch in all its plenitude which imposes upon the citizen the weight and power of the Federal Government. The Bureau of Internal Revenue, in the Treasury Department, takes the tithes of the citizen's income; the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in the Justice Department, keeps the dossiers on his private life; special troops of the Army, in the Department of Defense, ever alert nowadays to potential counterinsurgency, operate against the citizen--as they did in Mississippi with success unattained in Vietnam. Defense, Justice, and Treasury restrain, watch, and tax the citizen.

* * * *

I am going to leave this writing short--I ask that you study these last two paragraphs or so very carefully. You can see that the author is not informed. The IRS, for instance, is unlawful and the taxation is unConstitutional at best. The Federal Reserve uses the IRS. The IRS, BATF, etc., answer to the Treasury Department AND the Attorney General--BOTH SECRETARIES IN POINT ARE "FOREIGN EMPLOYEES". That means that the Attorney General and the Secretary of Treasury (to mention two) are not even paid by the United States--THEY ARE PAID FROM THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND! Your Secretary of State RIGHT NOW, TODAY, "CHRISTOPHER", IS NUMBER 5 HONCHO ON THE COMMITTEE OF 16 (17). So, where does this leave YOU Americans? Not too comforting is it?

* * * *

Dharma, I need you elsewhere. John Schroepfer took himself out of the prison holding house where he was being held hostage after he was kidnapped from the Kern County facility. For 14 months the poor soul has languished in one place or another without contact with ANY OUTSIDE PEOPLE OR FRIENDS--AND FAMILY, (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 3 VISITS FROM A BROTHER) HAVE REFUSED TO CALL OR VISIT HIM. HE WALKED OUT, FINALLY, AND GOD WILLING HE MADE IT BACK HOME WITHOUT HARM. Readers, he LITERALLY had begun DIGGING A TUNNEL for escape. It is not just the ones incarcerated in prison who are patriots that are in danger of total destruction by this heinous system. But if someone wants your assets--note that they will kill you for it. There is hearing now precipitated, on the morrow. Will love and care win out over the insipid greed of the "handlers"? I guess we shall see. This man sits and weeps just to be free, for he could not understand how anyone could do this to him--"for I have never done anything to anyone..." he says. Ah, yes, dear readers--Jesus still weeps for his lambs. Can goodness overcome evil? Yes, but YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT SO!

APPENDIX

THE REMAINDER OF THIS JOURNAL IS A

COLLECTION OF TIMELY NEWS AND/OR

EDUCATIONAL ITEMS

CHAPTER 8

ONE MAN'S JOURNEY TO FREEDOM
GREEDY CONSPIRACY EXPOSED
By Rick Martin 7/10/94

John and Eleanor Schroepfer began visiting Tehachapi in the spring of 1988, and finally moved here in the summer of 1988. They moved to this quiet valley to retire. John had worked for years as an engineer for Lockheed in the San Francisco Bay Area. John and Eleanor were a couple with "property and substance". They purchased a home in the foothills--spacious, quiet, and pleasant. John was an experimenter, spending hours in his garage. He had many tools and engineering "things".

I first met John and Eleanor in, I believe, October 1988. They were nearby neighbors at the time. Eleanor was very sickly. John tended her with great care and patience. She, most frequently, needed help getting in and out of chairs. Her joints, and more specifically her hips, gave her pain which caused her to be very irritable at times. This was most obviously reflected in the mimicking, loud and screeching call of "JOHN! JOHN!" by their elderly and very large parrot.

Eleanor kept mostly to herself. It was John who got out more frequently and was generally more interactive. They both, but particularly John, had many friends in Tehachapi. I include myself as one. They were very interested in the information which was being presented here and read the PHOENIX JOURNAL EXPRESS and PHOENIX JOURNALS as they were printed. This, of course, lead to the open sharing of ideas. Early on John became aware of Nevada corporations and initiated efforts to form one. John would frequently come into the offices of America West Publishers, Inc. and speak with owner/president George Green. When George Green first structured The Phoenix Institute For Research & Education, Ltd., he was a licensed securities broker. George, during this same period, spoke with John. The subsequent notes were signed by George Green as a Director and Trustee of The Phoenix Institute For Research & Education, Ltd.

At approximately the same time (early 1991) the Nevada corporation which John was affiliated with agreed to loan the Nevada corporation I am affiliated with the funds necessary to purchase a company car. A note was written and signed for the loan. (This is in contradiction to the statements by George Green that the Institute bought a car for me).

I may speak with impunity about George Green and his dealings at this time because I shared the same 15'x15' office with him for over a year, and that was no picnic. During this time George was extremely aggressive and assertive with John--"Don't worry, John, I'll take care of it". Whatever "it" was at the time. George knew that John and Eleanor were vulnerable and he worked diligently to penetrate that vulnerability. The one thing that George did not count on was that E.J. Ekker, as one of the Directors of the Institute, was a man of total integrity.

Some time after the notes from The Phoenix Institute For Research & Education, Ltd. were signed by George, John came into my office very, very distressed. Things were missing in his house. Some documents were missing, including some tax records and the notes from the Institute. Some coins were also missing. John did call the Sheriff of Kern County, who came to his house to file a report. Eleanor, who it later became clear was a conspirator in John's systematic terrorization, assisted in the shifting and removal of various property of John's. Eleanor assured the Sheriff that John was mentally "losing it" and not to pay any attention. Well, John was not losing it.

When it was discovered that notes from the Institute were indeed gone, E.J. Ekker immediately replaced the missing notes with new notes legally signed on behalf of the Institute.

Hatonn writes (3/7/93): "Greens are the ones with the secreted-away gold sent for the Institute.

"My people are continually amazed that you ones in the public cannot see what has happened in all this. Well, mankind is con­fused and concerned because you still wish to place this op­eration in the category of a Texas cult or something. We have nothing except good, stable corporations with men of integrity in charge. This blows out the competition every time. No one has put a cent into any fly-by-night operation here--except those who listened and now place funds with George Green. Do you not find that interesting"?

After George Green moved to Carson City, Nevada, he phoned Eleanor Schroepfer to ask her and John to remove the funds in­vested with the Institute and invest those funds in his new pro­gram. John and Eleanor contacted two others, Leon Fort and Bud Clark. The four of them then drove to Carson City to meet with George. The Schroepfers and Bud Clark later decided against investing with George. The meeting in Carson City, however, constituted a conspiracy to harm the Institute and a lawsuit was, of necessity, then brought against George Green, Leon Fort and Luke Perry. Luke Perry, as regular CONTACT (and before that, PHOENIX LIBERATOR) readers may remember, is the man who is spreading all of the disinformation to the Associated Press wire service about the Institute--all the while really trying to grab his step-mother's money, which remains well out of his reach.

Again, Hatonn (2/28/93): "We are shocked at that which has happened, as are you. But, our people are finding responders, now to investment loans of large size having been made with George Green (against gold "he claims he has"). The loans were made under the request: "...don't tell Ekker anything about this as the gold is mine"! And again I ask: And how is your day? It isn't so hot for the Ekkers and the other participants of the Institute--who can see a deliberate plan to divest and lose everything gained through work, investment, projects and total bankrupting of the Institute. Well, it won't happen. The Institute is corporately sound and nothing will be issued to any­one at any expense to any other--under any circumstances from this event onward.

"If everyone demands takeout in full with interest from any in­stitution, foundation, bank, or S & L--all lose instantly.

"We do not have some little stash of someone else's gold in the garage--the gold collateral rests in vaults of the two largest gold storage facilities in this hemisphere. P.S.: The gold in Green's possession is the property of the Institute but [he, George] 'kept it a secret from the Ekkers'! Just let them lose everything along with all the blood, sweat and tears of all of you beloved friends and go to jail for 'whatever' George deems suitable to pay for his ego errors. He objected to my term greed--good grief, that seems like a rather gentle word compared to those I might now use!

"To John and Eleanor Schroepfer, I must name you, precious ones, for I have no other way to impress upon you the serious­ness of what is now happening. Corporate responsibility and the integrity of our work rests greatly upon what my people and the Institute do in counteraction to that which you have joined unwittingly.

"I realize that you have structured a letter and signed it stating that you would not at this time remove your funds from the In­stitute. But, it is insufficient for the needs of relieving you of conspiracy as George is telling everyone he contacts that you are a major player in uncovering the awful actions of Ekkers and the Institute. The original demand written by Leon [Fort] and signed by you two [John and Eleanor] and Bud Clark, along with your request (also signed by both of you) demanding resig­nation [of Doris & E.J.] as officers of your corporations, along with the letter from the Institute saying that you have no funds in the Institute and asking that you consider corporate possibilities, etc., is all being sent to Green's mailing list and all corporations which even might have been set up with Ekkers acting as offi­cers for the establishment in privacy of your corporation found­ing.

"With great joy and glee, they [Doris and E.J.] resigned--but you must also know that it will not be with joy that they longer serve you when you need further help with taxes, corporate records and/or information and business help. They have volunteered those services because they believe in justice, brotherhood and reclamation of this nation under God.

"Eleanor was heard loudly and clearly bleating that the only reason she participated was because 'Hatonn said the banks were in trouble' and 'I just want my money'! This reason was never an accepted reason for my people to do anything for anyone! I told you over and over again why we even bother with the added burden of service in this area of business. To gain in greed and get your money held from the government and banks is not among any of the listed reasons for helping you in any way whatsoever. We do not shelter you in any way whatsoever against the laws of the land--and the banks are certainly not out of trouble!

"What you can now do to prevent full retaliatory response from the Institute and Board of Directors and Advisers as mandated by law under the rule of fiduciary responsibility, is limited at best.

"I would guess the only way to avoid the major blast is a full retraction and cause of action against your conspiracy director, George Green and/or America West, claiming your own damages with a minimum amount of whatever you have in the Institute which he fully intended to get from you, or lost to you, whichever came first. It would appear that each of you who unwittingly joined his conspiracy is in the hot seat legally for coalition to 'blow up and wipe out' the Ekkers and 'shut down the Institute'. [These are Mr. Green's directly quoted words to two people immediately after your departure from Carson City and his meeting with you]".

During this same period, I witnessed Eleanor's condition begin to deteriorate and her general demeanor went from bad to worse. She became very abusive to John and downright insulting. She would move things of John's just to cause him to think that he was losing his mind, which he was not.

Let me quote from the filed Declaration of Nora Boyles, "I am a retired Branch Manager of the Adult and Family Services Division of the Department of Human Resources for the State of Oregon. I have known Eleanor and John Schroepfer for over three years and have been friends with both John and Eleanor during that time.

"I observed considerable conflict in the Schroepfers' relationship. It appeared that Eleanor did not want to live in Tehachapi and I am aware that it was John's idea to move here. Eleanor required a great deal of John's attention due to her incapacity and John always appeared very patient with her".

From the Declaration of Reverend Edward J. Cleary, "During my 33 years as an active priest, and since, I have counseled with many thousands of people for many thousands of hours. My parish, Saint Paul Parish in Memphis, Tennessee, had over 10,000 parishioners. My remarks and observations are those of learned experience that have held true over these many years.

"I have been a frequent visitor to the Schroepfer home which has given me significant opportunity to observe John and Eleanor's relationship and behavior toward one another. Until John's injury he cared for Eleanor both emotionally and physically. John was far more patient and loving than I have witnessed others being in similar circumstances.

"I would basically describe Eleanor as being chronically ill, very unhappy, and extremely demanding. Eleanor's relationship with John was among the most negative and overbearing that I have seen compared with the many hundreds of couples that I have counseled. Eleanor treated John like a worthless servant. She seemed to delight in regularly berating, screaming at, criticizing, and demeaning John, especially in the presence of his friends. Under the circumstances, it was embarrassing and humiliating to witness Eleanor's attacks on John's character.

"From my assessment, John basically put up with, tolerated, ignored and suffered through Eleanor's abusive personality and actions. At John's request, I counseled him on several occa­sions about divorce".

From the Declaration of Audrey Johnston, "Beginning in 1987, I made numerous visits to Tehachapi, California, where I first met John Schroepfer and his wife, Eleanor. By the spring of 1990, when Eleanor Schroepfer had hip surgery, I had moved to Tehachapi and I was working for a home health agency as a Certified Nurse's Aide and Home Health Aide. I have worked in the health care industry for over 20 years and I have worked full-time exclusively with elderly people since 1987.

"When Eleanor came home from the hospital I visited her three times a week for several weeks to help her with bathing, grooming and dressing. This gave me ample opportunity to ob­serve the interaction between John and Eleanor Schroepfer.

"I have often seen irritability as a result of pain, but while she was polite to me, Eleanor's treatment of John far exceeded anything I have experienced before. It was very apparent to me that she loathed and despised John.

"John had been her caregiver for a very long period of time. He bathed her, dressed her, fed her, drove her, and pushed her around in a wheelchair. John was extremely attentive and caring in his treatment of his invalid wife.
"Eleanor ordered John around as if she were a queen and John was her slave-servant and if her orders were not executed per­fectly, she would unleash a stream of verbal abuse in a high-pitched scream that would have caused Leona Helmsley to blush. She seemed vicious and relentless in her demeaning and sarcastic screaming at John. Even the family parrot mocked and screamed at John and sounded very much like Eleanor".

Alfred J. Overholt D.D.S. (Retired) is one of John's "closest and best friends". He too knows Eleanor and has had ample opportunity to observe their marital relationship. He "cannot ac­curately express the words that describe the terrible manner" in which Eleanor had always treated John. However, the words he does use are compelling. She seldom missed an opportunity to, with impunity, heap invective on John. She would frequently "scream and yell" at him "in everyone's presence, at the top of her lungs, and hurl insults and obscenities at him of a totally demeaning nature".

In mid-May 1993, John had an "accident". A year or more ear­lier, John had hit his head near his right eye on the garage door. Eleanor and [her son] Rod McBroom were both in his presence. His eye had been bothering him for some time after that and, finally, John had laser surgery performed. The accident in mid-May was more serious. John had a concussion thought to be from hitting his head when falling at the time. The question is, why did he fall? Did he fall as the result of a blow to the head?

John was taken to the hospital for observation and care. This was the beginning of the end for John.

Quoting from a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus which was never filed with the court, Dr. Alfred Overholt, a close personal friend of John's says, "On or about May 19, 1993 John Schroepfer, who is in his mid-seventies, fell in his backyard and was injured. He was hospitalized for approximately two to three weeks as a result of this fall. Immediately upon his release from the hospital, his wife Eleanor placed John into Hearthstone Alzheimer's facility in Bakersfield, California. [He remained in that facility until about April 1, 1994, almost a full year, at which time he was removed from the facility to an unknown lo­cation by his conservator, Eleanor Schroepfer, or more likely, Rod McBroom. The Order appointing Eleanor as conservator was signed on August 19, 1993 by Commissioner Colleen Ryan. She was appointed as conservator for John's person and John's estate.] Eleanor was appointed guardian [conservator] for John by and through her attorney. I am informed and believe and thereon allege that Eleanor herself was not present at that hear­ing and that had she been, the court would not have appointed her because Eleanor is herself a semi-invalid and barely able to take care of herself. In fact, at the time of John's fall in May, Eleanor was not able to get outside to help John and inexplicably failed to even telephone for help although she was within easy reach of a telephone. It was not until neighbors heard John's cries for help that assistance was obtained.

"Prior to his confinement at the Alzheimer's facility, John had significant personal assets. However, on a petition filed with the Superior Court, Eleanor, as conservator, has sworn that John has no personal assets, no income and no real property. Moreover, soon after his confinement, Eleanor and her son Rod [McBroom], who is John's step-son, brought trucks to their residence and stripped the residence of everything of value". [Almost all asset stripping by Rod occurred prior to any conservator being appointed. This included a coin collection valued at over $100,000. In legal terms this is known as Felony Grand Theft].

Still quoting from the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (which was not filed on John's behalf), "The legal authority for this petition is Browne v. Superior Court 1940) 16 Cal.2d 593, which states that the unreasonable restraint of the personal liberties as a conservatee may be an appropriate ground for habeas relief. Specifically Browne held that where a guardian...took the ward away from her home to unsatisfactory place of residence, or unjustifiably confined or imprisoned her so as to deny her the pleasures of visiting her family or friends,...these restraints might, in the absence of another adequate remedy, be the subject of inquiry on habeas corpus. (Id., p. 600.)

The Browne court continued: "The guardian has the custody and care of the ward, but the ward is not his prisoner. He may limit her activities in a reasonable manner, for her own benefit, but cannot, without good reason, deny her such freedom as is essential to her welfare." al., pp. 600-601).

On December 23, 1993, a Petition for the Removal of Conservatorship of the person and estate of John Schroepfer was filed by Dr. Overholt and Rev. Cleary. Quoting from that document, "Eleanor Schroepfer, as Conservator of the person and estate of John Schroepfer, should be removed as conservator because: A. She is not using ordinary care and diligence in managing the estate as required by Probate Code Section 2407 and 2650. B. She is continually failing to perform routine duties on behalf of Conservatee and has diminished capacity to perform those duties: She is allowing these normal routines to be administered by her son, Rod, who is a step-son of the Conservatee and a stranger to the estate and the person. C. In any other situation in which the Court, in its discretion, determines that removal is in the conservatee's best interest.

"Conservatee is not in need of a conservator and is capable of taking care of himself and his estate".

In opposition to this motion, James A. Schroepfer [John's brother] states in his declaration, "This petition is frivolous and is being done to protect assets of their organization; namely, monies that have been loaned to them and they have signed the unsecured notes. John and Eleanor need this money to live, in their separate ways. These notes are from the Phoenix Society [there is no Phoenix Society] signed by E.J. Eckers (sic) and the above are a party, also.

"That John is not capable of caring for himself or his assets. He is very easily influenced by groups of people: Minutemen, outer space probes, communications with Stalin (USSR) mentally. He worked to resist Mexico's invasion of the United States. He (in Descanso 1975?) built or started building, a bomb-proof shelter, amassed food and supplies for survival, not only food but guns had been purchased.

"That they (John and Eleanor) loaned George Green, a book-store owner, $150,000 and he went bankrupt. Under whose undue influence were they told to invest in this type of investment. A loan broker? Poor counsel? [Right, George Green's counsel.]

"That Eleanor has had hip replacements, wears a pace-maker with other physical problems and under duress from this, plus the ongoing influence of the Phoenix Society on John's thinking and financial security by investing in their organization.
A public conservator should have been appointed a year ago before these cajolers and devious schemers raised their ugly heads".

On Feb. 9, 1994, Declarations in Response to Reply of Con­servator were filed with the court. Included with the Declara­tions is a Petition on Behalf of John Schroepfer submitted to the Probate Investigator, John C. Carillo. The petition was signed by 42 people who have known John for years. Quoting from that petition, "We the following signing parties have been close friends and acquaintances of John Schroepfer for as long as the last six years. We deplore his present placement with persons having advanced Alzheimer's Disease. John does not have Alzheimer's Disease. John's continued confinement with per­sons who are in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's Disease is a terribly depressing atmosphere and a major impediment to his recovery.

"John is presently recovering from some confusion caused by a fall in which he suffered a blow to the head. Otherwise, John's condition is simply a normal result of aging (senile dementia).

"We urge and implore you to meet with us to arrange a place­ment for John in a healthy and invigorating atmosphere with people who love him and are able to care for him before he be­gins to act like an Alzheimer's patient also".

On Feb. 9, 1994, an Amicus Curiae Brief was filed on behalf of John Schroepfer by Attorney Scott C. Tips.

Quoting: In this matter, Petitioners on behalf of Conservatee John Schroepfer, for reasons of improved condition and breach of fiduciary duty, seek to terminate the Conservatorship of his per­son and his estate for which his wife Eleanor is the only appointed Conservator. In the alternative, should the court decide it in Conservatee's best interests that some form of conservator­ship continue, they request that the Court appoint a new conser­vator according to his designation. In either event, Petitioners request that Eleanor be removed entirely as his Conservator, that the assets be surrendered to Conservatee, and that an ac­count and inventory be filed with the court. The interests of the Conservatee of course are paramount and conduct of the Conservator is always determined by what is in the best interests of the Conservatee, which is the only issue properly before the Court. This Amicus Curiae brief supports petitioner's position.

Eleanor Schroepfer had a plan. All that was necessary were the right time and circumstances. In May of 1993, the time and cir­cumstances arrived. John Schroepfer, her husband, fell and had to be hospitalized. For quite some time their marital relationship had been disintegrating. Eleanor would frequently unleash a stream of invective at John if his performance of his du­ties was less than perfect. Eventually they had both decided to get divorced. John was not poor. A creative and successful engineer by trade, and now retired, he had accumulated substantial sums in savings over his life. That wealth had been saved in various forms: gold and silver coins, money in the bank, a Mer­cedes Benz, and other automobiles. Upon dissolution of course most of it would go to John as his separate property acquired be­fore his more recent marriage to Eleanor. The small remainder would be divided as community property. Eleanor saw herself getting the short end of the stick and she was not happy about it; nor was Rod McBroom (her son from a previous marriage) happy at what he perceived to be a fat inheritance slipping through his fingers.

Then, John fell. When he went to the hospital for 21 days the opportunity for a systematic looting of his wealth and savings presented itself. Why not have John committed to an Alzheimer's institution? After all, he was already nearly 80 years old. Most people that age suffer memory losses of some sort or another. No one would know better and surely some doctor somewhere would say so for a fee. To support their claim, Rod and Eleanor pointed to John's "eccentric views": His belief in the biblical prescription that a family should store food away against lean years and hard times; his belief in extra­terrestrials; and that bomb-proof shelters could be useful in the event of war. That Eleanor, his Conservator, shared these views for many years was of course conveniently forgotten. In­stead, John was labeled as "different" and, in a frightening re­play of Soviet psychiatric practices, Rod and Eleanor got John committed to an institution. They got a one-sentence medical diagnosis and mouthed the necessary words of concern for John's "well-being" and health. Eleanor's devotion and concern for John's health and well-being are such that during the six months of his confinement, she never visited him even once or even bothered to call or even to write him. She has delegated her duties as Conservator to her son Rod who permits John no visitors from amongst Conservatee's closest friends. Eleanor could now forget about her husband and get on with her life, secure in the belief that she was rid of the inconvenience of his presence.

Eleanor and Rod had a plan and this Court played a pivotal role. To avoid the necessity of posting a bond, or having to provide the Court with an appraisal and inventory of the estate assets, and to prevent any interference with her plan, Eleanor falsely represented to the Court that there was no personal or real property in the estate, that all property was community property or held by them in joint tenancy. Since John was not then represented by independent counsel things went rather smoothly. With crocodile tears in their eyes, Rod and Eleanor immediately got down to the real business at hand: the systematic looting of John's wealth. Woodpiles were moved and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gold and silver coins dug up. Bank accounts were emptied and disappeared. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in promissory notes "vanished." The Mercedes was removed. Thousands of dollars worth of stored food were unceremoniously left to rot in a pile on the property. The theft completed, Eleanor then fled the County to live close to her son in Northern California. Like that storage food, John also was left to rot. Fortunately he has friends who now petition this Court to stop this injustice and outrage, stop the looting, the theft of John's property and, most importantly, of his life.

John may be "different," but he does not have Alzheimer's nor is he senile or crazy. He can take care of himself; indeed, he took care of both himself and his wife until recently. The facts are best detailed by a summary of the declarations submitted in this matter. Indeed, even the declarations Conservator proffers in support of her objections are shocking in their revelations.

When john's friends visited him at Hearthstone, Eleanor "did everything she could to restrict visitations". But those who did get to visit him reported that he was "healthy and lucid" and appeared recovered enough to be released to an environment where he could be cared for by his many willing friends. Reverend Cleary himself remains available to provide whatever assistance John needs.

After John was taken to the hospital he too observed that Eleanor and Rod wasted nary a minute to strip the residence of almost everything and were so wasteful and careless that they allowed thousands of dollars of stored food supplies, and other personal property to be left exposed to the harsh weather and destroyed.

For months after John had been admitted into Hearthstone neither Eleanor nor Rod ever visited and, would not even have been recognized as family by the staff to whom they were utter strangers. Conservator had made no efforts to supervise John's care or assure that he was being provided even the barest of necessities. He was little more than a kenneled dog merely to be fed and watered. At one point, when Dr. Overholt came to visit John an official at Hearthstone actually asked Dr. Overholt (an apparent stranger) if he was family because Hearthstone needed $300.00 for John's personal needs, which Dr. Overholt "gladly gave". (Clearly, months after John's commitment, the Hearthstone staff wouldn't have known a family member if they saw one).

But good deeds do not go unpunished. And in return for his kindness, Conservator completely barred the good doctor from visiting his friend in the future. A gesture no doubt "sharper than a serpent's tooth". That decision was apparently made by Conservator's son Rod who is not the appointed Conservator. Before being barred from visiting John, Dr. Overholt observed that he is "lucid", "greatly improved" and appeared "able to take care of himself ". Dr. Overholt, like the Reverend Cleary, remains available to provide John whatever assistance and care he may need upon release from Hearthstone.

Conservator asserts that the Petitioners herein are only inter­ested in termination of the conservatorship because they want to take control of John Schroepfer for their benefit, "particularly as to his money". Conservator not only shoots herself in the foot, her foot was in her mouth as she pulled the trigger, for that remarkable statement demonstrates that the original Petition for Appointment of Conservator was induced by a fraud on the Court. In her original Petition, Eleanor Schroepfer testified un­der oath that there were no assets, and that there was no per­sonal or real property; but she now comes into Court represent­ing that there are significant assets she heretofore denied ex­isted. The reason she made such false representation and omit­ted such material facts is because she wanted to avoid the neces­sity of posting a bond, or filing an inventory and appraisal with the Court as she would otherwise be required to do under the Probate Code. Conservator also falsely represented that all ex­isting property was either Community Property or held in Joint Tenancy. No inventory and appraisal was ever filed to clarify the amount of Conservatee's Joint Tenancy interest, or to determine which property was Separate and which Community. Petitioner's main concern is that the Conservatee had significant Separate Property assets, which the Conservator now loots. These are the assets the Conservator fears she will lose if John again has power over his own life.

James A. Schroepfer declares that he visited his brother on November 10, 1993, and that he was "well taken care of " clean and well-fed". While any conservator's fiduciary duties extend significantly beyond merely keeping the Conservatee "clean and well fed", the statement is remarkable when the chronology of undisputed facts is scrutinized.

The Declaration of James A. Schroepfer also raises serious questions as to whether the Conservator is herself competent to act even on her own behalf, much less the Conservatee's. She does not appear physically or mentally capable of caring for him or even supervising those with whom she has contracted. He [James Schroepfer] admits that she has had hip replacements, that she wears a pace-maker and that she "suffers from other physical problems". Although she has been appointed Conservator, and though her son Rod clearly was not so appointed, she has clearly abdicated and delegated her authority to the step-son Rod who effectively acts as Conservator. James A. Schroepfer is probably most correct when he opines that "a public conser­vator should have been appointed over a year ago".

John Schroepfer may entertain some beliefs that might raise the eyebrows of "rational" men; however those beliefs are ab­solutely protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We like to think that "enlightened" men have moved far and away from the in­sidious mentality that burned Galileo in the Inquisition merely because his beliefs did not square with conventional wisdom; but then we find men like John Schroepfer cast into an abysmal "snake pit" of mental incompetents by the thankless people he previously tolerated, cared and provided for. John Schroepfer's purported beliefs in extraterrestrials, his religious conviction that prudent men should, in the good years, shore up against the calamity and adversity of the lean years, are no more delusionary than those of an attorney, judge, or com­missioner, who believes in the notion of "fair play and substan­tial justice". To jaded conventional minds, these are mere fic­tions and delusions; but to the visionary, to the prophet, and in­deed to ordinarily prudent people they are notions eminently worthy of faith, belief, and even investment and life-long dedi­cation. While this tribunal has the power to determine his com­petence (after a thorough examination of fact and competent opinion), it does not have the constitutional jurisdiction, nor the judicial authority, to pass judgment on his beliefs. The United States Constitution permits him, like Don Quixote, to charge whatever windmills he deems worthy of his attention. The question of course is not whether his decisions prove to be pru­dent or his investments bountiful (hindsight is always 20/20); rather, the question is whether his decisions are competent--that is, whether he knowingly and voluntarily assumes the risks at­tached thereto.

John Schroepfer didn't merely fall through the cracks in the system, he was pushed through and stuffed in after the cracks were pried opened by lies, deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, omission of material fact and the insidious intent of thankless relatives, by the one-sentence scribbled medical opinion purchased in the marketplace, by pettifoggery, and a court system too burdened to verify the validity of a box in a form that was checked off with an "X." Kafka dreamt of no less a darker nightmare. In view of the self-interested and self-serving statements of declarants who display their true persona with unwitting Browning-esque revelation, one can only wonder "if there be but one" who would open their door and provide shelter against this stranger's adversity. In fact, not one but many have come forward to do so. These additional declarants with personal knowledge, have no personal interest whatever. They are friends and have served as health-care providers in the Schroepfer household and now step forward to inform this Court. Their pleas are likewise compelling.

(Please remember, readers, this Amicus Curiae Brief was actually filed with the Superior Court on John's behalf).

Still quoting: The relationship between conservator and conservatee is that of a fiduciary. Therefore, the conservator must act prudently and in good faith. (Probate Code 21201) Her standard of care requires good faith and fair dealing. (Probate Code 2101, 16000-16105) As conservator of the person she has a duty to provide "comfortable and suitable support and maintenance". (Probate Code 2420) In her capacity as Conservator over the estate she is required to control and preserve the estate property (Probate Code 16007), to segregate the estate property from conservators personal assets (Probate Code 16009), and to avoid using or dealing with the estate property for personal benefit (Probate Code 16004), to use ordinary care and diligence in managing and controlling the estate (Probate Code 2401(a)). It is expected that a conservatee's estate will be used for the support and maintenance of the conservatee. (Probate Code 2420) Pursuant to Section 2650, the Conservator may be removed for her failure to use ordinary care and diligence in managing of the estate as required by Probate Code 2401. [Probate Code 2650(a)] She is required to exercise her power to the extent that ordinary care and diligence require that such powers be exercised and must not exercise that power to the extent that ordinary care and diligence require that it not be exercised. (Probate Code 2401) While she may sell conservatee's tangible personal effects only to the limit of $5,000 per year (Probate Code 2545), it appears that this limitation has been vastly exceeded. Nor may she waste assets through spoilation.

She may be removed for failure to file an inventory or an accounting within the time allowed. (Probate Code 2650(b)). Here, Conservator hid the true character of assets to prevent the court from ordering such accounting. She may be removed for her continued failure to perform duties, or incapacity to perform duties suitably. (Probate Code 2650(c)). In fact, the Conservator has failed to supervise Conservatee's care, delegated her nondelegable decision-making authority to another, failed to provide for his bare necessities, failed to visit the Conservatee, and even prevents others from doing so.

She may be removed for having such an interest adverse to the faithful performance of duties that there is an unreasonable risk that the conservator will fail to perform her duties faithfully. (Probate Code 2650(f)). Conservator's interest in and use of Conservatee's separate property is adverse to the interests of Conservatee. The court may also order removal in any other situation in which the court, in its discretion, determines that removal is in the conservatee's best interests (Probate Code 2650(i)). Because of this fiduciary relationship, additional grounds for removal also exist and she may be removed on the grounds that she has breached her trust, that she is unfit to administer, that she fails or declines to act, or for other good cause. (Probate Code 15642).

Also, the Letter of Conservatorship at 3.a in this matter does not grant the Conservator the power to place the Conservatee in a mental-health facility. She only has the power to consent to medical treatment. The Petition for Appointment at 8.a indicates that there is no form of medical treatment for illness which the Conservatee suffers. But Hearthstone is exclusively a mental health treatment facility. Pursuant to Probate Code 2356(a), no conservatee may be placed in a mental-health facility against his will. And such an act requires a separate proceeding pursuant to the Welfare and Institutions Code. (See also. Welfare and Institutions Code 5350-5370.) Obviously, if Con­servatee suffered diminished capacity at the time he was moved into Hearthstone any consent was not willful, informed and vol­untary and he may then have lacked the capacity to so consent.

Finally, where, as here, the conservatorship is no longer re­quired because of the conservatee's improved condition, such improved condition is separate grounds for removal of conser­vator. When the conservatee is able to care for himself and his property and able to resist fraud or undue influence, the conser­vatorship is no longer necessary. (Probate Code 1861b).) Such determination of improved condition may arise indirectly from Petitioners' testimony or the report of the investigator assigned by the court. (Probate Code 1851.)

While the Commissioner may be understandably reluctant to in­terpose herself in family affairs, it appears that there is not much "family" to protect and the only issue properly before the Court is the best interest of the Conservatee. If he is competent, then he has the absolute right to spend his money on any legal venture. If he is not competent, then his hard-earned assets should be protected to assure that he is properly cared for, that his care is properly monitored and humanely supervised, and, most of all, that his heart-felt need to be amongst normal loving and caring friends not be denied. If, after the hearing, the Court remains concerned about John Schroepfer's competence, it may grant conservatorship of his person to his friends while granting the conservatorship of his estate to a court appointed adminis­trator in the interim.

Whatever the ground for termination of the conservatorship, the Court may appoint an interim conservator until the successor is qualified. (Probate Code 2250(e)). And if (as here) the con­servator is not one of the Petitioners and the court orders termi­nation, the conservator must account to the Court to secure a discharge, and notice of the hearing is required. (Probate Code 1863(c)). The Court also has discretion to appoint one or more conservators of either the individual's person, his estate, or both. (Probate Code 2105(a)). The Court, of course, is always guided by what it considers the conservatee's best interests.

In this case, the evidence demonstrates that John Schroepfer is able to look after himself and conduct his own affairs, no con­servatorship is necessary. Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, Petitioners pray that Conservatorship of John Schroepfer be terminated, or at the very least a new Conservator be designated according to John Schroepfer's preference. [End of quoting.]

At the March 7, 1994 hearing on the Petition for the Removal of Conservatorship, Attorney Papst [on behalf of Dr. Overholt and Rev. Cleary] states:

"So, I believe the issue is she [Eleanor Schroepfer] is to be re­lieved as the conservator of Mr. Schroepfer on her own accord; and then there is an issue of who is to be appointed as the suc­cessor conservator".

Responding, opposition Attorney Gudin states, "We intend to petition for a change".

The court: "On the issue of whether it should be, there should be a removal, you are asking for a deadline on this hearing".

At the same March 7th hearing, Hon. Robert Anspach pre­siding, Mr. Papst: "Your Honor, I am only asking. Mr. Gudin has represented that he intends to petition for the appointment of apparently a new conservator, and to have Mrs. Schoepfer removed as the conservator currently.

"That was the second part of the original petition by the peti­tioners who filed in pro per at the beginning.

"What Mr. Gudin recommended at the last hearing was that for reasons that may or may not be related to the petition, and cer­tainly for reasons that were apparently related to what were rep­resented to be a pending divorce action between the two parties, it would be inappropriate to have Mrs. Schroepfer continue on as the conservator.

"We would then ask the court to ask Mr. Gudin what time period he feels would be appropriate for him to file that, given his representations at the last hearing three weeks ago.

Mr. Gudin: "Within the next 30 days, Your Honor".

The court: "That will be fine. I don't know that I can make that an order. It's his representations to the court and counsel that that is what his intentions are.

"In the event that he doesn't act within that time period, I doubt the court would have the authority to impose any sanctions or otherwise. So, I think it's more advisory".

Again quoting from the unfiled Writ, "At a hearing in the conservatorship action on or about March 7, 1994 a court-appointed psychiatrist found that John does not have Alzheimer's disease but is in need of a conservator due to an organic brain condition which causes him to be occasionally disoriented. Nevertheless, because of delays in the conservatorship proceedings, John continued to be detained in the Alzheimer's facility, surrounded by seriously mentally disabled patients".

When John was secretly moved from the Bakersfield Alzheimer's facility, the only word that the Friends of John received was that John's new facility was much better, cleaner, and John was very happy. John's brother, James, informed the Friends of John that he was covered with fleas, body lice and crabs from the Bakersfield Hearthstone facility. Although it was requested, no location of John's new whereabouts was ever offered.
On June 27, 1994, Gene Dixon of the Constitutional Law Center, independently found the new location of John Schroepfer. Mr. Dixon went to personally visit John in this new, clean, better facility. What he found was shocking. Gene reported to the Friends of John that he was being housed in a very small residential home. The room in which John was sleeping was approximately 10' x 10', shared with another adult. The home had no air conditioning and in the sweltering heat of summer the only cooling facility provided for John was a small 8" fan. John gave letters to be mailed, but the mail was not sent out by those in charge of the Sacramento home where John was placed. In addition to this, John's movement was restricted within the small dwelling. While Mr. Dixon did visit with John at the Sacramento location, no name or address of the location was provided to anyone in Tehachapi.

I am informed by several sources, whom shall remain confidential, that from the moment Gene Dixon found John's whereabouts, George Green and attorney cohort George Abbott sprang into action to lay a trap to set-up John's friends in Tehachapi. This conspiratorial plan was further developed through Green's meeting with his Beverly Hills Attorney, Michael Pratter. Pratter and Green met in Beverly Hills on Saturday, July 2 (possibly Friday, July 1). There were others present at this meeting. At the open meeting with Hatonn held in Tehachapi on Sunday, July 3 [see The Word on p.11 for ordering information], there were a number of individuals 'sent' into the meeting on Green's behalf. Through some words spoken by Hatonn at that meeting, somehow, the Green conspiratorial plan to set-up the Tehachapi people was foiled.
I do not fully understand the manner in which the plan was disrupted, but I am told through my sources that this did, in fact, occur. George, in his plan to be exempt from any complicity, flew (or said he was going) to Costa Rica.

Please remember one thing: John Schroepfer is a witness to George Green conspiring to bring down the Phoenix Institute. Green, absolutely, does NOT want John to be able to testify to that fact in a court of law. Also remember, there is a case pending on this very matter.

On July 4, 1994, a friend and I went hiking at Tehachapi Mountain Park, a beautiful, mountainous wooded area. We hiked all day and it was hot. We returned to the office at approximately 4:00 p.m. and we both began some of our respective office work. At 5:30 p.m. the phone rang and I answered it. The voice at the other end of the phone was John Schroepfer. I had not spoken to John for over a year, as I had not been allowed to see him at the Alzheimer's facility. John knew the CONTACT well and it was one of the first places he would reasonably try to call. I was later told by John that he had first tried, unsuccessfully, to phone his nephew, Terry. John was in Bakersfield at Marie Callendar's Restaurant and asked if I would give him a ride to Tehachapi.
I told him I'd be right there. Knowing the complexity of this entire matter, I asked my friend if he would ride along as a witness. He agreed. When walking out of the office we saw another friend. When asked if he would like to join us, he did.

We arrived in Bakersfield at approximately 6:15 p.m. and John was standing, alone, outside of the restaurant. He was very happy to see us. When we asked how he got there, all he said was, "I finally escaped from that place". He kept mentioning his younger brother. He kept saying, "This is my Independence Day! I finally got out of there. I've been planning this for months". We never did get a definite answer from John about how he got to Bakersfield. As near as we are able to determine, John hitchhiked. John was extremely happy to be with friends and just wanted to go home.

In the report filed by the facility where John had been held in Sacramento [which appears following this article], John was quoted as saying that the visitor who came to see him was "my younger brother". I didn't know John had a younger brother, but I am told the only known person who meets the description as given, is John's son.

John had only the clothes on his back, literally. Before re­turning to Tehachapi we stopped and purchased some pants, shirts and a few personal items. Upon returning to Tehachapi, I took John to my place to get cleaned up and to rest. I then in­formed others that he was here.

On the morning of July 5, the Constitutional Law Center, on behalf of the Friends of John, immediately phoned Robert Gardner, John's court appointed attorney, to advise him of John's presence in Tehachapi. The Law Center also phoned John Car­illo, the Probate Investigator, and Richard Papst, attorney for the Friends of John.

With others present, John shared many things since his arrival in Tehachapi. Among them, John finally was able to say that he had not fallen when he had the head injury/accident. What he explained was that Eleanor had actually struck him over the head with a fire extinguisher by dropping it onto his head from the back porch balcony. In the REAL world this is known as ATTEMPTED MURDER. John further confided that Eleanor and Rod both had actually, in two other incidents, sprayed him directly in the face with the fire extinguisher. The fact that there were two "spent" extinguishers in the house has been confirmed by others.

On July 5th a document was filed with the court by the Con­stitutional Law Center on John's behalf titled "Intervenor Ex Parte Application of Constitutional Law Center, Inc., as Inter­venor For An Order To Appoint Terry Schroepfer Interim Con­servator for John Schroepfer." Terry Schroepfer is John's nephew and has been the only family member of John's to at­tend each of the hearings thus far. Terry, while concerned, has been somewhat reticent.


The court did not hear this application until July 7. On July 7 the Friends of John all appeared in court, including me. Imme­diately retreating to chambers were: Commissioner Ryan, John's court appointed Attorney Gardner, Dr. Overholt and Rev. Cleary's Attorney Papst, Eleanor's Attorney Gudin, and the court reporter. It did not take long for them to come out of chambers. Commissioner Ryan, with a friendly and smiling demeanor prior to going into chambers, emerged a different per­son. With vehement consternation on her brow she issued the statement that Terry Schroepfer was strongly opposed to being appointed as conservator for John and, therefore, the court was going to recommend that Rod McBroom be appointed as con­servator. That's right, the same Rod McBroom who stole John's coin collection, guns, gold and silver, Mercedes Benz and trucks and much, much more. The same Rod McBroom who never visited John. The same Rod McBroom who prevents all letters from reaching John by those who love and care for him and keeps John a virtual prisoner in solitary confinement, with not even the rights of a prisoner.

Commissioner Ryan, then, in a very angry tone, said, "And you people. I want you to know that the Sacramento police are looking into charges of kidnapping of John Schroepfer and their primary suspect is Rick Martin. Now, whoever brought John down here is ordered to return John forthwith to the Sacramento facility. We are at recess for two weeks"! And down came the gavel with crashing force. Immediately John Schroepfer stood to his feet, in the audience, and vehemently announced to the Judge: "I will NOT go back." The bailiff approached, as if to remove John from the courtroom. The hearing was over.

The Friends of John left the courtroom, stunned. And no, when reading the following report, I don't own a pair of Reeboks.

In the past few days we have received many offers of assistance for John. John is now receiving financial help; he will have to go through a lengthy and expensive divorce to regain control of his assets. If you would like to assist John, you may do so by sending funds to CONTACT. Please note in the memo portion of your check or money order, "Friends of John". Send your cards, letters, loans or donations to: Friends of John, c/o CONTACT, P. O. Box 986, Tehachapi, CA 93581. Those contributions marked "loan" will be returned at such time as John regains control of his assets.

The story continues to unfold. It now appears that John's escape was only minutes ahead of his intended removal to places unknown by his brother James, probably on the advice and urging of George Green and George Abbott, whose attempt to force the Phoenix Institute For Research & Education, Ltd. into receivership would be foiled by John's testimony. One last thought--why do you suppose George Green needed to establish an alibi by going to Costa Rica?

* * * *

Date: July 6, 1994
Time: 11:15 P.M.

COVER LETTER

To: Rod McBroom
Fax: (510) 490-7352

From: Elizabeth Peters
Fax: (916) 391-8960

Number of pages including cover sheet: 4

Comments: Rod, if you need any other information please let us know and we will fax it to you as soon as possible.

July 6, 1994
To: Rod McBroom
RE: John Schroepher
Dear Mr. McBroom:

The following information concerns two separate incidents: the first is the actual withdraw of Mr. John Schroepher on July 4, 1994; the second description is concerning a visit by a Mr. Dixon on June 27, 1994.


On July 4, 1994 our temporary facility manager Debra Ann Griffith (here forward she will be referred to as Deanne which is the name that she uses) was in charge of the facility. Mr. Schroepher was just sitting down to eat lunch, the time was approximately 12:00 noon. Deanne was giving Mr. Schroepher his lunch, when the doorbell rang.

Deanne went to the door and a man was there. He said "Hi, I'm John's brother. Are you Debbie?" Deanne told the man that "Debbie no longer is employed with the company". She introduced herself as Deanne.

The man walked into the kitchen; John did not at first see the man. Deanne said, "John you have company". Mr. Schroepher stood up and Deanne asked John, "Who is this?" Mr. Schroepher responded, "This is my younger brother". Then both men retired into John's bedroom. Both men were in the bedroom about five to ten minutes and then came out.

Mr. Schroepher said, "Could my younger brother take me to lunch?" Deanne said, "How long will you both be gone"? The visitor said, "Well, I'll make sure I'll have him back by five". The visitor said, "John do you feel like eating some B.B.Q."? John responded, "Sure".

Deanne told the visitor that he would have to sign out in the visitor's log. Mr. Schroepher said, "make sure you sign out". The visitor went to the book and signed out. The visitor said, "O.K. John are you ready"? Deanne took Mr. Schroepher's lunch off the table, which was uneaten, turned around and the
visitor and Mr. Schroepher began to leave. Deanne walked them to the exit. The visitor said, "See you later" and walked out the door... Deanne noticed them walking east down Florin Rd. Extension, there was no car parked in the facility driveway.

The visitor signed in his name as Paul Watson
Description of the Visitor
Height: 6'
Reddish Brown Hair/Short Cut
Age: late 30's
Wore: Prescription glasses, round shape, clear or white frames
Eyes: Blue
Clean shaven
Gray Pants, White T-shirt
White reebok tennis shoes

SECOND INCIDENT

On June 27, 1994 at approximately 5:00 P.M., Mr. Dixon called Cape Cod Guest House and spoke to, our temporary facility manager Debra Ann Griffith, asking for directions to the facility. Deanne gave Mr. Dixon the facility address. Deanne told Mr. Dixon to call Elizabeth Peters, the facility owner, to get exact directions to the facility. Mr. Dixon never called Mrs. Peters.

Mr. Dixon appeared at the facility approximately at 5:30 P.M. He rang the bell and said to Deanne when she answered the door, "I made it!" Mr. Dixon had accompanying him a boy of about twelve years old.

Mr. Dixon greeted Mr. Schroepher, and he returned the greeting in a friendly manner. Mr. Dixon introduced the boy to Mr. Schroepher as his grandson, instructed the boy to shake Mr. Schroepher's hand and said, "feel my grandson's grip"!

Mr. Schroepher offered to speak to the visitor's in his bedroom and they were there approximately 20-25 minutes. Mr. Dixon signed out on the visitor's log at 6:00 P.M., with a notation stating: "Friend".

Cape Cod Guest House has a daily log which keeps records of remarks and happening by the clients. If you would like copies we will be happy to give them to you. Also, if you need to have Deanne make positive identification of the man who came to the facility on July 4, 1994 Cape Cod Guest House will transport her to any police of court necessary to help conclude this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/Elizabeth D. Peters
Owner

* * * *

FINALLY, SOME SOUL SINGING!
From Doris Ekker 7/11/94

I am given a few minutes before writing to express a few things on my own account. It is so difficult just to walk through some of these days and then something happens that brings such joy, such hope and such expression and verification of God and Life that the soul sings. Perhaps it is the brief moment by moment presence of God that finally allows one to KNOW the journey is in purpose and that hope resides in our work--not "mine"--"ours".

PRISON WALLS

I'm sure there are so many prisons that I have not experienced that I cannot know what hell lurks within them all. The worst kind of HELL must be to have family of which you have tended, nurtured and loved--turn away and actually set-you-up for the very bastard hounds of that Hell. Then there are the bars of mental "prison" which might well be the BEST or the WORST. If a person is insane--then there is no hell, for nothing has truth or meaning. It is the imprisoned being, whose mind is desperate for freedom, who suffers. It is that being who will finally, in desperation to preserve sanity, move within and "accept" while planning ultimate freedom in some manner
--either within the mind or flight for freedom.

JOHN SCHROEPFER

Rick Martin has offered a long and detailed write-up about John in this paper
[see p. 44]. As I read it the memories came surging back of the hopelessness as we were turned away under threat of jail and police enforcement from simple visits to
this ailing brother. There is no "group" here--we are friends bound by humble belief
in God, age progression, common problems of aging, seeing our nation, our families and all of our security drained away from us inch-by-inch by the Angels of Hades who have gained control of our very existence, destroyed the moral fiber of our children and USURPED our nation and selves for their greedy acquisitions of wealth (all) and POWER (all).

I have been before the Federal Judges whereat I am told, personally, that if I don't stop my work, pay off the demons, etc., etc., that I will be put in prison. This is a sad state of affairs, readers. I am almost 63 years of age, hardly ever leave this house (when I am lucky enough to be allowed to remain in it-- from eviction) and write or do other things as asked to gain some semblance of order or advantage of health or mind. We have NOTHING to our name EXCEPT GOD AND FRIENDS! Abbott, Green, Perry, Fort, McBroom and Eleanor Schroepfer have joined with the very adversarial enemy and there are arrest warrants issued if E.J. and I should even pass through Nevada. THIS is set up by fragments of the Intelligence Agencies, the Judicial System and these people in point working for the New World Order.

Perhaps because I have spent these past almost-seven-years on this particular precipice of hell, I can better express what I think Rick Martin felt as the Judge, without hearing, without question--announced that he was the lead suspect for KIDNAPPING. Readers, "kidnapping" is a major Felony crime. I think it is obvious WHY he would be the one to be set up for this ill-begotten action. Please read most carefully his writing about this subject.

Picture yourself as being John, also. John stood up in the court and shouted to the Judge that he would not go back--he would go to Mexico, New York--anywhere--but he would not go back to the imprisonment of the holding bars. The bailiff, under orders, told him "It would be better, Sir, than jail". Would it? I don't think so!

Then from the Judge, "You people out there (some 30-35 friends in the court room), whoever took him--get him back forthwith! The case is in recess for two weeks"!

Well, readers, NO ONE HERE PARTICIPATED IN ANYTHING EXCEPT THAT WHEN JOHN CALLED TO THE PAPER, STRANDED ON THE STREETS OF BAKERSFIELD, HE PLEADED WITH RICK TO COME GET HIM. RICK TOOK TWO WITNESSES AND WENT FORTH AND GOT JOHN.

UNFOLDING FACTS

Rick has offered what was available of the "opposition" "plans"--but it more fully unfolds as facts are researched. Note that the report offered in reprint is NOT to the police but to Rod McBroom--the criminal in point.

It says that a younger brother signed out for John, and without knowing WHO was present priorly, John IDENTIFIED THE VISITOR AS "MY YOUNGER BROTHER".

Set up? Get this, readers:

It is now claimed by those people that someone called identifying himself as John's brother and he would be coming a bit after lunch to visit and take John to supper or at least for a bit of outing.

Was it his brother? John is not saying. However, he also had promised secrecy, so denies any real involvement from the brother and still insists that he "got away" and somehow got to Bakersfield from Sacramento.

On the "other side", it begins to appear that the plans were to have the brother pick John up and have John vanished from the face of the Earth--while referring to Commander's urging to get John's freedom. NEVER HAS COMMANDER EVEN SO MUCH AS HINTED AT "TAKING" ANYONE ANYWHERE. THE COMMANDER'S FRUSTRATION HAS BEEN WITH LEGAL FOOT-DRAGGING, FAILURE OF LAWYERS ON FOLLOW-THROUGH AND EVERY LEGAL STALL POSSIBLE.

We cannot discern as to whether or not john's brother, James, did in fact have a change of heart and, being unable to do much himself (having a sick wife at his own home) actually delivered him to where he could get help--OR, worse yet but looking more provable, was working for the "Green Brigade" and the plans got thwarted by John's escape en-route.

Mr. Gudin, Eleanor and Rod McBroom's lawyer, told the Judge the whole set up by his very running down the list of how the "job" was supposed to have happened--right to naming Rick Martin. READERS, WHAT HAVE WE COME TO??

It is easy to see VVHY "they" don't want John in freedom--he is bright and remembers everything--right down to how much money in coins was stolen from HIM. He remembers Eleanor hitting him across the head with a fire extinguisher while screaming and cursing him. SHE HAD TOLD MANY PEOPLE THAT SHE WAS GETTING A DIVORCE FROM JOHN BECAUSE SHE HATED HIM BECAUSE HE WOULDN'T LET HER HAVE ALL HER MONEY--(AND HIS TOO!)

What money? She had sold a piece of inherited property and some of the payments had been loaned to the Institute.

John said that HE WAS being poisoned and nobody listened. But guess what--he was!

WHAT HAPPENED TO ELEANOR'S DIVORCE?

As things unfolded it was pointed out by the step-son that they could get it ALL--EVERYTHING--and not have to split everything in a divorce settlement. It was realized that, EVEN THOUGH JOHN DIDN'T FOLLOW THEIR PLAN AND DIE, THEY COULD LOCK HIM AWAY FOREVER AND HE COULDN'T DO A THING ABOUT IT--AND THEN THEY COULD GET IT ALL!

Through attorney Abbott and the "Green Brigade" they have tried to destroy the Institute and they are trying to get everything John has--EVEN FROM A PRIVATE NEVADA CORPO­RATION.

Does TRUTH actually "OUT" ?? Well, it sure is here and the ugly becomes the incredibly terrible.

Will WE ever know what has really gone on here? Probably not but we surely are learning ENOUGH that there may end up be­ing some prison times served--but, prayerfully, it will not be by John or we, who love him.

My own son, and later a daughter, lived directly across the street from the Schroepfers
--and the grandchildren loved John like a grandfather. They called him "Big John" (he is BIG and substantial, and to a child he must appear the loving protective giant) and he took them on his garden tractor and shared science experiments with them. He showed them how to seal up food for storage and paid them (they were very little guys) to carry and stack firewood, etc.

I struggle with my own soul feelings at this time--or perhaps it is, hopefully, only my CONSCIOUS feelings--for I would, without remorse, see these thugs rot in Hell. My reasoning with myself over these feelings is that they shall receive what they have given forth. Leon has claimed, over and over again, while trying to destroy my credibility--an "unconditional love". When Leon was asked about what was happening to John and, "How could he do this?" he retorted that that was between him and John, and none of my business!! None of my business?? Whose business is it?? Whose business is the life of a FRIEND--is THIS action "UNCONDITIONAL LOVE AS PRO­CLAIMED BY AND THROUGH AND WITHIN GOD"? I don't think so!
I think God, just as we have been told--puts a LOT OF CONDITIONS and GUIDELINES on our actions.

PSYCHIATRIST REPORT

We have gained a copy of a psychiatric evaluation which was marked "Confidential" so no one could get it. We are supposing it must be under "national security" like the Government does when they are dealing dirty tricks.

It stated John's stories in such incredibly laughable ways as to make him look, not just insane, but on some kind of a comedy trip. When John said his stepson "tore up his house looking for and thieving all of his valuables" and that "they had stolen everything," the record said that "...John stated he had a house until his (step)son tore it down"! I think every man and woman around has looked for something and either "tore apart" or "up" the garage or the kitchen searching for something.

After Rod literally stole John's prized car, John, from his place of incarceration, said, "I wish I had one of those pop-guns and I'd shoot him in the foot!" Would YOU have been so kind?

WHAT WILL HAPPEN
TODAY, MONDAY?

We don't know but Mr. Dixon at the Law Center has made contact with a reputedly good lawyer who seems to know what to do to keep John secure. John had nothing save the threads on his back which needed washing. He was taken--with NOTH­ING, no identification, no way to make calls for he did not even have "change". He claims someone gave him enough money to call CONTACT.

Is this not about as lowdown and scum-sucking as George Green can stoop to keep his stolen gold, books, and pull down an Institute--of which he, at one time, was a Director?

Well, I don't know what to do--E.J. and I have this ongoing weekly series of court battles with all of Green's buddies--EV­ERY WEEK--EVERY WEEK! We have lost our property and, in a monetary sense, our lives, to the SAME THUGS--the SAME players!

If it had not been for you wonderful supporters who have been like the Rock of Gibraltar every step of this way--I think E.J. and I would now be insane in our own right. Sometimes a little rest-home looks REALLY GOOD. But what of our families and our nation? What of our world? We CAN'T allow these things to continue and I DON'T KNOW HOW TO STOP IT! NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO EVEN BRING HONORABLE MENTION FOR THE EFFORT--ONLY MORE AND MORE LEGAL GARBAGE HEAPED HIGHER AND HIGHER.

GOD IS IN THE PICTURE

The truth of the inquiries lies before me even as I complain and bleat. The plan was thwarted--and I KNOW IT WAS BY THE HAND OF GOD! ANOTHER FEW MINUTES AND THIS DAY WOULD BE FAR DIFFERENT. I AM CONVINCED THAT THEY WOULD KILL JOHN--THEY TRIED AND THIS TIME THEY WOULD GET IT DONE FOR HE IS MENTALLY GAINING EVERY MINUTE AND HE WILL TELL THE TRUTH.

I felt a real need to write this so that YOU KNOW FACTS and in the very publicity in numbers of readers who KNOW--John can be protected, to some degree, until the LAW is forced to step forward and protect him properly.

Did a brother seek to "do him in" or "save his life"? I pray that it be the latter, for I cannot comprehend the former.

KEEPERS

Almost as bad as that which affects us--is the plan which would destroy the home in which John was being kept. The plan was to leave them stranded as well, having allowed someone tem­porarily in charge to be responsible. There seems to be no end to the string of lies, deceit and crime involved here. What of the caretaker who went through her proper procedure and asked the visitor the right questions and had him identify? Then she went into another room and got John and asked him, "Do you know this man?" Answer: "Yes, he is my younger brother". You must understand, readers, that THIS is proper procedure--this was a "retirement" place, not A PRISON for criminals! The employee was a "temporary", covering for the holiday--so how would she know? However, the "Green Brigade" would destroy her career, her credibility and her very livelihood. Leon calls "us" "evil" and "Satanic"? I think not--I believe that I am finally becoming able to discern evil and judge evil actions. THIS WAS BOTH!

MY OWN GOOD NEWS

I ask for just one more minute or two to thank God and friends.

We have heard this morning, directly from Austria, and we are quite sure Gunther was standing by the person making the call. We can't be sure but the things requested show that some real activity is taking place--THANKS TO YOUR CONTINUED INPUT.

THERE HAS BEEN DIRECT INTERVENTION OF SOME KIND FROM KURT WALDHEIM AND OUR HOPES ARE THAT WE ARE RUNNING IN THE HOME-STRETCH TO­WARD GUNTHER'S FREEDOM. [See update on Gunther from Rayelan on p. 154.]

RONN JACKSON

I don't want to sound gushy, like a female water fountain, but Ronn has gotten TWO attorneys to collect our court cases all about Nevada and California--and I would guess that we will be able to expect some changes. I HAVE TO BELIEVE IT--BECAUSE I JUST CAN'T FACE A LOT MORE OF THIS KIND OF HEINOUS INTRIGUE.

YOU are going to get Ronn's freedom, readers! The government of Nevada is in horrendous circumstances--they have received over 100,000 pieces of mail demanding Ronn's release.
We don't know the "when" but even the Son (Christ) doesn't know of the moment of his coming forth--either. I DO KNOW THAT IF WE KEEP DOING OUR PART AND KEEPING OUR AGREEMENTS--GOD WILL KEEP HIS!

Thank you for the time and space for personal expression. I know the space is so precious for learning that which we must come to KNOW--but perhaps it is this kind of personal recognition of WHY we must change this system that allows us to comprehend, on our own level of individual relationships, what has come to be. And, that God does not desert us EVER, if we but hear his call.

I feel so humbly blessed--to be allowed to share in this journey-- it surely is NOT boring!

* * * *

NEWS ITEM HANDED TO US AT

THE LAST MOMENT:

The World Affairs Council's Press Conference with Henry Kissinger, at the Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel, in Beverly Hills, on April 19, 1994, coincided with the just breaking news of Richard Nixon's stroke.

Perceptions Magazine, L.A., covered the event and asked one of the only six questions to be answered.

Perceptions: "Dr. Kissinger, is it fair, in your opinion, to say that a New World Order is being created, and if so, how will it affect the United States"?

Dr. Henry Kissinger: "It cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change its perceptions".

* * * *

Excerpt from REC #1 HATONN

THU., JUL. 14, 1994 10:03 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 332

THU., JUL. 14, 1994

JOHN SCHROEPFER

I'm sorry but I will NOT LEAVE THIS MAN OR THE INCIDENCE OF HIS INCAPACITATION ALONE!

Why does John continue to dwell on such as Carbon Dioxide and fire extinguishers and thus and so as related to his incapacity? I am going to take time right here to give you nice people some LESSONS IN FACTS!

John claims there were "spent" carbon dioxide based fire extinguishers in places such as his bedroom during the time that Rod was visiting Eleanor. He further states that "they sprayed me in the face until I couldn't breathe" and "they kept spraying me in the face until I can't remember..." GO LOOK UP THE SYMPTOMS AND ACTIONS OF CARBON DIOXIDE POISONING AND THE DESCRIPTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE GAS. It is easily obtained and easily USED to incapacitate a person after which it can be administered as easily as through the use of "dry Ice" under the nose for extended periods of time--thus causing total confusion and TOTAL LOSS OF INCIDENTAL MEMORY! IT CAN CAUSE DEATH BY SUFFOCATION!

FACTUAL INFORMATION

CARBON DIOXIDE: USP. CO2. A colorless gas, heavier than air. Produced in the combustion or decomposition of carbon or its compounds. It is the final metabolic product of carbon compounds present in food. The body eliminates CO2 through the lungs, in urine, and in perspiration. It is also given off by decomposition of vegetable or animal matter or formed by alcoholic fermentation as in rising bread. It is necessary to all plant life and is absorbed directly from the air.

In small quantities (up to about 5%) in inspired air, it stimulates respiration; in greater quantities, it produces an uncomfortable degree of MENTAL ACTIVITY WITH CONFUSION. Although not toxic in low concentration, IT CAN CAUSE DEATH BY SUFFOCATION. Great amounts are added to the atmosphere daily, but because it is used by green plants, the air content is kept down to about 0.03%. Approx. one sq. meter of leaf surface can absorb the carbon dioxide from 2500 L of air in one hour. It is estimated that an acre of trees use 4-1/2 tons (4082 kg) of CO2 a year.

CARBON DIOXIDE POISONING. CO2 gas is most commonly used in carbonated drinks. Commercially it is used in its solidified form to make dry ice. Poisoning is rarely fatal unless the patient is in a closed space. It is a profound respiratory stimulant.

SYMPTOMS: Extremely deep breathing; sensation of pressure in the head; ringing in the ears; acid taste in mouth; slight burning in nose. Within a short time, respiration almost ceases and patient become unconscious.

Ref: Tuber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary

* * * *

John's story of being "somehow" pushed down or being caused "to slide down or something--AFTER BEING HIT IN THE FACE WITH THE FIRE EXTINGUISHER" not only MAKES SENSE, now, but accounts for the failure to remember or even recall what was originally known about the carbon dioxide mix in the past experience. This is WHY John dwells over and over on something so "weird" and "crazy" as to be able to cause everyone to have no belief in his prattlings. Carbon Dioxide MURDERS are almost untraceable--EVER! The biggest error I see happening here in this instance is the hitting John over the head, as he claims--with the empty extinguisher!

Why am "I" telling this? Because John has pleaded with ME FOR HELP IN HIS PLIGHT. He, nor I, wish to even search for final JUSTICE--only to be left alone for the remainder of his journey, recover his clear thinking and attend himself with his retirement funds set for his old age. WILL I HELP HIM? YES INDEED! EVERY CHANCE I GET!

How do you "treat" this? You allow him good nutrition, oxygen and that can be in the form of chelation or oxygen therapy (or time with Gaiandriana and extra H2O2. Also make sure there are ample supplemental vitamins but most especially Vitamin E and anti-oxidants! John is showing amazing recovery daily--he can recover fully if given care in an environment of loving mental stimulation and a bit of physical exercise. Get him onto the herbal (trim) program. He needs to lose excess cellular fat to reduce weight on his unexercised legs and it will assist in controlling appetite.

IS IT NOT TIME SATAN STOPS WINNING?

[wave]

PJ 101

CHAPTER 9

THOUGHTS ON MILITIA &
ADL-O.J. CONNECTION

Editor's note: The following fax just arrived in our office from Gary Wean. Gary couldn't resist responding to both Ronn Jack­son and Linda Thompson concerning the militia and the march on Washington (from p.2 of last week's CONTACT). Simultaneously, interestingly enough, comes a fax from a very highly placed intelligence source who paints the following scenario concerning O.J. Simpson: "The ADL knows O.J. 's schedule and relationships and looks to trigger white & black hate. ADL assassin Goldman calls O.J. to meet at Nicole's. When O.J. shows, Goldman kills Nicole and O.J. will be implicated. O.J. flees. Another ADL assassin kills Goldman and further implicates O.J. with planted evidence. Just a wild guess on my part, but highly possible. Why don't we focus on the positive aspects of our Earth experience? Let's get on with reversing the Proto­cols of Zion and regain our freedom". Indeed, let's get on with our nation's reclamation!

July 11, 1994

To Commander Hatonn, Rick and Brent:

In regard to Ronn Jackson's letter to Linda D. Thompson, Act­ing Adjutant General, published in CONTACT, Volume 6, Number 2 of Tuesday July 5, 1994:

Instead of an "Armed" march on Washington, D.C. Capitol where Linda D. Thompson will be confronted by a phalanx of military units, (also armed) Federal Marshals and Capitol Police who will, in "short order", disarm, hog-tie and throw in jail (or hospital) her militia--she should consider, as a tactical (popular) strategy, a march with her 5 million militia to the headquarters of the ADL of B'nai B'rith in New York: seize all their secret records and plans for sabotage and assassination which they have compiled in their horrendous, evil plots to destroy Ameri­can Christians and the U.S. Government.

The militia would have legal standing, as the ADL B'nai B'rith is an illegal criminal organization and subject to attack by loyal Americans militia.

Linda could even pick-up large units of cognizable New York Police Department and National Guard soldiers who in the name of America's safety and welfare would join and assist her.

If Linda seizes the ADL B'nai B'rith headquarters and takes un­der control their files and equipment the scum in Congress will capitulate, die a natural death on the vine, as the evil brain di­recting them and the fluid (money) nourishing them will have been cut-off. This would obviate the dangerous and most cer­tainly unsuccessful march on the Capitol wherein Linda's militia would be destroyed and any future hope of our country to fight off the enemy could be so discouraged that it could presage the end of us and all the terrific momentum we have built up to de­stroy the mongoloid hordes of Khazars (fake Jews) who are preparing momentarily to destroy us.

Linda should appoint Lieutenants and divide the 5 million militia men and women into squads, platoons and battalions and assault the ADL headquarters simultaneously in every city in the U.S., particularly Los Angeles and San Francisco.

In San Francisco, Linda should also arrest and incarcerate in­communicado the infamous traitor and treasonous coward Arlo Smith. As the District Attorney, Arlo Smith had the evidence, power and duty to expose, prosecute and totally destroy the evil ADL once and for all. Instead Arlo Smith, for a few pieces of silver and promises of future higher political office, treacher­ously sold out the people to the most vicious enemy ever to at­tack America. In the same instant Arlo Smith destroyed the brave and dedicated police officers who had courageously raided the sinister ADL's Los Angeles and San Francisco headquarters and confiscated over 2 tons of records exposing the horrendous ADL's crimes against the people of America. Smith's treachery was a terrible blow to police officers and a terrific set-back to police departments across the land.

At this time, as far as is known, Arlo Smith has even given back the 2 tons of files on loyal American citizens to our deadly en­emy the ADL B'nai B'rith.

(NOTE The San Francisco Police Detectives who raided the ADL Los Angeles office had asked the LAPD to assist them.

Willie Williams, the new LAPD Chief, received his orders from Stanley Schienbaum, the head of the Los Angeles Police Com­mission: "Do Not assist the San Francisco officers in any way to raid the ADL office".

Stanley Schienbaum is a high ranking ADL agent and member of the ACLU.

Now, to my present information, two, only two San Francisco officers without any back-up entered this den of assassins and removed over a ton of files and records that the ADL had com­piled and were using as blackmail against American citizens and politicians.

RE: Further information on Stanley Schienbaum: refer to CONTACT, Volume 5, Number 11, June 7, 1994, page 31.

HAVE AT IT LINDA.....I WISH YOU WELL.

/s/ Gary L. Wean

CHAPTER 10

GUNTHER UPDATE

July 7, 1994

From: Rayelan Russbacher

I have been informed that Gunther was transferred to a better hospital. His social worker told me that Gunther's lawyer, Dr. Hans Schallabock, expressed concern that the heat on the top floor of the prison was detrimental to Gunther's precarious health.

The new facility is in a part of Vienna that is wooded and cool. It is much smaller. At this point, I do not know if it is a prison, a military installation, or a hospital. When I finally contacted the new facility, I was transferred to "The Commander". Since I speak no German and he speaks no English, we could not communicate.

I was given the address and transferred to one of the doctors. All he would offer in the way of information regarding Gun­ther's health was: "He is fine". I questioned him further, asking specific questions about Gunther's pancreas, which is working again; his liver, which is damaged from hepatitis; his kidneys, which are now functioning; and his heart, to which the doctor replied: "He is receiving his medication". You may draw your own conclusions as to his health status.

On June 28, Rick Martin and I faxed the former President of Austria, Dr. Kurt Waldheim. We expressed our fear that the primitive conditions of the prison
where Gunther was held would prove fatal. On July 4, I received this reply from
Dr. Waldheim:

"....referring to your fax of June 28, I wish to inform you that I have forwarded your request to the competent Austrian authori­ties asking them to look into the matter urgently".

Evidently Gunther was moved almost immediately after Rick and I took action. I believe we have both Dr. Waldheim and Dr. Schallaböck to thank for Gunther's new, much cooler and better quarters.

/s/ Rayelan Russbacher

[P.S.] Gunther will be sentenced August 9, by Judge Karl Fisher.

Gunther Russbacher
Post Code 3021
Hallstatta
Wilhelm's Höge
Tullnerbach, Austria

Dr. Hans Schallabock
Stephensplatz 6/3/7
1010 Vienna, Austria

Dr. Kurt Waldheim
League of the U.N.
Anna Gasse #5
1010 Vienna, Austria