PJ 103
CHAPTER 5
REC #2 HATONN

TUE., JUL. 19, 1994 1:45 P.M. YEAR 7, DAY 337

TUE., JUL. 19, 1994

JUPITER AND BOGUS BOULDERS
You continually want to know that which is elusive to you--not that you will prepare and do something--but only from curiosity do you seek--and/or--to know FIRST and show all sorts of wis­dom and insider knowing. I won't do your homework--I will tell you this much, you had better find out what ones such as Stichin have written and along with that, what Jupiter is all about! Those are not cattail rocks hitting Jupiter and I can promise you as a species civilization on Planet Earth--that if you fail to bring order and balance again to your globe--there will be a RERUN OF JUPITER. THE DIFFERENCE WILL BE THAT THE FIRST "BIG ONE" WILL TAKE OUT THE EARTH POPULATIONS.

What is being witnessed and VERIFIED BY CURIOUS SCI­ENTISTS AND READINGS OF THESE JUPITER BLASTS IS THAT IT CANNOT BE COMET FRAGMENTS! Watch those next few "bigger" ones they claim to be expecting! If the atmo­sphere is not turned into a burning gas-ball, basically represent­ing a new "sun"spot it will be interesting. Jupiter has WATER--why then, are there not vapor clouds? I suggest all of you earthbound energies take note--if something is not changed--YOU ARE NEXT! I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO CALL IT.

Please allow us to move on with our ongoing subject in progress.

ME USURPERS Part 10:
by Medford Evans, Ph.D.
Western Islands Publishers, Belmont, MA 02178 (1968).

THE OPERATORS
NICHOLAS deBelleville KATZENBACH
Personalities serving to link the Old and New Left are not easy to find. If they were, it would--in espionage terms--"blow the cover" off the New Left, would reveal it as a stratagem of the Establishment. Yet there are such personalities, and I think I know who a few of them are. Perhaps the most strategically placed is Nicholas deBelleville Katzenbach, the Under Secretary of State.

Katzenbach's office is of vastly more importance than the public is likely to realize. Dean Acheson was Secretary of State when he announced that he "would not turn [his] back on Alger Hiss," but he was Under Secretary of State with Communist Hiss. It was also during his term as Under Secretary that Ache­son promoted the "Acheson-Lilienthal Report" on atomic energy which laid the foundation for the later psychological nuclear dis­armament of the United States.

Dean Rusk and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach think alike on Vietnam; if they seem not to, then one of them is fooling the public; they cannot fool each other.

My own opinion is that it is Rusk who is at least trying to fool the public. His tough talk about Hanoi and Peking does not disturb Peking or Hanoi, for they know that Dean Rusk is, like themselves, incapable of a deep break with Moscow. McNa­mara used to indulge in tough talk, too, or had such talk at­tributed to him. Now that he is out, his "dovishness" is admit­ted. The essential point is that neither Rusk nor McNamara, and certainly not Katzenbach, ever intended to win anything for America in Vietnam. Lyndon Johnson doesn't either. The President's approval of his Secretary of State Dean Rusk is as implicit in the total situation as is Rusk's approval of Katzen­bach. Also unanimous with them are those whispered-about powers behind Johnson's throne--Justice Abe Fortas and the new Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford. In his newly acquired cabinet post, Clifford is not altogether behind the throne, but his total influence is undoubtedly greater than any cabinet post alone could make it.

What distinguishes Katzenbach from the others in this group, which could be enlarged to include Rostow and McGeorge Bundy, is his relative youth, forty-six, and his comparatively open identification with more respectable edges of the New Left. Writing in The New York Times Magazine, author Victor S. Navasky says Katzenbach's image has been that of a "courageous egghead, a civil-rights activist, an intellectual..." He was a "new Frontiersman and R.F.K. protege". Today, many who once saw that image see instead, says Navasky, a "mindless defender or passive accepter of a tarnished Vietnam policy". Navasky admits that either image may bear "little rela­tion to his real role".

What is Katzenbach's real role? He had appeared to be a link between Bobby Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

He has been helped in this role by the transfers of jobs he has had during the Johnson Administration. At the outset, following the assassination, when he performed very crucial services, he was Deputy Attorney General, a position of great importance at the time because of the incapacitating crisis in the personal life of the Attorney General, Bobby Kennedy, whose brother had been the victim. Today, as we have seen, he is Undersecretary of State in spite of the fact that at the Justice Department he had been elevated to the top post.

The job of Deputy Attorney General, however important it may have been in such circumstances, is a logical stepping stone to only one other job, which is that of Attorney General. When Bobby left that job to run for the Senate in the Fall of 1964, Katzenbach was made Acting Attorney General, at Bobby's re­quest. Four months later, in January 1965, Johnson nominated Katzenbach for Attorney General, and the Senate confirmed him. The important thing is the coincidence of Johnson's and Kennedy's shared confidence in this veteran of the government's campaigns against Mississippi and Alabama.

Nicholas deBelleville Katzenbach, born in 1922, grew up with all the advantages of a well-to-do and reasonably prominent New Jersey family. Phillips Exeter, Princeton--interrupted by a wartime commission in the Air Force, which in turn landed him in POW camps in Italy and Germany--then Yale Law School, then, as a Rhodes Scholar, Oxford. [H: They just covered a lot of questions in that past paragraph didn't they?] He taught law at Yale and at the University of Chicago. He became a full professor at Chicago at age thirty-four, and with a Ford Foun­dation grant in 1960 worked at Geneva on a project in interna­tional law. Katzenbach was ready to help the Justice Depart­ment, the country, and Mankind by accepting in 1961, as a New Frontiersman, the post of Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel, from which he moved rather quickly to Deputy Attorney General.

It was as Deputy Attorney General that Katzenbach went to Oxford, Mississippi in September 1962 to command the civilian government forces which overcame the more rambunctious Ole Miss students, assorted rednecks, and a handful of agents provocateurs. It was as Deputy Attorney General that the next summer he confronted George Wallace at Tuscaloosa and participated in the charade which integrated the University of Al­abama. Ironically, while Katzenbach and the Mississippians alike suffered losses in the melee over James Meredith at Ox­ford, both Katzenbach and Wallace emerged with shining armor from the entirely bloodless encounter at Tuscaloosa. Image-wise, Wallace was the greater winner, since no party or faction anywhere has yet promoted Katzenbach as Presidential timber.

Katzenbach has, however, moved the levers of power. Navasky quotes "a prominent Washington attorney" as saying: "Nicholas Katzenbach has one genius, and only one genius. He knows how to handle Lyndon Johnson."

Katzenbach's wife Lydia seems to encourage the possibility. "If Nick were allowed to talk about what he is doing, a lot of our friends would be heartened." When Victor Navasky quotes Katzenbach's wife as making that statement, he indicates in the context that the "friends" in question are "members of the intel­lectual community", particularly various literary summer resi­dents of Martha's Vineyard who had been upset by what they evidently regarded as Katzenbach's going over to the Establish­ment. Don't worry, Lydia seems to be saying, good old Nick is either going to sabotage those frightful hawkish plans of LBJ and Rusk--or else he knows that the plans don't really mean what the headlines say anyhow, and in the long run the Viet Cong will be better off for what we are now doing in Vietnam. So don't worry!

Maybe the Katzenbach's know how much truth there is in what an American construction foreman allegedly said at Bien Hoa in Vietnam not many months ago. One cannot imagine that Lydia Katzenbach would not read the December 1967 Ramparts, in which there is an article on Johnson's construction company, Brown and Root, who do lots construction these days in Viet­nam. The construction foreman, just drunk enough to be telling the truth, is reported to have said:

We're just building all this for the VC anyway. They'll take it over when the time comes. Already we're paying 'taxes' to the VC to keep our equipment on the road. Half our Vietnamese work force are VC, come to work in the morning half-asleep because they've been up all night shooting mortars, and they steal us blind. But Brown & Root don't care: they'd build bases for the devil himself if the fee was good. (p. 61)

[H: I want to interrupt here long enough to remind you of the highways and other cute construction projects in which the U.S. both participated AND footed the bill. One biggie was in Afghanistan with the Soviets--building a road right to Moscow. Another among the MANY, was the super-road right to the doorway of Khun Sa in Shan (Golden Triangle) of Gritz fame. Yep--right to the palace doors! Your evil empire has built airfields, highways, underground com­plexes and other unimagined facilities all over the map. And you know what? You continue to wait for the "Fourth Re­ich"? You have it--some call it the Fourth Reich of the Rich and that isn't a bad label-because no matter what happens with the "top dogs"--all the players get a little richer--except for the slaves and servants who just get KILLED!]
If we Americans were over there really fighting Communism, as Dean Rusk says we are, (while Katzenbach, disappointingly enough, says nothing) then that in the eyes of the New Left would be a frightful thing. But if as a result of our being there the Viet Cong are going to inherit the great civil engineering works on which we seem to be doing so much better, and more successfully than we are in fighting, why then things are not so bad after all, and all the men and women of good will who so thoroughly despise the U.S. Establishment should "be heart­ened", as Lydia Katzenbach says.

Lydia King Phelps Stokes Katzenbach (Mrs. Nicholas de-Belleville Katzenbach) is a woman from about as pure an Estab­lishment-supported intellectual background as you would ever want to run a file check on. Her father, Harold Phelps Stokes, Groton, Yale 1909 (Phi Beta Kappa), was a distinguished news­paper correspondent and editorial writer who once served as secretary to Herbert Hoover. His older and more famous brother, Anson Phelps Stokes, was an eminent Episcopalian di­vine, being Canon of Washington Cathedral for fifteen years, serving on innumerable boards, writing innumerable educational and theological books, and being cited many times in Appendix X of the publications of the House Committee on Un-American Activities for his efforts during World War II to promote Soviet-American friendship. He had lots of distinguished company, in­cluding Henry Sloane Coffin, father of Reverend William Sloane Coffin, now Chaplain of Yale--or should I say NOW Chaplain of Yale.

Lydia Katzenbach has from birth known nothing except the best Ivy League, Eastern seaboard, Establishment environment. Yet, she is something of a revolutionary-from-the-top.

Fortas and Katzenbach, who had nothing to do with the physical tragedy in Dallas, were coordinators of the coup d'etat in Washington which resulted from the assassination. To achieve such coordination obviously required a link with Bobby Kennedy--then Attorney General of the United States, and next of kin to the slain President. Katzenbach was plainly such a link. Fortas, older, wiser (probably), closer to Johnson (certainly), recognized Katzenbach's indispensability in the touchy days from the coup d'etat of November 22, 1963 to the election of November 3, 1964. President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Katzenbach to a four-man panel to advise him on the execution of the Commission's recommendation.

Of Abe Fortas Current Biography says:

On November 22, 1963, after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, Fortas received an urgent tele­phone call from Dallas, Texas. The call was from John­son, the first he made after the tragedy. 'Abe,' he said, 'we're flying back. Stand by--I'll need you.' Fortas was at the airport to meet the plane. He was told to act as the private liaison man between the newly sworn President and Jacqueline Kennedy. [Italics added)

Not that there was anything more important than that, but Fortas was to do a great deal besides provide liaison with Jackie. His liaison with Katzenbach was pretty good also. William Manchester, in The Death of a President, gives details:

With the Attorney General out of action Nick Katzen­bach was, in effect, Acting Attorney General, and he was proposing the investigative commission which the Chief Justice later headed. To his horror, Katzenbach learned that the new President had tentatively decided upon a Texas commission, with all non-Texans, including federal officials, excluded. Katzenbach went straight to Abe Fortas, the Washington attorney closest to Lyndon John­son. He bluntly labeled Johnson's idea a ghastly mistake [this is the man whose 'one genius' is knowing 'how to handle Lyndon Johnson'?] From Fortas he heard for the first time that the President intended to release the forth­coming FBI report on the assassination the moment it was ready. That, too, would be improper, Nick argued, and he insisted that the report be channeled through the Attor­ney General [Bobby] and himself (pp. 458-459, emphasis added.)

It would be logical that the Deputy Attorney General should be a key man in a crisis of law (which was really a crisis of power) at a time when the Attorney General was stricken with a personal tragedy. Even so, Katzenbach's exercise of practical authority seems extraordinary. He insisted that the President do thus and so? Either directly or through Abe Fortas, how could this youngish sub-cabinet officer do that? Manchester has a tantalizing footnote to the passage quoted above: "Katzenbach took an exceptionally strong line on this issue, and like Fortas he played an unknown but vital role in the Commission's investi­gation." There is so much that is unknown about the assassina­tion and coup d'etat! [H: No, that is not so--EVERYTHING ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION AND COUP D'ETAT IS VERY WELL KNOWN AND JUST WAITING TO GET TOLD! MOREOVER IT IS GOING TO INCLUDE ABSO­LUTELY EVERYBODY WHO EVEN "THOUGHT ABOUT IT" IF SOME AGREEMENTS AREN'T CONSUMMATED RIGHT QUICKLY NOW, GOOD COMMITTEE READ­ERS. I AM ABOUT TO THE END OF THE MUSICAL CHAIRS AND SOME LAWYERS BETTER GET THEIR ASSETS IN ORDER AND THEIR PRIORITIES STRAIGHT OR NEW YORK MAY WELL LOOK LIKE THE POT-HOLES OF JUPITER. ME DO IT? GRACIOUS NO--I DON'T HAVE TO! I SUGGEST OUR "WATCHERS AND LISTENERS" GET THE WORD ON BACK, LIKE RIGHT NOW. FEET ARE DRAGGING FOR BEST ADVANTAGE AND SOON THERE WILL NOT BE DISCUS­SION REGARDING ADVANTAGE FOR OTHER BIGGER GUNS ALREADY HAVE THE ADVANTAGE!

There was the matter of the weird commotion in Dallas over Johnson's taking the Presidential oath of office. When should he take it, and how should he go about it? It would be hard to imagine a simpler legal question. Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 of the Constitution reads: "Before he [any incoming President] enter on the execution of his office he shall take the following oath or affirmation:" and the text of the oath follows. Johnson was eager to "enter on the execution of his office," as one sup­poses he should have been. Tactically, he was entirely right in wanting the oath administered at once. The amazing thing is that the intelligentsia of the New Frontier did not seem to know whether he should take it at once, who should administer it, or what the wording of it was.

Katzenbach came up with the answer about the oath. Over long-distance telephone from Washington, he dictated the words from the Constitution to Marie Fehmer, Johnson's secretary, aboard Air Force One, still on the ground at Love Field in Dal­las. It was also Katzenbach who told Bobby Kennedy how any one of many people could administer the oath--"Anybody, in­cluding a District Court Judge... "imagine..." Katzenbach said, "he'll want Sarah Hughes." (The Death of a President, p. 271.) And he did. The staunch Left-winger for whom Johnson had wangled a Federal judgeship swore him in as President.

But Katzenbach's early activities included at least one pivotal decision more indispensable to the success of the coup d'etat than advice about the oath. On Friday afternoon, within hours of the fatal six seconds, a lawyer in the Dallas District Attor­ney's office prepared, Manchester reports, "to charge Oswald with murdering the President as part of an international Com­munist conspiracy." When Barfoot Sanders [the real name of the U.S. Attorney in Dallas] heard of it from the FBI he phoned Katzenbach, who persuaded two members of the Vice Presi­dent's [Johnson's] Washington staff to have their Texas contacts "kill it." (p. 287.) [H: Go read that again because I'm sure you missed the timing!]
A shrewd Yale Law School man like Katzenbach would see at once that no charge must be made of a Communist conspir­acy, for that might retard the rapproachement with Russia. But the point was even more fundamental than that. No charge must be made of any conspiracy! For it would be only too credible that if there were a conspiracy at all, especially one tagged with a Communist-connected figure like Lee Harvey Oswald, then it could be easily presumed to be a Communist conspiracy. The Communists within it could be presumed to control it. More­over, the Communist Party itself is conspiratorial in character, and if any one of its functionaries becomes involved in a special plot then he involves all Communists. Not just the government of Russia, but also all American Communists--Guss Hall, and (more important) Alger Hiss and all the undiscovered but poten­tially discoverable other Alger Hisses in America. The possi­bility of any conspiracy must be eliminated!

Law professor Nicholas deB. Katzenbach probably knew as much about the law of conspiracies as did Judge Irving R. Kaufman, whose instructions to the jury in the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, (notorious atomic spies) constitute for the layman one of the clearest expositions on the subject. I think extended quotation from Judge Kaufman's charge to the Rosen­berg jury is justified in emphasizing how necessary it was in November 1963--necessary to survivors of the coup d'etat--that there be no talk of a conspiracy. Judge Kaufman said, in part:

For two or more persons to conspire, confederate or combine together to commit or cause to be committed a breach of the criminal law of the United States is an of­fense of grave character which involves a plotting to sub­vert the law. It is almost always characterized by secrecy, rending detection difficult and requiring much time for its discovery. Because of this the statute has made a conspir­acy to commit a crime a distinct offense from the crime it­self [Italics added] From the point of view of the law there is danger to the public when two or more people conspire to do something that is unlawful because by virtue of the aggregation of numbers the intent assumes a more formidable disadvantageous aspect to the public.

What is a conspiracy? A conspiracy may be defined as a combination of two or more persons, by concerted ac­tion, to accomplish a criminal and unlawful purpose, or some purpose not in itself unlawful or criminal, by crimi­nal or unlawful means. The gist of the offense is the un­lawful combination or agreement to violate the law. As Mr. Justice Holmes said many years ago: 'A conspiracy is a partnership in criminal purposes.' [H: I might add hereat that all parties to a conspiracy are not required TO KNOW OF THE DIRECT INTENT OF THE CONSPIRACY--one can become part of a conspiracy simply by default or presence.]

However, it is not necessary in order to constitute a conspiracy that two or more persons should meet together and enter into an explicit or formal agreement for an un­lawful scheme, or that they should directly, by words or in writing, state what the unlawful scheme was to be, and the details of the plan or means by which the unlawful scheme was to be made effective. [Italics added. this whole pas­sage implies, among other things, that a person may be part of a Communist conspiracy, or of the Communist conspiracy, without ever at any time being recorded or recognized formally as a member of the Communist Party.]

[H: Now for our own attorney "minds". It is obvious that you are missing a lot of interesting ammunition in your bat­tle against Mr. Abbott, et al. (Green Brigade). When an at­torney moves into a case in which he is not a participant in direct integration (i.e. Abbott/Fort) the responding in legal case filings when the case was not set forth TO/WITH the parties represented (Horton/Green) then you have the PRE­SUMPTION OF CONSPIRACY. FURTHER, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF MR. TIP'S EFFORTS TO GAIN RELEASE OF COURT-ORDERED VOLUMES TO BE RE­LEASED TO MR. GREEN, EVEN THOUGH TIPS ACTED IN GOOD FAITH--HE BECAME A PART OF THE CON­SPIRACY WHEN HE ENTERED FILINGS OR NEGOTIA­TIONS IN BEHALF OF GREEN WHEN HE NO LONGER ACTUALLY REPRESENTED GREEN! GREEN HAD MADE HIS AGREEMENTS AND HAD ARRANGED FOR ANOTHER ATTORNEY--WHO IN TURN, WAS NEVER RELEASED LEGALLY FROM HIS CONFLICT OF REPRESENTATION WITH OTHERS NAMED IN THE ORIG­INAL SUIT. FURTHER, BY ALLOWING THE JUDGE TO CITE EKKERS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT WHEN ANY SALES AND PROCUREMENTS OF BANNED BOOKS WAS ON THE PART OF FIRST DEFENDANT, GREEN, CONSTITUTES FURTHER ASSUMPTION OF CONSPIRACY WITH GREEN. NO, I AM NOT NUTS--I KNOW THE LAW! TOO BAD THE ATTORNEYS AND LAWYERS IN ACTION TODAY ARE ONLY LEARNED IN WHAT THE BAR ASSOCIATION DEEMS APPRO­PRIATE IN A CORRUPTED ADMIRALTY COURT.]

It is sufficient if two or more persons, in any manner, or through any contrivance, impliedly or tacitly, come to a mutual understanding to accomplish a common and unlaw­ful design, knowing its object, and that one or more of them commit an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. In other words, where an unlawful end is sought to be ef­fected and two or more persons, actuated by the common purpose of accomplishing that end, knowingly work to­gether in any way in furtherance of the unlawful scheme, every one of said persons becomes a member of the con­spiracy, although his part therein be a subordinate one, or be executed at a remote distance from the other con­spirators. (Printed Transcript of the Rosenberg Trial, pp. 1550-1551, Italics added.)

[H: I would hope that somebody makes Mrs. Eleanor Schroepfer and Leon Fort, along with Luke Perry and other involved parties with Mr. Green--aware that this is the very basis of any problems arising from your activities regarding the "Institute". You demanded, number one, that which was not entered into as agreement by personal entities--but rather through corporate regulations. Then, continued to conspire to destroy a corporation and, in fact, a corporation who was once jointly headed by one George Green. THE LAW demands fiduciary responsibility, under penalty of that law, to act in good faith and cause to defend said corpo­ration. Parties who happen to be in opposition to your "druthers" are bound by those laws whether or not it pleases YOU. Further, it did not end at that point--there was CONSPIRATORIAL effort in mass amounts to keep Mr. Schroepfer from being allowed to have visitation with any­one--in an effort to hide ongoing conspiracy efforts. There has been continued CONSPIRACY attempts to bring the "Institute" into receivership and force bankruptcy--AC­CORDING TO ALL DOCUMENTS SENT FORTH IN MASSIVE NUMBERS BY MR. GREEN--NAMING ALL OF YOU NICE PEOPLE IN EVERY MAILING. NOW, IN VIEW OF EVENTS ONGOING--IT HAS TO BE ASSUMED IT IS NOW AN INTENTIONALLY ENTERED INTO CONSPIRACY--AND NOT SIMPLY IMPLIED PARTICI­PATION BECAUSE OF IGNORANCE OF ONGOING EVENTS.]

As you see, the Law, which often seems to go after individ­ual criminals like a very sporting flycaster, drags with a seine when it fishes for conspirators. To the philosophy expressed by Judge Kaufman above, which makes it not difficult but easy to prove that so and so is a Communist or any other kind of con­spirator you want, we must add the fact that evidence which in other cases would be ruled as hearsay and inadmissible, is in conspiracy cases ADMITTED AS PROBATIVE.

Deputy Attorney General Katzenbach realized immediately on learning of the tragedy in Dallas that not only must there be NO talk of a conspiracy, there must be an official finding that there was no conspiracy. [H: Back to the old assumption: "Until a thing is officially denied, we cannot be sure of its truth." Well, how long has George and conspirators DE­NIED involvement? Good grief, what is the matter with your attorneys? OR, IS "THAT" WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOUR ATTORNEYS? DO THEY THINK YOU WILL NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH? OR THE LAW??]If a conspiracy were posited in an affair of such tremendous public importance as the assassination of a President, when would the work of prosecution ever end? And who, among those who might have been in any way involved or suspected of having been involved, could ever again rest easy? As Judge Kaufman said, a conspiracy is "characterized by secrecy, rendering detection difficult and requiring much time for its discovery." [H: Sort of like burying the gold in the back yard?] The other side of that coin is that much time and great effort would be de­voted to its discovery. There is no statute of limitations on mur­der, and people would never become bored with the murder, and the implications of the murder, of President John F. Kennedy.

Prevention of an indictment in Dallas referring to an "International Communist Conspiracy," which the sensitive William Manchester calls a "canard", was for Nicholas deB. Katzenbach only a preliminary to getting the Warren Commis­sion established. There is much that is obscure about the birth of this Extraordinary Commission--its parentage, the midwives, and so forth--but one thing is certain: Katzenbach was in the ob­stetric ward when the Warren Commission was delivered. Little else could have made him so nearly indispensable to the Johnson Administration. New Leftists who do not understand this and who attack the Warren Commission do not understand very much.

* * *
Let us interrupt here and take up at this same topic point when we next write on this subject. Thank you for your attention--I hear you, it is "finally" getting interesting! So stay tuned. Salu.

CHAPTER 6
REC #1 HATONN

WED., JUL. 20, 1994 9:31 A.M. YEAR 7, DAY 338

WED., JUL. 20, 1994
NOT THE LOCAL GURU OR MEDICINE MAN
PLEASE CHECK IT OUT
Dear friends, I have to take up another subject before we can get at our work today. No, I am not angry and I do wish I had a hookup to every "personal" ear--but I do not--THROUGH DHARMA.

We sit to our work and she is devastated--absolutely swamped in questions, inquiries about this or that--and "ask Hatonn..."--NO! Her job is to write for me for 6-1/2 BILLION people and the evolution of the greatest cycle uniting of a planet. She types hours and hours EVERY DAY and has meetings "for me" in between. She has no life at all to call her own, no property and no corner on answers to her own pleading inquiries even as to how much longer can she continue this pace and output.

There are some 150 letters sitting to her right directed TO HATONN awaiting responses, a paper to write, a journal to finish, a meeting scheduled and a Court appearance tomorrow morning.

The letters which have her so upset in postponement and the in­quiries in behalf of, and personal pleadings for direction and purpose are too much, readers. I can accept them all--SHE CAN NOT! What is painful, however, are the continual prodding's and disappointments of: "I'm not getting any feedback from all my inquiries..." How do you expect the information to flow in response to your inquiries? Ah Ha! I thought so--THROUGH HER FINGERS??? It cannot longer be that way. Dharma is still "...and I'm waiting and seeking for my pur­pose...surely I'm not to just forever be a secretary!"

I WILL NOT answer questions regarding health and medical treatment--FOR ANYONE ON ANY SUBJECT OF TREATMENT WHICH CAN IN ANY WAY BE CONSTRUED TO BE "PRACTICE OF MEDICINE". I AM NOT IN THE BUSINESS; I AM NOT A GURU OR FAITH HEALER, A REFERENCE BOOK OR GOING TO TAKE UP A REFER­RAL PROGRAM WHEN THERE IS A QUESTION OF TREATMENT OF ANYONE ANYWHERE!

We will offer whatever we have and can share--we CAN DO NO MORE--do you all understand? The hazards of even com­menting on "treatments" or possibilities--especially without having more than second or third hand inquiries is ludicrous. If you wish to confer with other holistic or brothers in the same line of healing--please do so--I AM NOT IN THE LOOP PLEASE! This is NOT an offense, please--we are going to follow regulations which honor whatever laws (right or wrong) are thrust upon us at ALL TIMES. YOUR inquiry answered--may well put Dharma into prison!

Neither can I respond to each of our readers with an outlay of YOUR PURPOSE OR NEXT DUTY! I can't, either, set aside EIGHT years of work on a motion picture already in another's charge--to fit a sudden awakening of someone elsewhere who would like to now work on Sipapu Odyssey.

I CAN tell some of you who continue to plead and prod for per­sonal direction and input, instructions and placement: This is NOT the answer point--everyone here is buried in work and there are NO FUNDS AVAILABLE to hire help. Volunteers are NOT THE ANSWER for I have yet to have more than a mere few who can ACTUALLY attend themselves without sup­port from other sources. I cannot attend your talents--YOU MUST ATTEND YOUR TALENTS--EXPERTISE COMES ONLY WITH EFFORT TOWARD THAT ACCOMPLISH­MENT--IT DOES NOT FALL UPON YOU LIKE RAIN FROM THE HEAVENS!

Would you believe me if I tell you that most of you who inquire about sickness and healing have the answer in your cupboard?

But you have to utilize what is available. I have people over and over say "...well no--I don't use it regularly" or, "well, it didn't seem to do much and I used $25.00 worth of it..." and thus and so. Then you want some OTHER magic. No, THERE IS NO MAGIC HERE! If you are taking your Gaiandriana and other suggested supplements along with cleaning your water with food-grade hydrogen peroxide AND if you are having memory loss and other signs of aging, some added B-12 and a B-supplement emphasizing Niacin, then I can only suggest one other thing. If this is accompanied by "arthritis" or "rheumatism" take some added zinc--hopefully balanced with the proper amount of magnesium necessary for utilization. Then, add a tablespoon of CIDER vinegar to a glass of water or Gaialyte three times a day. Carbragaia would make up that dif­ference but I understand the producer doesn't have any yet. Neither do I know what in the world happened to the cartilage supplement. A whole bunch of innocent sharks are meeting their doom waiting for you to get going, producers! This should have been available months ago. I cannot push harder--for one reason, the products have carried the paper and allowed for re­maining in operation. I will ask no more of these people. Dis­tributors of other products and supplements and even to make-up these new products (especially, I should say) REQUIRE FUND­ING UP FRONT--A LONG WAY UP FRONT AND IN TO­TAL! THERE IS NO SLUSH FUND TO COVER THIS!

As to "cures" for diseases and that which is coming down on you--there are NONE! You can "feel" better and you can help yourselves--BUT THE CURE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED! Does everybody understand me--I AM NOT HERE AS GOD, I AM HERE IN SERVICE UNTO GOD--AND I REMIND YOU THAT THE ADVERSARY OF GOD IS GOING TO DEPOP­ULATE THE PLANET TO SERVE HIS OWN GREEDY, GODLESS NEEDS AND DESIRES. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE IN THE CATEGORY OF ONE AMONG THE NUM­BERS--TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF, KEEP YOURSELF WELL AND COME WITHIN THE SHELTER OF GOD'S LAWS AND INSTRUCTIONS--HE WILL NOT SAVE YOU--IF YOU ARE "SAVED" IT WILL BE OF YOUR OWN SOUL EXPRESSION. HE WILL PROVIDE ASSISTANCE AND TOOLS--YOU WILL DO THE REST OR IT WILL NOT BE DONE--AND CERTAINLY NOT BY A SHIP COMMANDER.

Some of you write and pray and give all to me, Hatonn, of self, direction and service. NO, NO, NO!!!! Do not dump your re­sponsibility off onto me for I will not accept it! My purpose, my mission and my Command is in the service of God and unto you I am commissioned to BRING THE WORD. YOU WILL CHOOSE OF YOUR PATHWAY AND YOUR JOB!

MUST STUDY IT ALL
I know that, especially if you have read ALL of the journals and papers, that you are informed. Let's see. Without looking back, name the SIX persons I asked you to look for in the cur­rent ongoing writings about the usurpers.?.? Do I make my point? Dharma had to take this test just now--and even being the WRITER for me--could not name them. How can you ex­pect to serve as my right-hand if you cannot even remember the names of players--and these are but small-fry players. I'm sorry--GRACE may shower upon you in an instant in glory--training and learning, education in knowledge DOES NOT! The heart and soul may find a burst of insight and understanding--but the physical tasks at hand must be attended by the knowledge­able in THAT task. To announce you want to be a "cameraman" in the movie or direct the show--when you don't even know the component parts of A CAMERA--is ludicrous. If you REALLY want to be a cameraman--GO LEARN EV­ERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT IT AND BE BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE. WALLY GENTLE­MAN HEADS OUR MOTION PICTURE PROGRAM BE­CAUSE HE IS THE BEST AND UNDERSTANDS HIS TASK--IF NOT EVERYTHING (OR EVEN ANYTHING) ABOUT THE REST OF THE JOBS.

Right now, because some ones have been involved in various tasks consider that they are now IN CHARGE, either of funds, business acquisitions, etc. NO--IF YOU THINK I WOULD HAND OFF RESPONSIBILITY TO ONES WHO CAN'T FIND THEIR WAY OUT OF A LOCKED CLOSET--DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK I WOULD TURN OVER THE EVOLVEMENT NEEDS TO THEM? "WE" only have need of a PORTION of that which is to be made available and that, even, seems to be more than the usurpers wish to share even with the AGREEMENTS already established. I don't care if you are HEAD of the CIA--you are not in CHARGE! I HAVE BUILT MY FOUNDATION UPON WHICH I CAN BUILD OUR NEEDS--I DO NOT APPRECIATE PARTICIPANTS CONSIDERING IT THEIR DUTY TO TAKE OVER ANY PART OF SAME. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

NO GROUP
I have to repeat and repeat and repeat--for PROOF SEEMS NOT ENOUGH! THERE IS NO "GROUP" HERE OTHER THAN A GROUP OF FRIENDS. THERE ARE NO STRINGS--NO BINDINGS. IF YOU PLAN TO WORK WITH ANY ONE OF THE BUSINESSES--IT HELPS TO HAVE BELIEF IN GOD AND INTEGRITY IN INTENT AND A TOTAL COMMITMENT TO DOING HONORABLE AND GOOD BUSINESS.

George Green continues to refer to ones here as a CULT--well the nearest there was EVER to a cult was when George Green went on a circuit pushing UFO connections. Those people, and Green, ARE GONE!

If we have a meeting, which we often do and it is other than a mere BUSINESS conference, visitors are welcome--no charge, no donation and no sign-in sheet. We are continually misrepre­sented by this--but confound it, we have friends in you readers who want to come to visit--and you shall always be welcome. Our enemies usually go forth and cause some immediate dis­comfort but there is never foundation upon which to base foolish claims or statements. We hide nothing for there is nothing to hide.

However, until you STOP considering the immediate workers as some sort of group-body then neither will our enemies. Ones of you in New Jersey are every bit as much a part of this GROUP as anyone here! Just because a man works for, or reads, The New Yorker magazine, does this make him a member of the New Yorker CULT?

We like everybody--red, yellow, black, brown, white and espe­cially do we like purple and green people. We even like Bap­tists and Lutherans--although they don't like us much because I teach GOD'S LAWS--NOT MAN'S INTERPRETATION OF GOD'S LAWS--BUT, I DON'T INSIST YOU FOLLOW THEM!

INQUIRIES AND QUESTIONS REGARDING
SPIRITUAL TRUTH
Please, do not stop writing with these questions or offering input on subjects as it unfolds to you individually or from another. It is through the sharing that we grow and learn. I will answer ev­ery question as we can do so--or I will tell you why I cannot or will not do so--as we share together. I cannot ask my scribe to individually respond to each and every personal inquiry. If it can be shared openly--thank you. We will always protect pri­vacy. I even honor the reason and need of you to write to me through Dharma for it often helps to simply put a thought to pa­per and EXPRESS IT. You will usually have answered your own PERSONAL question if you will but go back and REALLY read your own letter to me.

YOU are THE CREATOR of your "future" and your "pathway"--not I. As a friend I can help in understanding--but little more. If your desire has moved from service unto God to service unto Hatonn--it is incorrect direction and I DO NOT ACCEPT IT! WE ARE IN THIS THING TOGETHER! I KNOW THE WAY AND I KNOW HOW TO GET THERE--BUT I AM NOT DRAGGING ANYONE WITH ME--I MAY BE WILLING TO PUSH A BIT--BUT THAT INDICATES THAT I AM "BEHIND" YOU!

Now, let us get back to our own work, please.