A in Wonderland

Anthony in Wonderland

Anecdotal Summary

An anecdotal summary of the case,

U. S. v Anthony Hargis,

SACV-04-00273

(David O Carter, judge, Federal District Court, Santa Ana, Cal.; and

cases nos. 04-55257 and 04-55258, Ninth Circuit.)

Persons to contact:

For Anthony Hargis:

Derek Tabone, 818-785-5000

For the government: Michael Pahl, trial attorney (v: 202-514-6488, fax: 202-514-6770); Shereen Hawkins, revenue agent (714-347-9502)

Details of Case

2003 January.  IRS sent letter to me requesting meeting; subject of meeting is to determine whether or not I was subject to penalties under (a) IRC 6700 (illegal for any person to assist in establishment of “plans,” “arrangements” etc. and represents that expenses of such “plans” are deductions against taxes and such person knows such deductions are illegal or grossly overstated) (b) IRC 6701 (illegal for any person to act as “income tax return preparer” and enter unlawful deductions on such returns).

To prevail on these non-allegations, the g (gov’t) must prove three things relative to 6700: (1) that I assisted in the establishment of “plans”; (2) that I represented their expenses to be deductions against taxes; and (3) that I knew that such deductions were unlawful.  Relative to 6701, the g must produce income tax returns that I prepared for other people.  Proof of such allegations is an impossibility – since I have never engaged in such activities: there are no witnesses that will truthfully testify to 6700 issues, and no such income tax returns exist that I prepared.

This action would eventually result in sending me to jail for five and a half months, and confiscating everything connected to the Company, including all kinds of property, mail address, phone number and website; this left me with no resources to defend the action, or to appeal judgments in this case.

In the process the g would violate every rule, procedure or right that stood in its way: this case, in other words, is a study of inquisitorial procedures.

2003 March 5.  Meeting with IRS, requested by Shereen Hawkins; I was requested to surrender all documents pertaining to “6700, 6701, 7407 and 7408” activities.  Summons was issued in the name of “Anthony Hargis, 6700, 6701, 7407, 7408” (Last two sections are jurisdictional sections for the first two sections.)  This seemed to limit the summons to documents pertaining to the named sections.  Since I had never engaged in such activities, I had no documents to produce; so, none were surrendered.

The g could not have chosen four sections of the IRC that had less to do with my activities than the ones they chose.  I thought I could go to their meeting, explain the total lack of any connection between my activities and their named sections, and the investigation would end.  I did not know that I had entered into the Wonderland of Michael and Shereen.  (Michael Pahl would enter the picture months later as the trial attorney for the g.)

Thousands of years ago, men developed and perfected the nostrum of imagining that they could make something or someone disappear, happen or come into existence merely by uttering a magical word.  Sometimes the word had to be accompanied by candles, chants, dances or ridiculous costumes; sometimes men had to offer sacrifices of bulls, pigeons or children to obtain satisfaction of their wishes.  These words and ceremonies were used to influence the results of wars, hunts or the planting of crops; to gain loyalty, or the object of lust; to destroy enemies, to pray for justice, and a thousand other wishes.

Naturally, some men were more skillful than others at wild contortions and deceit; they became known as magicians, witch doctors, or seers; oracles or priests.

The success of this delusion required that both oracle and supplicant ignore unfriendly facts and embrace favorable signs or facts; and, if none existed, more sacrifices (which came to be known as taxes) had to be paid; more ridiculous costumes were needed; more children, fed to the fire.

So, with no evidence whatsoever that I had engaged in activities they named, Shereen and her cohorts uttered their magical words, attached Cheshire-Cat grins to their faces, and closed their ears and eyes to my words.  And called another meeting.

2003 March 26, second meeting; same request, same results.

Violation: summons overbroad: it requested documents pertaining to every customer.

Violation: third party summons disguised as first-party summons: third party summons requires (a) that third-party be identified, (b) given notice of summons, and (c) given opportunity to challenge.

Violation: Fourth Amendment right to privacy; has meaning only against federal g – no qualification.

Violation: Fifth or Ninth Amendment right to not testify against oneself.

2003 July, IRS filed three civil actions to enforce summons; one against me and two against associates.  Two of the actions were filed in Orange County and the third was filed in Northern California.  The last one was eventually transferred to Orange County.  Simultaneously, we, and the g filed motions to consolidate all actions into one.  Facts were similar and issues were identical; it well qualified for consolidation and both sides requested it.  In such a case, consolidation would be automatic.  However, our and the g’s motions were denied.  This resulted in increased expenses for both sides.  It appears the judge intended this consequence; it didn’t bother him to impose greater expenses on both the g and my Company; that is, on taxpayers and my Company.

The relief requested by the g in this complaint consisted chiefly of requesting the court to compel me to surrender records and to compel me to insert a prominent notice on my website to the effect a) that my findings (contained in my book, American Inquisition) relative to Congressional debates concerning the sixteenth amendment were false; and b) that my non-existent promises that gold accounts offered by the Company gave tax benefits were also false.  In other words, the g wanted to, effectively, burn my book and b) to deny something I never said.

But, I would get a chance to oppose these demands in court – right?  Guess again.

At the hearing, 2003 Nov, I was not allowed to examine witness: current practice places “heavy burden” on me to disprove g’s allegations; I was denied opportunity to meet this burden.

Violation: Due process: burden of proof is on he who asserts.

Violation: Due Process: judge determined facts: only jury has authority to do this.

Violation: Due process: no examination of witness/accuser.

Judge, 2003 Nov, ruled on “good faith” showing of g (thus, no hearing necessary); nine months later, Aug 30th hearing, judge made several remarks that g appeared to be using civil means to achieve criminal ends (i. e., to avoid restrictions that would be imposed if g had used criminal means, e. g., 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments protections); this contradicted the “good faith” judge imagined in previous Nov. “judgment”; thus, fraudulent judgment is a possibility.

Jail.  2004 March 15th hearing consisted of two sessions: morning (I was not present) and afternoon (I was).  At morning session, judge remarked that, yes, the g’s paperwork was defective – he referred to summons as a “steam shoval,” but it was too much trouble to make the g go back and start over again.

In the afternoon session, the judge ruled that I had to surrender the records in question to him: he would examine them in his chambers and decide on a document by document basis whether they qualified for legal protection.  The judge asked me, ‘Are you prepared to turn-over the corporate records of the Company?’

I asked, ‘What do you mean by corporate?’

He responded, ‘I can see that we’re going to have trouble with this point.’  But this didn’t stop him, he rephrased his question as to whether or not I would surrender the demanded records.

I requested time to confer with Peter Gibbons, my lawyer, and Leo Masters, a paralegal. At this instant I was still inclined to withhold records; but I didn’t feel certain about it.  While I was talking with Peter and Leo, many thoughts raced thru my mind.  Whether I gave or withheld the records, I was certain the destruction of the Company would follow.

On one hand, if I gave the records, I would betray my supporters; they would leave me, and no one would ever trust me again.

On the other hand, if I withheld the records, I would be jailed and I expected the Company would be destroyed this way also – either by the resulting panic of my supporters or by some action by the government.  By going to jail, I would still have my reputation; I would eventually be able to rebuild and recover my losses.  If I gave the records, no one would ever trust me again, and I would have a hopeless future.  On the consequences of these two alternatives, I was certain.

Another consideration: we had appealed the November judgment; and Leo had found conflicting case “law” on such appeals: to maintain the right of appeal, the records could not be surrendered; if they were surrendered at any time prior to an appeal ruling, the appeal became moot.

The judge entered another consideration: if I gave the records to him, he would examine each one and decide if it was subject to the summons; right?  But I quickly reviewed his actions in my case  – that is, his gross violations and decided this was a man who could not be trusted.  Suddenly, I knew, without reservation, what I had to do: I turned to the judge, ‘I’ve decided, that, in order to preserve my right of appeal, I cannot turnover the records at this time.’

I was taken into custody; it was easier to put me in jail than to have the government start over with proper process.

Violation: Due process: deprived of liberty without due process.

Violation: Due process: deprived of liberty as price of preserving right of appeal.

2004 June 21.  Leon’s hearing.  Leon is an associate whose function was only to open bank accounts and turn over control and all records to ALH & Co.  He was served with same summons as I; since he never had control of records, he couldn’t be compelled to produce.  However, IRS served him, later, with summons that required him to obtain records from 5-7 different banks, and then turn them over to IRS.  Only one case could be found where IRS made a similar demand; but it pertained to a man who had a foreign bank account – where IRS had no jurisdiction to force such bank to produce records; and the case was currently on appeal in Florida.  Accordingly, Leon refused to comply.  G sought order to have Leon jailed until he complied.

Why would the government seek to compel Leon to obtain records from a bank, and then turn such records over to the IRS?

At this hearing (June 21st), testimony revealed why g made this unique demand: IRS had summoned the banks in question (5-7 of them) and each one refused to comply with their summons because, in each case, it would cost the bank some $15,000 to comply with the summons, and the IRS was limited to paying only $1,000 to each bank.

All together, IRS had summoned some fifteen banks, regarding accounts opened by Leon and others.

It appears that, if IRS does not pay banks for copying expenses, IRS is powerless to force banks to turn over records.  Hence, it appears that banks are under no legal obligation to turn over records to IRS; they do so only because it is to their self-interest – only because they want to, and only because they are paid for it.

Seizure, 2004 Aug. 9th.  The g’s next move was to seize Company assets, purportedly, to prevent dissipation of assets (i. e., to prevent return of money to customers).  Receiver, his dependants and attorney proceeded to engorge themselves in the amount of $150,000 during the first seven weeks of occupation.  “Dissipation” into their pockets is OK, you see.

While the primary reason for this seizure was to deprive me of resources needed to defend the case, another, coincident reason was related to the budget allowed to the IRS for the purpose of investigating our activities.  The IRS did not, or could not, budget enough money to investigate us; so it seized our property and retained a pirate-for-hire (the Receiver).  This allowed the g to continue the investigation thru the Receiver and use our money for the purpose.  The Receiver and his creatures then began a full-scale operation to transfer as much of customers’ money into their pockets as possible.  For example, one of the Receiver’s creatures attended a monthly meeting where I had been invited to speak (the host was terrorized by a government saboteur and she quickly cancelled the invitation); the creature loitered around the meeting site for “1.7” hours talking with anyone who was willing to get their hands dirty; $175.00 dollars per hour (that is, 297.50, plus travel time of 70.00, plus mileage of 10.08: total of 377.58 of customers’ money into his pocket.  At another time, he waited around the jail for one and a half hours while jail personnel prepared a list of all people who visited me, and voice recordings of all my phone calls; so, 222.50 while he waited, 87.50 for travel time, mileage 7.92 (I haven’t been able to locate the amount of money paid to the jail for these things).  He could have made the request by mail for one-tenth the cost.

A customer called and provided information from the back of her cancelled checks to help this Receiver’s creature more easily locate Company assets; that is, she volunteered to give 87.50 to this creature to help him more easily steal her money, and other customers’ money.

Another customer called and said I was a “jerk”: 17.50; another called just to chat; he disagreed with my “position on racism” 52.50.

These are some of the more interesting tidbits from the invoice sheets that detail the Receiver’s expenses; such sheets ran to more than seventy pages.

While the g used our resources to finance its investigation, we had no means to pay for a defense against the g’s depredations.

Seizure (supposedly a custody pending outcome of trial) consisted of all real property connected to my name, office, telephone number, mail address, e-mail address, website, legal papers, every particle in the office – including personal belongings (clothing, sheet music, pictures, paintings, 100-years-old piano, personal library etc.)

Violation: Due Process: (a) property taken without due process (no determination of facts by jury, no jury, no judgment, no penalty, no assessment etc.), (b) obstruction of justice: taking denies me resources needed to defend case – not to mention an offensive action against g.

Violation: impairment of obligation of contracts.  We have contractual relationships with all our customers.  Remember, the prosecution against us did not contain any accusations of wrong-doing; it only sought to determine whether or not I was subject to penalties under 6700.  Still, the mere question alarmed many customers (violation: use of fear and intimidation), and our obligation to return customer money became difficult.  My arrest increased the difficulty.  The seizure made it near impossible by normal means.

It seems our only option now lies with a lawsuit to recover our property and to collect damages.

Violation: use of governmental power to enrich private parties (Receiver and his creatures).

Violation: employment of fear against Americans: the threat and actual arbitrary use of power creates a reign of terror that destroys a right that was clearly declared by American Founders, but is hardly understood by a dozen men on this planet: the pursuit of happiness.  Americans may give no thought to this right; but it has been prosecuted as a capital offense by tyrants for thousands of years. In the English Revolution of 1640, Englishmen reversed the procedure, and prosecuted Archbishop Laud for using “fear and intimidation” to establish arbitrary power: he was led to the block, and his head was struck from his body. The theory is, that where there is fear, happiness is impossible; hence, when g employs fear to gain its end, the end, and means, are unconstitutional.  Americans would later power their Revolution with the same principles that took Laud’s head from his body.

Many of us have been degraded into shameful behavior by this methodically established reign of terror; some have approached suicide; my supporters are petrified with fear that the IRS will arrest them, seize their property, or subject them to an audit – any minute now.  Some people who have provided services to me in the past now want to sever all connections with me; people do not want to stand next to me, to communicate with me, to walk on the same side of the street with me.  Fear is a very infectious disease: I am trying to raise a child; but I am reluctant to communicate or visit with her; lest she or her mother should be savaged by the IRS.

It is a remarkable thing, this reign of terror – another constitutional violation; but who understands it?  (See American Inquisition and The Lost Right.)

Violation: use of fear also destroys the bonds of friendship (between neighbors, spouses, parent and child among others); this is a right hardly anyone understands, and so necessary for the establishment of a free society. (See American Inquisition.)

Violation, pursuit of happiness: reign of terror causes friends and supporters to be extremely reluctant to communicate with me; assist me; invite me into their habitation or place of work; to stand next to me.

Abandonment

At the end of October, 2004, the government relinquished possession of my office, and invited me to come and take what I wanted. The only things taken by the g were records and one computer, a fax/printer/copier, a postal scale; and supplements. The last three items were simple, unauthorized theft: we sold health supplements from the office; and, when I inspected these supplements, I found several bottles that were one half or one third full.  It appears that members of the receiver’s looting party had taken these supplements for personal use and then put them back on the shelf after using most of the contents of the bottles.  Everything else in the office – furniture, bookcases, filing cabinets etc. – was left.  Most everything in the office was bought used; if it had been bought new, I would have expected that more of it would have been stolen.  Since I had no means to store anything, I had to sell or give away everything and abandon the remainder.  I invited people to come and take whatever they wanted; some refused lest the IRS was lurking about taking pictures.

I had my personal belongings in the office, including a collection of long-playing records: Peter, Paul and Mary; Frank Sinatra; Johnny Cash; Brothers Four; Herb Alpert; among others.  One of the creatures of the Receiver took these because he thought they might have collector value; he consulted with the Receiver’s lawyer (between the two of them, they consumed Company property at the rate of $450.00 per hour).  The creature carried these records around to investigate the possibility ($175.00 per hour, plus travel and mileage).  He learned that these records might be worth a dollar each (about 25.00 total).  It was decided to return the records to me; so he carried them to my lawyer’s office to leave for me (more expenses).  I eventually inspected this collection, and found that three records by Frank Sinatra were missing.  Here, ‘missing’ means, ‘stolen.’

Supreme Court has said (Reid v. Covert) that it is practice of tyranny to perpetually attempt to capture small amounts of illegal territory so it can use it to conquer additional illegal territory; and that it is duty of courts to prevent such invasions.  Apart from assassination and physical mutilation, I don’t know what additional territory they could capture.

Locked out of the courthouse

Fairy-tale tax.  That the main reason for the g’s prosecution against me is to silence me is fairly well demonstrated by a letter “addressed” to me, prepared by the IRS and dated 2004 August 27.

In this letter the IRS declared that it had “changed” my taxes owed, for the years 1996 to 2001, to just under 33 millions – to increase some two millions per year owing to interest.  It had totaled deposits into fifteen banks, used by the Company, during those years and attributed these totals to me as “income,” and then fabricated taxes, penalties and interest amounts as my liability.

The g has filed numerous briefs with the court detailing and acknowledging that property held by the Company belonged to 250, then 460, customers.  Thus, the g used this customer property as a basis to fabricate a ridiculous tax liability against me; and then declared, in the letter, that it intended to take this customers’ property and apply it against my inquisitorial tax liability.

It gets more ridiculous.  The IRS is required (a) to send a notice of such an assessment to the “last known address” of the so-called taxpayer, (b) within sixty days of the assessment.  As noted, the letter was dated August 27, and addressed to my office address.

On the date of the letter, my “last known address” was jail; and the IRS had this knowledge: it had sent several items to me while in jail – by ordinary mail and by legal process.

Further, on that date, the IRS was in possession of my office and had given instructions to the post office to forward all my mail to the receiver, who, in turn, would deliver such mail to the IRS.  Thus, the IRS effectively gave notice to me by sending the letter to itself.

The notice was required to be sent “within sixty days of the assessment.”  The date of the letter was August 27th, the post mark was “Oct. 28”; the date of the letter is not necessarily the date of the assessment, which logically must be the same or prior date.  Thus, the “assessment date” could be August 25th, or 20th etc.  Hence, the notice was sent more than sixty-two days after the assessment.

If we discuss the matter of an ordinary, slave-mentality taxpayer, these notice failures would be sufficient to void everything done after such failures.  But, we are not discussing such a matter; and I believe different rules apply.  We’ll see.

The humor continues.  The “change” was done as a “jeopardy assessment.”  This is usually done in cases where the “taxpayer” is a flight risk or threatens to remove his property from the reach of the IRS.  Now, remember, on the date of the letter, I was in jail – and the IRS knew it.  I, definitely, was not a flight risk.  Further, at the hearing that occurred August 30th, one of the issues was to determine whether or not to release me from jail; and, at no time did the g raise a concern that I was a flight risk.

Now, the other reason for jeopardy assessment: removal of property.  Here is the pertinent language from the IRS letter, property belonging to ALH’s customers “is now under the control of a receiver and subject to claims by ALH customers, thereby putting our collection of the… tax… in jeopardy.”

Is there a problem here?  Let’s see, the receiver is under the control and direction of the IRS; and the IRS is fearful that the property under its control (thru the receiver) will be removed from its reach.

Gee, give me a few minutes to study this; maybe I’ll be able to make sense – or nonsense – of it.

Frank Nixon signed the letter of Aug. 27th; I wrote a letter to him protesting this nonsense, “Dear Frank, ‘Where do you find these clowns?  I mean, look Frank, you guys are trying to commit a great robbery – not a great folly.  You guys are not supposed to be comedians; you are bandits and cutthroats; get your act together – before people laugh you off your stage.  Your friend, Anthony.”

Frank’s letter also explained that I had a “right” to appeal the jeopardy aspect of the assessment: but my “appeal” had to be made within thirty days of the date of the letter.  Oh gosh; here we go again: the letter was dated “August 27th”; my “right” of appeal expired September 26th; the letter was sent “Oct 28th.”

What does the g want to accomplish with this ridiculous tax liability and jeopardy assessment?

In an ordinary tax assessment, the victim will have three to four months to challenge it in tax court; then another six to twelve months to litigate any questions.  In the meantime, the IRS is barred from any collection activity: the victim has access to the use of his property during this time.

However, with a jeopardy assessment, the g can immediately take every thing it can find that belongs to the victim.  And, if he wants to challenge the tax, he first has to pay it.  If he has anything left, then he can challenge the tax.  If the tax is beyond his means to pay, he will never be able to challenge the tax.

This last is my situation.  During the years in question, I, generously, might have had “non-individual” earnings between 150,000 and 200,000 for the six years; forget about any expenses.  A tax on it of thirty-three millions (33,000,000)?

And more, the IRS, several years ago, assessed some three hundred thousands (300,000) in taxes penalties and interest against me for the years 1994 thru 1996; the California Franchise Tax Board (the state equivalent of the IRS) added on another one hundred thousands (100,000): a total of over four hundred thousands.  During this three-years period, I might have had “non-individual” earnings of seventy-five thousands (75,000).

There seems to be no end to this nonsense.  I made arrangements with Leon and Sherrel to open bank accounts for use of the Company.  The IRS took total deposits, for 1996 and 1997, from the set of bank accounts opened by Leon, and from the set opened by Sherrel, and fabricated tax liabilities against Leon and Sherrel of some four and a third millions each.

Later, the IRS used these same totals in fabricating tax liabilities against me for the years 1996 thru 2001.  The derangement continues: the IRS has made it known that it intends to use these same totals to fabricate tax liabilities against all my customers; thus, using one set of totals to assess up to four sets of taxes.

One more item: the letter was dated Aug. 27th, and it declared an intent to take customers’ property by authority of the jeopardy assessment.  By instructions of the IRS, the receiver sent a letter to all known customers, dated September 15th, that invited them to make a claim against the property in question.

Summary Judgment

This brings us to December 6th.  Despite all our setbacks and injuries, we were looking forward to performing discovery prior to trial; we were certain that we would be able to abolish the g’s case with a few depositions and requests for documents.  However, we were derailed with a summary judgment December 6th, 2004.  Such a judgment is appropriate where no facts are in dispute; but, in our case, we disputed all alleged facts.  So, this judgment prevented us from performing discovery, from examining our accuser, and from presenting our case to a jury, among other actions.  It, effectively, locked the courthouse doors against us.

Transcripts

The judgment that set everything in motion occurred in November of 2003; it served as the foundation for my incarceration, confiscation of Company and the fairy-tale tax assessment.

Of course, we appealed it.  An essential component of every appeal is the transcript of the hearing in question.  Since February of 2004, our lawyers have requested transcripts of eight different hearings, and paid over 2700.00 for them.  As of January, 2005, only one has been delivered.  We still wait for the transcript for the hearing of November, 2003.

Without this transcript, appeal judges have nothing to examine; an unlawful or erroneous judgment cannot be reversed.

Our lawyers have made several inquiries as to the status of the requested transcripts, especially the one pertaining to the November-2003 hearing.  They were eventually told that they would never get the transcript, the court reporter had been instructed by judge Carter to quit working on “the Hargis case.”

These instructions by the judge, and the seven undelivered transcripts seem to indicate that the judge knows that he has rendered an unlawful judgment; and that there is a high probability that an appeal court would reverse it; and that such reversal would represent a notable disaster for his career and for the g; and would expose everyone who contributed to that disaster to liability for all injuries done to us.

Reasons for Prosecution

The g’s case was completely groundless: I’ve never engaged in activities alleged.  If I had engaged in such activities, the g could have prosecuted me without committing so many violations.  The real purpose of the prosecution is (a) to retaliate against me for the alternative I offered to the FRS and (b) to retaliate against me for my writings, and against my customers for supporting me, (c) an attempt to destroy the trust placed in my hands by customers and (d) to stop my prosecution of saboteurs protected by government.

To achieve these goals, the g undertook numerous actions to practically silence me and to prevent me from defending against actions by the g; that is, to effectively lock me out of the courthouse.

Alternative

This can be divided into two parts: (a) Boycott of FRS; and (b) exercise of rights of privacy, contract and self-preservation.

Boycott/Petition

In my opinion, the Federal Reserve is a major grievance: it facilitates the cannibalization of future generations of Americans, see my flyer, The Money of Cannibalism.  The government quoted several of my passages pertaining to this grievance in order to demonstrate my intent to break the law.

The services section entitled “warehouse banking” [false, no where do I use this term] states that the “most comprehensive and subtle means by which people are enslaved is effected by central banking.  As long as we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes and Federal Reserve bank accounts, we continue to feed the bandits of mankind.” (Ex parte motion for TRO, p. 3-4; Declaration of Hawkins, ¶ 7.

“Alternative” page invites potential customers to open an ALH account if “you want to boycott the pathological segment of society by denying the use of your resources” [to the Federal Reserve] “if you don’t want your assets to finance socialists and give-away programs” and “need financial privacy.” (Ex, p. 4; Hawk, ¶ 9.)

Hargis asserts that “the real reason for my operation is to allow people to quit supporting the cannibalization of the next one hundred generations of Americans; that is, to quit providing resources to the Federal Reserve for this purpose.”  [All underline added.] (Ex, 28; Hawk, ¶ 55)

So, you see, by my language, quoted by the government, I made no offer to customers that I would help them hide their assets; but, rather, to ‘deny the use of your assets to the Federal Reserve.’  Not letting people use your property is distinct from hiding your property from them.  Further, the government acknowledged my intent to help people ‘boycott’ – or not support – the ‘cannibalization of the next one hundred generations of Americans.’  In other words, to the government, it is unlawful to not cannibalize one’s children – to the hundredth generation.

In 1774, Americans (a) organized a Continental Congress, (b) complained about several grievances, (c) declared many rights they desired to secure, and (d) organized an economic boycott of English goods – see, Declaration and Resolves, 1774 October 14.  With this Declaration, Founders exercised their rights of assembly, speech, press, and redress – and declared many others.

We, unwittingly, did almost precisely the same thing in 1976: (a) two others and I organized a company, or assembly, (ALH & Co.) (b) for the express purpose of redressing a grievance, namely, the cannibalistic nature of the Federal Reserve System; and then (c) offered a service that allowed people to boycott the FRS.  We omitted to declare rights we desired to secure (we thought this was already done with the Bill of Rights).  We all exercised these rights, without knowing it.

That same Continental Congress declared, “That they [Americans] have a right peaceably to assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition the king; and that all prosecutions, prohibitory proclamations, and commitments for the same, are illegal.”  This was one of the “immutable laws of nature” declared by the Continental Congress in 1774.[1]  This is an attribute of the right of petition; thus, the government’s retaliation against us for exercising our right of petition is unconstitutional – and we knew none of it.  (See The Lost Right.)

Violation: retaliation against us for ‘petitioning for redress’; now reserved to us by the First Amendment.

Privacy.  A subsidiary consequence of using accounts at ALH & Co. was the opportunity for customers to exercise their rights of privacy, contract and self-preservation with more security than possible with ordinary banks.  I mentioned this aspect of accounts on my website as an after thought; I always admonished customers that using accounts gave no tax benefits; and that if the g came into my office with tanks and guided missiles, it would get everything it wanted.

Despite the inconsequential nature, relative to tax benefits, of this “privacy,” the g focused on this promise of privacy and equated it to an offer to conceal assets and revenue from the g; and claimed this offer of privacy to be “an illegal tax scheme,” which “justified” my jail time and seizure of assets.

Until the g gave so much attention to this aspect of my service, I had never considered this issue to be of much significance; since that time, I’ve given it some thought and have come to realize the connections between privacy, contract and self-preservation.

Privacy

The g’s remarks about privacy consist of a soup of non sequitors, contradictions, misquotes, and misrepresentations.  After examining a case involving National Commodity and Barter Association, the g remarked,

And, like ALH, the warehouse bank in NCBA purported to “give complete privacy…” (Ex, p 20)

This, of course, is false; I never promised complete privacy.  I frequently explained to customers who voiced concerns on this matter, that, if the g came to my office in their usual manner, with machine guns and grenades, it would get whatever it could lay its hands on.

Still, the court ruled that I was in violation of the tax laws because I promised a measure of privacy relative to customers’ financial transactions; thus, allowing my supporters to “hide” assets.  Here, the conflict is between the primacy of the right of privacy and the obligation of tax laws.  Only within the last two weeks (about 228 Oct. 1) have I understood how to explain the issue from the perspective of privacy.  The pertinent language of the Fourth Amendment is, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects… shall not be violated…”  This only has meaning relative to governmental actions: in other words, “the people” have a right of privacy relative to the government.  “Papers” include records.  Please notice, the Fourth Amendment makes no distinction as to whether such papers are held personally or by an agent.  Still, courts seem to hold that such papers held personally are protected by the Fourth; but, when you make arrangements with an agent (a bank, for example) to keep your records, Fourth-Amendment protections are lost.  This is so because, when you establish a bank account, you “agree” to lose your right to privacy.  This is a double violation: of the right to contract and the right of privacy; for, when you make an arrangement with someone, you make a contract – and it is a common purpose of contracts to engage other people to help make one’s rights more secure.  Otherwise, there is no incentive for men to make contracts; men do not make contracts to render their rights less secure.  It would, in other words, be completely in accordance with constitutional principles to make a contract with an agent to maintain and protect one’s records: the end (privacy) and the means (contract) are both constitutionally protected.  But the government will not allow this arrangement regarding your relationship with an ordinary bank.  In the eyes of the government, it avoids the appearance of violating your rights by imagining the fiction that you surrender your rights of contract and privacy voluntarily: your choice is: a) you may earn a living with relative ease (with a bank account) and surrender your rights of contract and privacy or b) you can maintain your privacy with a severe handicap on your right to earn a living (with no bank account).  To a government, you see, your only choices are limited to what rights you must surrender to avoid a general plunder; the taxman, “We will violate you with your consent or by compulsion – you make the choice.”  Now, when someone comes along, such as ALH & Co., and offers a service that includes limited privacy protections against the government – in clear conformity with the rights of privacy, contract and earning a living – the government describes it as an ‘illegal tax scheme.’  Any choice that does not involve a loss of rights is “illegal,” you see.

 Violation: privacy, contract and self-preservation.

Writings.

When the judge issued the order of seizure, he read a collection of quotations from my writings – as if describing criminal behavior that should be punished – and then authorized the g to seize all assets of ALH & Co.  Thus, he connected my writings to the “punishment.”

Individual.  My research has led me to one of the jugular veins of the income tax: it is imposed in the income of every “individual.”  We are not individuals, as that term is defined for purposes of the IRC, nor for purposes of the SS Act.  The issue is more than just taxes; it is a question of, “Do we have all our rights – or none?”  An “individual” has no standing relative to the federal Constitution or Bill of Rights.  Most of us are born with full standing and all rights relative to the Constitution and Bill of Rights; we are compelled or deceived into surrendering this standing and these rights by applying for an SS card.  What do we get for surrendering all our rights?  We become subject to section one of the IRC, for the rest of our lives.  See Plantation America.

We filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against the SSA to resolve questions pertaining to this issue; namely, “Do we surrender any rights when we apply for an SS card?”

What is so ironic is that while the g accused me of giving illegal tax advice, the only “advice” I gave relative to taxes was not “advice” at all, but a request to join this complaint against the SSA.  During the three or four years prior to filing it, I sent out thousands of flyers asking people to become co-plaintiffs or to support it by purchasing shares.  Less than one percent of my customers responded.

This is the limit of my tax “advice”: to ask people to join me in asking a federal court, “Do we surrender any rights when we apply for an SS card?”

If there is only one reason for this prosecution against my customers and me, this is it; for, no matter how the court would answer, it would either commit or expose a gigantic treason – and the g simply could not allow this to happen.  It had to destroy my capacity to proceed with the SSA lawsuit.  There is a very clear connection between this intent and the SSA lawsuit: the g attorney that led the defense of this SSA lawsuit was the same attorney that led the prosecution that resulted in my incarceration and loss of resources.

Since less than one percent of my customers signed-up for the SSA lawsuit, it was relatively easy to silence us with a groundless prosecution; if twenty or thirty percent of my customers had signed-up, it might have been a different story.

Violation: application for SS card results in deprivation of constitutional status: that is, deprivation of all rights.

Violation: prosecution represents retaliation for exercising right of petition (lawsuit against SSA).

With The Lost Right, I recovered knowledge of the right of petition, the only way to secure rights and limit power.  The right of petition is a complex of rights; a major element of it is the right to withhold taxes until the government redresses grievances.

The government referred to American Inquisition several times.

This website describes various services offered by ALH, including “developing legal arguments to demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the IRC.”  Potential customers are invited to read an essay entitled “’American Inquisition,’ which purports to [sic] demonstrate the unconstitutionality of all INTERNAL TAXES.”  [The government inserted “purports to,” as if it were part of my language.]  (Ex Parte Application for TRO and Appointment of a Temporary Receiver, p. 3; Hawkins’ Declaration, ¶ 5.)

[Hawkins elaborates,] The income tax link to the services section states that by “examining the debates in Congress in 1909, pertaining to the origin of the 16th Amendment, we find some half dozen reasons why the Income tax – and all INTERNAL taxes – are unconstitutional.”  (Hawk, ¶ 6)

With this book, I discovered why all internal taxes are unconstitutional; and suggested constitutional taxes – to be imposed only on they who make them necessary.

It seems the government never directly declared my opinions in American Inquisition to be false; instead, it examined several unrelated cases that employed frivolous arguments, and then attributed those arguments to me; thus, implying that my opinions in American Inquisition were false.  The problem here is that I agree: those unrelated cases used frivolous arguments – and I wouldn’t touch them; but I never got a chance to explain this.  (Ex, pp. 22-23)

If our case would have gone to trial, my book, American Inquisition, would have been the “star witness,” and we could have spent one or two days disinfecting jurors’ minds.  Ah, if… if… if…

As it turns out, my language on the website was not entirely true; it was an understatement.  I actually examined official enactments spanning some 150 years and found more than a dozen reasons why all internal taxes are unconstitutional

With Fires that Cry, I identify a nation of bandits (Jews, with some exceptions) who spread into as many nations as possible, insinuate themselves into tax collecting professions of such nations; loot the nation to a Stone-Age condition; perpetrate a genocide, to destroy the evidence of their plunder and to give their next victim little warning.  The story of Exodus is one of the earliest examples of this process.  This nation of bandits aims at nothing less than the destruction of everything civilized and everything decent.

With A Tale of Two Bribes, I examine two distinct ‘retirement systems’; one is for governmental workers and the other is for private workers.  The first is known as Public Employees’ Retirement Systems (PERS) and the second is known as Social Security.  The first allows public workers to retire with 50,000 per year for grunt bureaucrats or with 150,000 per year for judges and heads of departments.  With the SS system, private workers might be able to retire on 10,000 per year – maybe as much as 15,000.  More, private workers forego the use of 600,000 during the best forty years (between twenty and sixty-five) of their lives (thru SS taxes paid, exclusive of all other taxes) so they might recover 100,000 during the five to ten worst years of their lives (beyond sixty-five).  Do you see why bureaucrats are so rabid about pushing private workers into Social Security; and why they are so anxious to conceal these facts?  This information is so volatile, knowing it could cost one’s life.

Trust

From this perspective, the IRS did not want customer records; instead, the g wanted to pressure me so much that I would carry the requested records into the IRS office in my own hands – thereby destroying the trust placed in my hands by customers.

This destruction of my reputation was at least a primary object of the g; if it only wanted records, it could have executed a search warrant two years ago and taken everything it wanted.  Real quick, end of contest.

The time sequence of the seizure motion confirms this.  It was filed “UNDER SEAL” on July 13th without notice to me or my attorney – so as not to give warning to me or the people working in the office as to what the g was planning; all bank accounts were seized at this time.

I was served July 16th, in jail, Friday at 3:30 PM.  The motion consisted of almost 270 pages; it took me about an hour to understand what was requested.  I placed a call to my lawyer (who was working on another case) at 4:50 PM; the jail would not let the call be completed.  So, blocked by this method of communication, I resolved to send a copy to him; so I requested jail guards to bring a copier to me (a routine request); I made about five such requests and finally got a copier about midnight July 20th, Tuesday night, four and a half days later; hearing was scheduled the 23rd, a Friday.

Also about this time, the 20th, people were noticing that company checks were not being paid.  This alerted people in the office that something was about to happen; like, the g might be preparing to raid the office.  If you are a human being and drawing breath, what would you do?  Protect the records?

At the hearing on the 23rd, I met and retained the lawyer to represent me on this matter: he specialized in seizures.  It was an open hearing (members of the public were present, including four people that I recognized as supporters); the g explained exactly what it wanted to do.  Since my attorney had just been handed a 270-page document, the judge agreed to continue the hearing to August 9th.  The hearing was equivalent to an invitation to whoever was interested to protect the records the g wanted.  Again, what would any red-blooded American do?

On August 9th, Judge gave order to seize office; receiver took possession about 4:30 PM.

August 30th, hearing to determine whether or not to release me from jail, among other things.  From testimony, it was explained that computer records sought had been erased or encoded by little elves between August 6th and early morning hours of August 9th; computer expert estimated that it would take a trillion years to break coded computer.  However, in their haste or confusion, an elf left a list of my customers in the office; it appears to be valid.  If so, my five and a half months in jail, and everything else, were all for naught.

As I’ve noted, if g only wanted records, it could have executed a search warrant two years ago: end of contest.

Prosecution of scam operators

Scam Alert.  Two stories appeared in the media about me during the week that I was arrested; both mentioned a nine or ten million dollar judgment obtained by the State of Washington about 1994 against Veryl Knowles, who was engaged is some kind of a ponzi scheme.  He passed several of his checks thru an account at ALH & Co., the State assumed I was a part of his scheme and named me as a defendant.  The State’s attorney, thru a series of flip-flops, alternately named me as witness, defendant, witness, and finally settling on defendant.  During this time I gave all the information I thought I could give in two depositions in order to help convict the scam operator.  I also retained an attorney, Jeffery Thayer, who prepared several ridiculous motions on my behalf; they led me into a disastrous position, and the ridiculous judgment was almost automatic – and applicable to me as well as the operator.  The State never tried to collect on this judgment; in fact, when I learned of this lawsuit, I blocked all funds in the customer’s account, and offered to disburse such funds to the benefit of the victims – but the State never responded to my offer.  This attorney is famous for taking large amounts of money from so-called patriots for leading them to jail or ruin.

The government’s propaganda department (the media) gave wide publicity to this Washington case – and my “complicity” in it, but gave no mention whatsoever to two other scam operators; one, that I helped put in jail and the other, that I actively prosecuted.

The first scam was operated by Joe and Shirley Holland.  It consisted of soliciting money from investors across the country and using this money to drill oil wells in and around Kentucky and Indiana; the holes, of course, would come up dry.  They would collect more money, set-up a new company to drill another well, buy all the equipment from the first company.  Unfortunately, the hole was dry.  They would sucker more investors, new company; change title on the equipment… it just kept going like this.

One day, probably around 1992, Joe called and explained that a few of his customers were complaining to the government about his lack of results; he asked, “If the government came to you and demanded to see records of my account, would you give such records to them?”

I responded, “If they come in with a valid court order, I would comply with it.”  The conversation ended shortly thereafter.

Within a month activity in his account dropped from approximately one hundred thousand (in deposits and payments) to zero.

A few years later, three men came into my office and wanted to talk about Joe Holland; they identified themselves as from the IRS, the FBI, and the Justice Department.  They explained Joe’s activity to me, and asked if they could examine my bank records pertaining to him.  I knew that my services might be used by people for such scams, and I wanted to make as public a statement as possible to let people know what would happen if they tried to use my services for such scams; accordingly, I agreed to give the government all records it wanted.  Additionally, in the following two years, the government flew me to Indiana twice: once to testify before a grand jury, and then, ten months later, to testify at trial.  Joe was convicted and sent to prison, where he died or was murdered.

Altho I helped the government in this prosecution, someone has posted a transcript on the web pertaining to Shirley’s appeal of her conviction (of which I had no knowledge).  I am mentioned frequently in the discussion as to how I helped Shirley and Joe “launder” their money.  No where in the transcript does the government mention that I helped convict Joe, and that I provided all the information that they requested about his transactions.  To the casual reader, the discussion creates the impression that I was a part of Joe’s operation, that I helped him defraud his customers.  See for yourself, caselaw.lp.findlaw.com and then search for my name; if this doesn’t work, search for my name on the web and then locate the site that discusses Shirley Holland and myself.

What have I said about the government being occupied by thieves; here, we have an example of big thieves prosecuting a little thief.  It’s something they have to do from time to time in order to make their peasants love them.

We also have a case here, and a few other places, of government libeling and defaming my character.

The second scheme was operated by a man and a woman (Frank Ozak and Gynne Wycoff), and preyed on retired people using my name to persuade people to trust them.  I filed a lawsuit against them and obtained a judgment for partial expenses.  The lawyer working on this case is planning to file another action for damages; if we obtain a judgment, it will probably be uncollectible.

There is something strange about all these scam/ponzi schemes.  Most people who operate them are regarded as plain thieves; but, a thief, who has any brains, will take every precaution to avoid every situation that might bring him to the attention of so-called authorities.  Now, every one of the people associated with the scams I discussed were actively involved in the patriot movement: they all routinely spoke of ‘sovereign rights’; ‘lack of governmental jurisdiction’; not filing tax returns; revoked social security cards, drivers’ licenses, license plates – and sent twenty-page letters to two dozen governmental agencies.  Any one of these things will draw enormous amounts of attention from government agencies; the thief who only wants to defraud people will not go near the patriot/freedom community.

There seem to be two kinds of scam operators that we find in the freedom movement: those who steal from everyone, and those who steal almost exclusively from people in the freedom movement.  Thieves in the first category are invariably prosecuted by government with wide-spread publicity that repeatedly describes the thief’s involvement in the freedom movement; thus, demonizing its image.  I’ve never seen anyone in the second category prosecuted by the government; this leads to the conclusion that such thieves are coached and protected by the CIA, or FBI, or IRS.  These people in the second category can do far more damage to people in the freedom movement than “official” government action can do.  Thus, when I prosecuted Wycoff and Ozak, I may have neutralized a pair of thieves who had been coached by the government.

I couldn’t be allowed to do that again.

I’ve done everything I can to assure that the Company gave no assistance to shady characters or crooks, even where it might have been extremely lucrative.  The government won’t tell you, for example, about my experience with the MAFIA.  Some seven or eight years ago, three well-dressed men came into my office.  Introductions were done, we sat down and they talked.  They explained that they came from Las Vegas, and operated a casino; they wanted to know if I would launder two (maybe it was seven) million in cash every month.  They finished, I looked at their expensive clothes – I had to satisfy my curiosity, I asked, “Are you from the MAFIA?”  Instantly, every one of their heads almost fell into their laps. I surprised them; one finally said, “Yes.”

I took the time to explain that one of my main objects was to “drive the IRS into the ocean”; that I had no problem with the kind of operation they were engaged in, so long as it was voluntary.  I told them that if I am to achieve my goal, I had to keep my hands squeaky clean, “I’m sorry guys, but I can’t work with you.”  And, they left.

It is my belief that the government employs saboteurs, either directly or indirectly, to go into patriot/freedom groups and defraud its members, and to make these groups look like hotbeds of shysters.  They steal as much as they can, disappear, and resurface later with a different name or haircut – and it is all condoned, or even protected, by government.  So, people concerned about their country and the welfare of their children are fleeced, their causes demonized, little robbers enriched, and Big Robbers made more secure.  Gee, what more can we do?

Perhaps you can see what valuable services these little robbers perform for Big Robbers; when I began to expose, and then prosecute, these little robbers, I imagine that the government couldn’t tolerate this – and had to stop me.  This conclusion is only circumstantial now; maybe in a few years someone will uncover facts that will give more solid ground for it.

Of course, the government cannot prosecute me directly, nor openly for any one of these activities: it had to disguise its prosecution as an attempt to enforce so-called tax laws; and this could only be done by committing a dozen constitutional violations – and depriving me of all resources needed to defend the case.

Miscellaneous

Illegal questions.  The g was ticked-off at several of my other ideas.

In addition to these frivolous arguments regarding the Internal Revenue Code, Hargis demonstrates his familiarity with tax laws by instructing customers how to respond to IRS summonses, by inviting customers to join ALH in a lawsuit to compel the IRS to answer questions about the tax code and in a lawsuit to “void your application for a [social security] card,” and to take part in a project “to amend the California Constitution to deprive judges of their immunity.”  (Ex, 23; Hawk, Ex. 3, p. 6).

IRS summonses.  I put together and sold a book that consisted of documents from an actual case where a man successfully resisted the enforcement of an IRS summons; these documents included a transcript of a meeting between this man and a revenue agent, transcript of the related court hearing, a copy of the controlling case and a copy of the g’s voluntary dismissal (a concession of defeat).  It is, that is, unlawful to publicize a case where the g loses.

I am confused by the tax laws and do not know what to tell people about such laws; so I tried to organize a lawsuit to compel the IRS to remove my confusion.  The lawsuit never gets off the ground; still, it demonstrates criminal intent – and people, who imagine that g must explain the law, must be stopped.

My lawsuit against the SSA, to settle the question, “Do we surrender rights when we apply for a social security card?” also demonstrates criminal intent – and had to be stopped.  See my remarks about Plantation America.

And then, there is my project to use the initiative process to amend the California Constitution to make judges accountable.  Who but a criminal would want to do that?

For the past thirty years probably everything I have done has been related to the right of petition – and I am just now beginning to understand it.  And this is the essence of the prosecution against my customers and me: retaliation against me for asking wrong questions, and against my customers for supporting me.  And such retaliation was declared to be illegal by the Continental Congress; and such declaration is an attribute of the right of petition.

Due Process in Retrograde.  Normally, when a plaintiff files a lawsuit, he asks for some kind of coercive relief.  If the plaintiff wins his case, then he can demand satisfaction of the coercive relief.  To repeat, a trial must be held before coercive relief can be executed.  But the bandits that occupy American g’s operate by different rules: if they want to take your property, you have to give it to them; then you may have your trial; by the same principle, if the g wants to put you in jail for twenty years, you have to serve the twenty years, then you get your trial.  These are actually inquisitorial rules; it seems that I have written about these somewhere.  The g was really irritated when it filed its case and I didn’t immediately fall down and die.

Moreover, since this case was filed, Hargis has not shut down the warehouse bank or even provided basic customer and account information to the Government, choosing to go to jail rather than comply with an IRS summons and this court’s enforcement order.  (Ex, 27)

Government calls judge Carter “dishonest.”  While I was in jail, I sent several letters to my office to be posted on my website.  The purpose of these letters was to inform my customers of what was happening relative to the case.  The g, unfortunately, misconstrued one of my observations.

In his letters from jail Hargis also shows his contempt for this court, telling his supporters that “for us to succeed with litigation requires an honest judge who does not travel on his knees.”  (Ex, 30; Hawk, ¶ 55)

Yes, I did write that.  I wrote that we needed an honest judge; I did not write that judge Carter was a man that traveled on his knees.  They were g attorneys who looked at judge Carter, looked at my words, and concluded, by their own eyesight, that judge Carter was dishonest, or traveled on his knees – then Carter proceeded to prove those g attorneys to be correct.

Lewd gestures.  The name of the Receiver is Robert Mosier & Co.; and is well equipped as an instrument of the g.

The Receiver relinquished control of my office October 31st, and invited me to come and take what he had left.  When I inspected the place, I found that only one or two computers, certain files, and items mentioned above had been taken.  With additional inspection, I discovered two insignias that indicate the mental framework of the Receiver or his creatures.

I found one hanging from the door of the office refrigerator; a pair of bikini panties, decorated with a leopard pattern.

The other insignia requires a more lengthy explanation.  When my daughter, Aurelia, was seven or eight, I accompanied her on a school field-trip to San Francisco.  One stop on the itinerary was a teddy-bear factory.  Accordingly, a week or two before the trip, each child ordered one or more teddy bears.

When we arrived, we were taken from work-station to work-station; and witnessed the birth and growth of a teddy bear.  The animation of each child, including Aurelia’s, grew accordingly.  When a teddy bear was ‘fully grown,’ each child would choose the kind and color of clothes that would be made and put on his or her teddy bear.  Aurelia chose cover-alls, I think.

When Aurelia’s teddy bear was completed, she came and showed it to me.  She asked, ‘Where is yours?’  She, unknown to me, had ordered two: one for her, one for me.

“I’m not getting one,” I said.

She came to me with elation; I turned it to rejection: a big tear rolled down her face, “But I ordered one for you.”  The sudden shock from elation to rejection was too much for her; she turned and walked away; and a very heavy oppression, like a dagger, ripped thru my chest.

I immediately set to work to have my own teddy bear made.  The workers at each workstation could not work fast enough – the oppression was so heavy.  I chose cover-alls for my teddy bear; and, when it was finished – and clothed, I carried it, like an inadequate fool – to Aurelia.  But, the damage was done; she only moderately acknowledged it; for the remainder of the day she was noticeably subdued, and showed little interest in sitting next to me.

I kept this teddy bear in a glass-covered bookcase, on the top shelf where I keep my last memories: the ones I will part with last, before I give up this life.  I kept the bookcase in my office.  When I turned my attention to it to learn what the Receiver had left – or taken, I found the teddy bear.  Its clothes had been removed, and were draped over its shoulders.

A child’s toy, used to convey a lewd gesture.

I have remarked many times that this country is occupied by thieves; what a gentle characterization.

Investments

My customers and I, for the past twenty-eight years, have been exercising constitutionally-protected rights that hardly anyone understood – including myself, until I wrote The Lost Right and Plantation America.  If people learned of these rights, and began exercising them, they would be using a power that would eventually turn this country right side up: people, using these rights, could topple the American criminal class.  And these bandits know it.  This is why we (my customers and I) had to be stopped in such a way that we would have no capacity to defend ourselves; we, effectively, had to be gagged and locked out of the courthouse.

We had to be “accused” of a crime that never happened, be required to disprove it, and then given no opportunity to carry such burden.

We had to be allowed an appeal from an unlawful judgment; and then denied an essential component of an appeal (the transcript of the hearing).

We had to be deprived of all resources needed to defend the case – but allowed an “appeal” of such deprivation; and then notified of such appeal a month after its expiration.

The government is trying to tell you something: I have discovered treasons, grievances, and information that you are not supposed to know.  How serious are my discoveries?  Look at how ferociously the government tied my hands, gagged my mouth, deprived me of resources and locked me out of the courthouse.  To justify all this, the government used several quotations from my website to demonstrate the evil intention of “not supporting socialists,” of “refusing to participate in the cannibalization of the next hundred generations of Americans.”  When it is a crime to assert rights – to refuse to participate in evil, again, the government is trying to tell you something.

One more thing it is trying to tell you: it has perfected a method to destroy any dissenter: fabricate a ridiculous tax liability, and the victim instantly has no resources to defend himself – and no access to a courthouse.  All can be done without a trace of due process of law.  The government, now, is completely despotic, with no limitations whatever – save the power of publicity.

Government “Burns” Website

(News Release)

Usually, when men wrote books that came too close to truth, governments and churches would build fires and throw such books – and, sometimes, such men – into the flames.  This disposed of books, and men, who too clearly described crimes of the ruling banditti.

Modern pirates no longer do such uncivilized things; instead, they “burn” websites.

More than two years ago, the IRS began an investigation of Anthony to determine whether or not he was helping people to organize “abusive tax shelters.”  It began as a request that he turn over all records pertaining to his customers.  Anthony asserts that he had never helped anyone organize any kind of tax shelter; so, he suspected the real reason for the investigation was to retaliate against him for opinions in his writings, and against his customers for supporting him.

He refused to turnover records; he was jailed, his customers’ and his property was seized, and then his website was confiscated, and “burned.”  The government, using arguments based on “wishful thinking and demented speech,” according to Anthony, persuaded the court that thirteen “pages” of his website fell into the category of “illegal commercial speech” (a term invented by courts to circumvent the First Amendment), and such pages were ordered to be “burned.”

For example, he examined debates in Congress relative to the sixteenth amendment, and found some half dozen, very clearly expressed, reasons why the income tax and most internal taxes are unconstitutional – based, according to Anthony, on grounds that have never been litigated.  He compiled these findings into his book American Inquisition.  He also suggested an alternative to the current taxing scheme: namely, that taxes should be imposed only on those that make them necessary; that is, on domestic and foreign bandits.  “I really irritated a few bandits,” he remarks; “for, my words were classified as “illegal commercial speech” – and “burned.” ”

On another page, he explained that he researched the Social Security card and discovered that people surrender all rights when they apply for the card.  (see his book, Plantation America.)  Over a period of more than four years he used this page and other means to ask people to join him for a lawsuit against the SS Administration to settle a question of law, “Do we surrender any rights when we apply for an SS card?”  Their curiosity and concern for their rights were deemed “illegal commercial speech” – and erased from electronic memory.

He explains that government debt is the process by which one generation lives at the expense of future generations: the money borrowed today has to be extorted from our children and grandchildren when they come onto the scene tomorrow.  Dollars come into existence by the Federal Reserve exchanging them for U. S. debt securities.  Thus, the value of the dollar depends on the ability of the government to extort money from our children.  This is what makes the dollar a ‘Money of Cannibalism.’

Congress has mandated that, if Americans want cash in their pockets, this cash must require the cannibalization of the next fifty (and counting) generations of Americans.

The page where Anthony explained this crime was declared “illegal commercial speech” – and was “disappeared.”

He proposed an initiative to amend the California constitution to make judges accountable for abuse of power; “illegal commercial speech.”

He attempted to organize a lawsuit to ask a federal court to answer questions about tax laws; “illegal commercial speech,” of course.

This “book burning” occurred without due process: no examination of “accuser,” no jury; no trial; nothing.  Beside these denials, the government seized his property so, even if he had such opportunities, he had no resources to use them.

“The government is trying to tell us something,” Anthony remarks.  Other critics of government have been prosecuted; they were allowed to keep their property before trial; and more, they were allowed a trial, jury and all.  However, in Anthony’s case, his property was taken before a trial that was never given.

“Why would the government deprive me the means to defend myself,” Anthony asks, “but that my arguments were clear and well-grounded; that I revealed major treasons; and that I recovered knowledge that has been lost for more than two hundred years, and that would make governments (official bandits) accountable?”

“It was simply dangerous to allow my arguments, and the government’s nonsense, near a jury; safety required that I, and my website, be thrown into the flames.”


[1] Declaration and Resolves, 1774 October 14, Tansill 1-5; I Kurland, 2.

Timely, and related, pages,

Turn Back the Clock.  I’m 69 (in two months) but I have the health, vitality and body of a near-professional athlete, aged 25 to 35.  I routinely have former pro and college baseball players tell me I would “do well” (a modest remark) if I played “men’s senior league”, a level of play equal to a major college.  In other words, I’m living proof that people do not have to grow old; they can retain or recover the health and vitality of youth; they don’t have to suffer from arthritis, diabetes, kidney failure or any of hundreds of other ailments.  Look what you’ll gain: more strength and a longer life to enjoy the adventures we all know are coming.  You might even want to take part in them.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s