Skip to main content

Full text of "Eustace Mullins - The Rape Of Justice; America's Tribunals Exposed (1989)"

See other formats

n -: ^'^^'X' s 

■' v'^-''''v^' ''"-C ' 



Americans Tribunals Exposed 

The Firft Part 

O F T H E 


Of the Laws of 



A Commoitaryapon Littleton, not the name of the 
Autboronly, but of the Law itiel£ 


J(ain/ te vm* Jmunf mifirs luMrl* dartt I 
Hw kgt, qntdfijjit dietrijurt mtum tfi, 


Major hxreditas. venit tinicaidue noftnun k 

Jure 8c Legibus, quStm a Parentiboi; 

Aa&ovt Edwardo CoKE.Mtlitd 

TiteSeremh Editkm carefully CorrcAed. 


Piiatedby aatniitnatcr) 3!atW0f(e(^cr, and |)enry iS.1ni^li, Affigu ii 
Bitdarb Stktne and eomcD atUns , Efquiret. 

AaAsattoheSMhyGccrgeSamMJge, "JAmPhett Ipfm BtUrngtr^ mlUtmVUekt 
JBkm UJkl-, Cb. tLrftt, John Amery, Jtb» Pcole, John Lagb, UUcTXX. 1 

CumCratia 6c Pcivi1c}>ioReg;b; Majcftatis. 




America's Trihunals Exposed 


Legal Studies Group 
The National Commission for Judicial Reform 

America's Tribunals Exposed 

Published by the National Commission for Judicial Reform 
POBox 1105 
Staunton VA 24401 

First Edition 

Copyright 1989 
Eustace Mullins 


No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted 
in any form by any means — electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise — 
without express prior permission, with the exception of brief excerpts in magazine articles 
and/or reviews. 

Printed in the United States of America 



"the mother makes all things possible" 


Books by Eustace Mullins 

Secrets of the Federal Reserve 
My Life in Christ 
This Difficult Individual, Ezra Pound 
The World Order 
A Writ for Martyrs 
The Curse of Canaan 
Murder by Injection 


The Legal Studies Group of the National Commission for 
Judicial Reform presents this latest investigative research coup 
of Eustace MuUins, in the hopes that it will aid the citizens 
of America to reduce the odds against winning a favorable 
decision in our courts. A native Virginian, Eustace MuUins 
is a descendant of William MuUins, whose name is on the 
Mayflower Compact, a government code written for the May- 
flower settlers, and the first compact written in the New World. 
He served thirty-eight months in the United States Army Air 
Force during World War 11. He was educated at Washington 
& Lee University, Ohio State University, the University of 
North Dakota, New York University, Escuela des Bellas Artes, 
San Miguel de AUende, and the Institute of Contemporary 
Arts, Washington, D.C. 

His name, Eustace, means "Justice," in Aramaic, the lan- 
guage spoken by Jesus Christ. 

In his forty years of investigative work, Eustace MuUins's 
rapid progress was made possible by his becoming the protege 
of Ezra Pound, the leading literary force of the twentieth cen- 
tury; George Stimpson, founder of the National Press Club, and 
the most respected journalist in Washington, D.C; and H. L. 
Hunt, the business entrepreneur with a consuming interest in 
good government. After Ezra Pound's passing, Eustace MuUins 
founded the Ezra Pound Institute of CivUization, which carries 
on Pound's ground-breaking work in literature and economics. 



1 Legal Anarchy 1 

2 The Origin of Law 16 

3 A Plague of Lawyers 56 

4 Judge Not 133 

5 The Supreme Court 188 

6 The Court as Arena 241 

7 The Department of Justice 276 

8 Durance Vile 313 

9 The Case of the Strange Director 336 

10 The Strange Case of the Schizophrenic Driver . . 370 

11 The Strange Case of the Senile Millionake .... 392 

12 Freedom of Speech, Anyone? 419 

13 Taxation Without Hope 429 

14 The Taxing Power 448 

15 Mullins on Equity 481 

16 Our Legal Future 532 



In my travels throughout the United States, I have found 
that the first complaint of our citizens is the sorry state of 
our legal system. They do not complain that the laws them- 
selves are onerous, but rather that thek administration is almost 
universally unfair and unjustified. I have even heard farmers 
arguing with each other at their markets, each protesting with 
inverted pride that "Our county has the crookedest lawyers 
and judges in this state," only to be met with the fervent 
response from a farmer representing another county, "Oh, 
no, our lawyers and judges are a lot crookeder than the ones 
in your county!" 

Americans recognize that we must have laws, and that we 
must abide by them, otherwise life would become intolerable. 
The problem is that law-abiding citizens are usually greeted 
in our courts with disbelief that anyone still obeys the laws 
in this nation, and two, that a legal system which is operated 
by and for criminals has no greater enemy than the law-abiding 

The first purpose of law has always been "Salus Populi," 
the safety of the people. I write this in a building which has 
five locks on every door. Twenty-five years ago, the doors 
were never locked. We hardly knew where the key to the 
front door was kept. With hundreds of other citizens in Wash- 
ington during its tropical sununers, I went to a nearby park 



to sleep in the era before air conditioning. Today, no one in 
his right mind would close his eyes in a Washington park, 
either by day or by night. It is rightfully known as the ' 'murder 
capital of the world," rather than as the capital city of the 
United States of America. 

This situation has been created, not by the negligence of 
the police, who are working harder than ever, but by the 
legal system, which abruptly denied the previous basis of 
our legal system, "Salus Populi," in 1933, with the advent 
of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who adopted the 
Marxist concept that the legal system was being used unfairly 
to defend property. Because of the Communist decree that 
all property was now the property of the state, the legal system 
need no longer defend crimes against personal property. This 
was soon extended to crimes against persons. The doctrine 
of compulsory equality meant that no citizen was entitled to 
wear a gold watch or to live in a large home. Other citizens 
who wished to deprive them of their excess property, even 
at the cost of their lives, were looked upon with approval 
by the legal system. If they injured or killed too many citizens 
in their exuberance, they might be confined for a short time, 
but they were soon released to continue the Marxist campaign 
of "levelling," that is, of reducing all citizens to a common 
level of fear and despair. This goal was first achieved in the 
Soviet Union, when Wall Street bankers financed the "noble 
experiment in compulsory equality." Soviet Russia was re- 
duced to a giant concentration camp, a Gulag in which tomor- 
row might be worse than today, but it would surely be no 
better. The United States has travelled that same road with 


remarkable speed, constantly accelerating the techniques which 
force our citizens to new levels of personal depth and degrada- 

Under this Marxist system, our citizens have found that 
the legal system is now something quite apart from "the law," 
that is, the fixed doctrine under which we live. A law is a 
fixed power. In contrast, the administration of the law today 
is a fluid power, in flux, and subject to outside influences, 
mainly the power of money and its concomitant political influ- 
ence. When an American citizen comes into court today, he 
is not faced with the power or the majesty of the law. To 
his dismay, he finds that this force is no longer present. Instead, 
he finds that he is facing the power of money, and the power 
of political influence. 

Traditionally, the scales of justice are depicted as awaiting 
the weight of the evidence. A preponderance on one side or 
the other will tip them to a just conclusion. Indeed, this is 
the ideal to which we still aspire. Unfortunately, it is rarely 
found today in our courts. If an attorney finds that the weight 
of evidence is tipping the scales against his client, he immedi- 
ately employs one of the myriad techniques of "civil proce- 
dure" to have that evidence declared inadmissible, to have 
his opponent's witnesses impeached or found incompetent, 
and to mount a counterattack of his own to tip the scales 
back to favor his client. This technique is called "practicing 
law." Like any other skill, it is honed by constant practice, 
but this skill depends heavily on its practitioner's willingness 
to employ any subterfuge on his client's behalf. It is as though 
a football game were being played during which the players 


were allowed to commit any unsportsmanlike or illegal act 
in order to gain a point, with the umpire (that is, the judge), 
actually cooperating in and officially approving the illegal 
conduct. In legal parlance, this has a name; it is known as 
"professional courtesy," because the judge, like the lawyers, 
is also a member of the bar. 


I extend heartfelt thanks to the staff of the Library of Con- 
gress, the curator of the John W. Davis Collection at the 
Law Library of Washington and Lee University, and most 
especially, to the staff of the Law Library of the University 
of Virginia (and indirectly, to Thomas Jefferson, who spon- 
sored this splendid university) for their painstaking cooperation 
in making this research possible. My sincere appreciation to 
Bill M. for his valuable guidance in the preparation of this 
book, and to my correspondents throughout the United States 
who have sent crucial material for my research. 


Chapter 1 

Legal Anarchy 

In perusing articles in the nation's press concerning the 
present practice of law, one can only ask whether the lunatics 
have finally taken over the asylum. Consider the following; 
a mother is ordered confined to jail for many months by a 
judge because she refuses to obey a court order from a judge 
who demands that she turn over her infant daughter to a di- 
vorced father. The mother refuses, because she states that 
the father has sexually abused the child, a statement reinforced 
by medical evidence. After twenty-seven months of confine- 
ment, she is still in prison, but has never faced a juiy or 
been convicted and sentenced for any offense. 

Another mother, in the state of California, is sent to jail 
because she refuses to turn over her fifteen year old son to 
her husband, a homosexual, and his lover. A judge in Boston 
appoints himself the Superintendent of Schools because he 
disagrees with the manner in which the city's schools are 
being operated. Another judge, in Yonkers, New York, fines 
the city one million dollars a day for "racism" because its 



inhabitants, who have fled in terror from the drug-crazed streets 
of Manhattan, now refuse to turn their neighborhoods over 
to the very criminal influences from which they had fled. 
They had been found guilty of the crime of "white flight," 
of seeking a more stable area in which to bring up their children. 
In American courts today, "white flight" is accepted by judges 
as prima facie evidence of guilt of the crime of "racism." 

Rather than extremes, these stories are to be garnered from 
the issues of any metropolitan daily newspaper. However, 
in more mundane court cases, which do not merit attention 
by the press, the ruling presence of what can only be described 
as madness (perhaps the peculiar delusions and madnesses 
of crowds), provides endless examples of equally horrendous 
examples of the rape of American justice and its perversion 
at the hands of the mob. The guillotine is omnipresent in 
our courts, where our modem Madame Desfarges sit knitting 
on the front row. Here again, the blade drops, not on the 
heads of criminals, but on those who have been found guilty 
of being productive, law-abiding citizens of these United States 
of America. 

Consider the following; a plaintiff sues for damages incurred 
in an automobile accident, after the person at fault has stead- 
fastly refused to make any payment. The opposing counsel 
finds an elderly black alcoholic who will support the defen- 
dant's claim that the plaintiff was responsible for the accident. 
However, during his deposition, the alcoholic states that he 
is unable to identify either the plaintiff or his vehicle. Realizing 
that they have a credibility problem, the defendant's lawyers 
suddenly have their witness committed to an insane asylum 
the day before the trial. (He has been an inmate on previous 


occasions). The plaintiff demands that this witness be produced 
before the trial can proceed. The judge has no option but to 
comply. The alcoholic is brought in from the insane asylum 
under armed guard. His testimony is crucial to the defense, 
but the jury must now consider its source. Before this farce 
goes much further, the judge hastily saves the day for the 
defendant by declaring a mistrial. 

At the second trial of this cause, the judge thoughtfully 
requests the plaintiff to bring his car to the court building, 
so that the jury can examine it and decide who was at fault. 
The plaintiff welcomes this opportunity to let the members 
of the jury look at his car. They file out and solemnly inspect 
the car, noting that its two right front doors have been smashed 
in, where the defendant's front bumper struck it three years 
before. The jury returns to its deliberations, and after eight 
minutes, files back into the courtroom to deliver their verdict 
that the plaintiff had backed his car into the firont bumper of 
the defendant, smashing in the two doors on the righthand 
side! The fact that this feat defies all the laws of physics 
carries no weight with them. Verdict for the defense. 

Developments of this type illustrate the theory of morphic 
resonance. Morphic resonance is the process by which the 
past becomes present within morphic fields. The rape of justice 
is an excellent illustration of the process by which the transmis- 
sion of causal formative influences becomes evident through 
space and time. The memory within the morphic fields is 
cumulative, so that things become increasingly habitual and 
more acceptable through repetition. This is apparent in much 
of our legal system, where the most outrageous testimony 
and judicial decisions are made to seem reasonable and accept- 


able. This illustrates the operation of morphic resonance con- 
ceived by an evolutionary spirit, becoming impressive non- 
material fields of influence extending through space and con- 
tinuing in time. Because they are localized within the systems 
which they organize, they turn the cosmos into a growing 
organism. However, the processes of morphic resonance need 
not be devoted entirely to formulae of insanity or unreason; 
they can just as easily be influenced by reason and human 
intelligence, instead of irrationality. This process was in force 
during the creation of the American Republic, when the finest 
minds among the American pioneers conceived the Constitu- 
tion as the vehicle in which to enshrine their reason. 

Even among these Founders of the Republic, there was 
no overweening optimism that what they had created would 
be immune from later abuse. Samuel Adams may have ex- 
pressed the concerns of his peers when he wrote in 1789, 

"I have always been apprehensive that through the weakness 
of the human mind often discovered in even in the wisest 
and best of Men, or the perverseness of the interested, and 
designing, in as well as out of Government; Misconstructions 
would be given to the federal constitution, which would disap- 
point the Views, and expectations of the honest among those 
who acceded to it, and hazard the Liberty, Independence and 
Happiness of the People. I was particularly affraid (sic) that 
unless great care should be taken to prevent it, the Constitution 
in the Administration of it would gradually, but swiftly and 
imperceptibly run into a consolidated Government pervading 
and legislating through all the States, not for federal purposes 
only as it professes, but in all cases whatsoever: such a Govern- 
ment would soon annihilate the sovereignty of the several 


States so necessary to the Support of the confederated Com- 
monwealth, and sink both in despotism." 

Adams did not envision the judiciary as the vehicle of this 
despotism, but his colleague, Thomas Jefferson, who was 
aware of the perils inherent in a central banking system as 
well as in a consolidated judiciary, wrote in 1821, 

"It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never 
shrunk from its expression. . . . ; that the germ of dissolution 
of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal 
judiciary: an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely 
a scare-crow.) working like gravity by night and by day, 
gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing 
its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, 
until all shall be usurped from the States, and the govenmient 
of all consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, 
when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in 
great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of 
all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of 
one government on another, and will become as venal and 
oppressive as the government from which we separated. It 
will be as in Europe, where every man must be either pike 
or gudgeon, hammer or anvil. . . . If the States look with 
apathy on this silent descent of their government into the 
gulf which is to swallow all, we have only to weep over the 
human character formed uncontrollable but by a rod of iron, 
and the blasphemers of man, as incapable of self-government, 
become his true historians." 

Modem governments rule by a simple formula, by convinc- 
ing the masses that they are able to exist by the labor of 
others. In return for this ' 'free' ' existence, they agree to ' 'coop- 


erate" in helping the "government" crush anyone who dares 
to speak out in favor of our traditional liberties. Frederic 
Bastiat, the French philosopher, pointed this out when he 
said, "Government is the great fiction through which every- 
body endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else." 
Note the crucial word "endeavours." The subhumans, that 
is, the gray men, the mattoids, those who admit they are 
unqualified to compete in the games of modem life, sink 
back into the morass from which they emerged, a morass 
which is variously labelled. Communism or other dictator- 
ships. In the United States, the gray men have found a unique 
defender, the court system. 

Although many Americans express concern, but little else, 
about the growing crime problem, few of us understand that 
most crimes are committed in our courts. If a criminal commits 
an illegal act, this constitutes a crime. However, when he is 
taken to court, our legal system then becomes an integral 
part of the criminal process. The crime of which the criminal 
stands accused is nothing to the crimes which are now commit- 
ted in the name of a "legal system." During the course of 
an ordinary legal action, whether it be criminal or civil, from 
three to ten additional crimes are usually committed. These 
crimes, in most instances, particularly if two attorneys are 
engaged, one as plaintiff and one as defendant, consist of 
subornation of perjury, suppression of evidence, intimidation 
or silencing of witnesses, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and 
denial of the rights of the injured party. 

Because of the crimes committed against them by the legal 
system, the American people have been for many years en- 
gaged in a desperate war, a war to the death. Their mere 


survival in this war is an amazing and almost unbelievable 
historical event, because most of us have no inkling that we 
are in the midst of a great war. We believe that war is a 
situation where two countries formally engage each other in 
battle. In fact, during the past five thousand years of recorded 
history, most wars have been internal, or civil wars. Very 
few of them are wars fought against an external enemy. 

Civil wars obscure the issues at stake, but the result is the 
same, the survival of the fittest. It is still a war of the fit 
against the unfit, even though the unfit manage to survive 
by creating alliances, by keeping the issues in the dark, and 
by dividing and conquering their historic foes. Although the 
results of this great civil war may result in a temporary advan- 
tage for one side or the other, the issue remains unresolved 
until one side has succeeded in ending the conflict by totally 
exterminating the opponent. The unfit are resolved that they 
will be the victors, and that the fit will disappear from the 
pages of history. The fit rarely have a clue as to what is at 
stake, that is, their very survival, and in most cases, they 
massacre each other at the clever instigation of the unfit. 

A further amazing aspect of this impasse is the fact that 
once the fit do disappear, if indeed they are exterminated, 
the unfit themselves, unable to exist without their parasitic 
dependence upon the fit, will also disappear from history. 
Humanity, as a brief happenstance of history, will be forgotten. 
This paradox is explained by the ample evidence of the psycho- 
logical aspects of the unfit — that they are perpetually mired 
in their self-hatred, and that the goal of their earthly existence 
is to end in their destruction. If this is their goal, one may 
well ask, why don't they go ahead and end it? They cannot 


do so until they have fulfilled what they see as their historic 
mission — ^to exterminate the fit everywhere on earth before 
they go down to their own long sought self-destruction. This 
dilemma is rooted in the hatred, misery, greed and envy which 
characterize the existence of the unfit upon the earth, from 
which they can never escape, despite any ameliorating effects 
of improvement or civilization. 

Rather than face this stark dilemma, most of the unfit prefer 
to ignore it, turning their attention to some ephemeral excuse 
for not facing reality. It is another paradox that the fit, so 
able to compete and to excel in any field of life, have but 
one condition which continues to place their very existence 
in peril, their refusal to face reality. From birth, they are 
brainwashed to deny their fitness, and to cast about for some 
area of weakness which will enable them to believe that they 
really belong with the unfit. It is this brainwashing which 
enables the unfit to constantly recruit able allies from the fit. 
Although the educational and religious systems are constantly 
maintained "in form" to achieve this objective, it is the legal 
system which remains the final arbiter of the unfit in their 
war against the fit. 

The present writer has appeared in American courts for 
some forty years, arguing his cause in every court except 
the Supreme Court of the United States. I have ignored the 
Supreme Court, because it is geared to handle only the plead- 
ings of special interests. The individual has no chance to 
appear before this court. It is a waste of time and money for 
an individual to prepare and submit a brief to the Supreme 
Court. If he can enlist the support of one of the special interests, 
who see in his plight some opportunity to advance their own 
cause, he has a chance, albeit a slim one. 


During these forty years of court appearances, a record 
which exceeds that of most practicing attorneys, this writer 
has seen elderly judges turn off their hearing aids, and sit 
dreaming of their mistresses, while apparently following with 
intense interest the droning protestations of attorneys and their 
paid witnesses. Many of us would be alarmed, thinking that 
if the judges are not listening to the testimony, justice is not 
being served. In fact, this creates no problem. In most litiga- 
tion, the case has been decided long before the trial actually 
begins. This charade is necessary in order for the attorneys 
to collect their enormous fees, and to convince the ignorant 
litigants that they have indeed had "their day in court." 

It is difficult to be critical of the judges for not bothering 
to listen to days and months of testimony in litigation, because 
experts believe that up to ninety per cent of all evidence 
given in American courts is perjury. The judges may have 
other impairments which interfere with their proper absorption 
of vast amounts of manufactured and coached testimony. This 
writer has appeared before judges who were widely known 
for their "quart a day" habit, a necessary preparation for 
sitting long hours on the bench. Although most of us might 
be affected by such daily consumption of the best Southern 
bourbon, here again, there is no real effect upon the judge's 
rendering a decision, as this has been decided before he took 
his first drink of the day, nor is there any question of his 
impartiality. His verdict usually favors a merchant or a profes- 
sional man over a complaining customer. 

There is also no real abridgment of the citizen's access to 
justice. He does have access to justice, but it is his misfortune 
that he is totally in the dark as to what kind of justice is 
available. He has been brainwashed to believe in the impartial- 


ity of the law, the application of Constitutional principles in 
our courts, and the absolute integrity of our legal system. 
At no time is he ever advised by his omnipresent "counsel" 
that the Constitutional "law" in which he retains such a child- 
like belief, touching in its very innocence, has long since 
been replaced by the "law merchant" that is, the law of 
commerce. This will be explained in greater detail in a later 
chapter, but for the moment, let us suppose that the citizen 
comes back with "Well, what's wrong with the law of com- 
merce? It is also a vehicle of integrity, is it not? Doesn't it 
maintain principles of equality and fair play, and honest deal- 

Certain aspects of the law merchant are acceptable — ^the 
merchant asks a price, and the buyer pays it. There is a warranty 
on the goods, debts should be paid and so on. However, 
there are disturbing ramifications to the law merchant. First, 
it is always international, although it may be applied nationally. 
Second, it recognizes no national boundaries, or any national 
obligations. The United Nations, a law merchant entity, had 
made this clear. For instance, under the United Nations Treaty, 
the crime of treason against an individual cannot be success- 
fully prosecuted. Alger Hiss had to be prosecuted for the 
crime of perjury, rather than the crime of treason, because 
he was protected by our acceptance of the United Nations 
Treaty (which he himself had written!). He was convicted 
of lying about his thefts of government documents, because 
he could not be convicted of turning them over to the Commu- 
nists. Subsequent espionage cases in the United States have 
been prosecuted by the same subterfuges, with varying results. 
Many of the convictions have been obtained by relying upon 
military regulations and their violation. Nevertheless, no 


American judge is willing to make the pronouncement in open 
court that we can no longer prosecute the crime of treason, 
although this is generally acknowledged throughout our judicial 

Judges and lawyers are always aware that they are proceed- 
ing according to the principles of the law merchant. Litigants 
are never informed of this crucial fact. Citizens who confidently 
cite their Constitutional rights in court are amazed to find 
that the judge becomes furious, and threatens them with severe 
punishment if Constitutional principles are brought up again. 
This is our hidden code of justice. It is not a secret code, 
because it is no secret that our courts function on the principles 
of the law merchant. However, it is concealed from the citizens, 
hence it is a hidden code. When the citizen objects that his 
Constitutional rights are being violated by this foreign proce- 
dure, he is curtly informed that "You just don't understand 
how we do things here." 

The law merchant principles guide the outrages committed 
by agents of the Internal Revenue Service against American 
citizens. Americans know that they are guaranteed the right 
of trial by jury, and cite the Seventh Amendment to the Consti- 
tution in support of that guarantee. However, the law merchant 
recognizes no right of trial by jury, nor does it recognize 
any "rights" of individuals. There are no rights; there are 
only adherence to the principles of the contract between the 
parties. The Internal Revenue Service would be violating its 
own principle, the principle of the law merchant, to allow 
trial by jury. For this reason, the Tax Court does not allow 
jury trial. The sitting judge is the only person who can render 
a decision. 

Another vexing aspect of Internal Revenue operations are 


the continual demands that personal records and papers be 
produced for their "inspection." They cannot know how much 
of your property to seize until they have made an inventory 
of it. This IRS custom was drafted by Lenin in his crucial 
program "The Threatening Catastrophe," in 1917, He laid 
down the dictum that "concealing income" would result in 
the confiscation of assets. Not only did this program ensure 
his success in setting up a Communist dictatorship in Russia; 
it also became the guiding principle of our Internal Revenue 
Service. The actual basis of the IRS operations is the Commu- 
nist principle that ownership of private property by an individ- 
ual is a crime. An individual who owns private property or 
assets of any kind, cash, bonds, etc., not only is committing 
a crime against the Communist State by owning said property — 
he commits an even more serious crime by not making a 
Jesuitical "confession," admitting that he owns said property 
which he has concealed, and that he thereby loses his rights 
to it. It is confiscated by the state. In essence, most "judg- 
ments" by IRS agents consist of the confiscation of all assets 
of the accused; not merely the "tax" owed, but all other 
assets as well, in penalties interest, fees and other "assess- 
ments." Thus Nikolai Lenin has established his dictatorship 
over the citizens of the United States. 

American citizens are expressly relieved of any obligation 
to turn over their personal records to government agents, ac- 
cording to our Constitution. However, the compulsory mainte- 
nance of records, and the compulsory producing of them in 
a controversy, is an essential feature of the law merchant. 
Without the keeping of adequate records, recording transac- 
tions and payments, commercial life would be very difficult. 


Therefore, the law merchant compels the keeping and produc- 
tion of records, a command which is now mandatory through- 
out our legal system, not only in tax controversies, but in 
all litigation, despite the fact that Constitutional law states 
that said records are the inviolable private property of the 
individual. However, the law merchant overrides this protec- 
tion by defining as a "merchant," anyone who engages in 
any conmiercial transaction, whether as a buyer or as a seller. 
Thus every citizen, engaging in commercial transactions on 
a daily basis, is classified under our present legal system as 
a "merchant," and thus subject to the precepts of the law 

Once the law merchant had become the dominating factor 
in our legal system, just after the Civil War, lawyers began 
to demand the production of personal papers and documents. 
However, this did not become endemic until after the Second 
World War, when individual nations which had attempted to 
establish national boundaries for their commercial law, and 
had become identified as "fascist" nations because of that 
precept, had gone down in utter defeat, and the international 
commands of the law merchant had become the law of all 
nations. Court orders are routinely issued by judges for the 
"production of documents," ignoring all Constitutional pro- 
tection against such orders. These orders also become the 
instrument for destroying an opponent, because an order to 
produce documents can run into millions of dollars in costs. 
Such costs are always ignored by our judges, because "justice 
must be served" — ^no matter what the cost to the parties. 
This meant that litigation, which had once been the trial of 
issues of fact, that is, the conflicting stories of the opposing 


litigants, now became a process of "discovery," meaning 
that a race was on to discover which party would run out of 
money first, and then go into default. 

The present writer has endured many such assaults upon 
his personal rights. He was stripped of all the earnings from 
his historic work, the first history of the Federal Reserve 
System, when a conniving "philanthropist," who had guaran- 
teed him all proceeds from the sales of the book, embezzled 
all of the income from sales. With no other recourse, this 
writer was forced to sue him. He was then served with a 
federal court order by the philanthropist's attorneys, to produce 
all of his income tax returns, expense disbursements, and 
other financial data for the previous thirty-five years, although 
he had been involved with the philanthropist for only two 
years. Being unable to comply with this federal court order, 
this writer was then informed he could either go to jail for 
an indeterminate period, possibly life, since the records could 
not be produced at any time in the future, or he could sign 
a quitclaim, which he did. The embezzler kept all of the 
proceeds fi-om the book, aided and abetted not only by a 
federal judge, but by the precepts of the law merchant. 

Most Americans, being informed of this amazing outcome, 
would exclaim, "That's impossible! They can't do that!" 
Of course they can't do that, under Constitutional law. How- 
ever, such a court order is routine under the law merchant. 
At the time of this imbroglio, this writer had seen references 
to the "law merchant," but naively supposed that it referred 
to the Uniform Commercial Code. I strode into court, prepared 
to defend my complaint on Constitutional principles. Instead, 
I was quickly ground down by the wheels of our legal Jugger- 


naut, the law merchant. At no time was I infonned that our 
modem day Benedict Arnolds had turned the court (our West 
Point fortress of our rights) over to the English foe, or that I 
was now standing on the property of the Bank of England. 
However, in future trials, I will be prepared. I will begin by 
requesting the court to identify each legal procedure used in 
the trial, as to whether it is authorized by the Constitution, 
citing the pertinent Article, or whether it is a procedure of 
the law merchant, again identified by the pertinent code. The 
judge has but one defense — ^to cite me for ' 'contempt of court' ' 
each time I raise this question. Otherwise, he will have to 
answer my request. 

Chapter 2 

The Origin of Law 

The law under which we live, that law which is now so 
liberally construed, altered, misinterpreted, and bent to private 
ends by members of the legal profession, has always been 
intended, from its earliest records, as a fixed power. The 
word "law" in its pristine meaning, is recorded in its Old 
English roots, "Lauh," or "Laucht," meaning "laid" or 
"fixed." This in turn was earlier derived from the Aryan 
"logh," also meaning fixed, and in the Teutonic root, "lag," 
meaning, "to lie in a fixed manner," and evenly. In Latin, 
it was "lex," or law, and in Old French, "loi" a word similar 
to the earlier Aryan logh. 

In previous civilizations, the law was not only regarded 
as a fixed power; it was deemed to originate in the heavens, 
and in godly rule. We find in the Cairo Museum a nineteenth 
century B.C. papyrus, the "Hymn to Amen-Ra": 

"Hail to thee, Ra, Lord of Law; father of the gods; maker 
of men." 

Civilized nations have generally acknowledged that the ulti- 



mate source of the law and its authority is the will of God, 
as it was codified in scripture. In Isaiah 2;3, "The law shall 
come forth from Zion." In Micah, 4;2, "The law shall go 
forth from Zion." Isaiah 51 declares, "Thus saith the Lord; 
Hearken unto Me, ye that know righteousness, the people in 
whose heart is My Law; fear ye not the reproach of men. 
Neither be ye afraid of their revilings. For the moth shall 
eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them 
like wool; but My Righteousness shall be forever, and My 
Salvation from generation to generation." 

Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries, a primary 
source in the English common law, states a profound belief 
in the origin of law: "When the Supreme Being formed the 
universe, and created matter out of nothing, he impressed 
certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never 
depart, and without which it would cease to be." Blackstone's 
observation, offered as an article of his faith, has been remark- 
ably verified by the modem discovery of DNA, the gene 
structure which controls our actions. The law, then, is not 
only the law of God, the law of men, and the law of our 
people, but it is also the law of nature, the very law which 
binds oiu" physical being. This explains the multitude of "psy- 
chosomatic" illnesses which plague millions of people, and 
which stem directly from the perversion of law and the rape 
of justice. In my book of health, "Murder by Injection," I 
quoted the great scientist, Morley Roberts, on "Malignancy 
and Evolution," "Malignancy is the diversion of energy from 
high differentiation into the proliferation of low-grade epithelia 
which can endure irritation but only differentiate with difficulty. 
May we go further and even say that the common tendency 


to malignancy is the result of sociological refinements which 
ask for a higher role for epitheha?" In short, Morley Roberts 
is asking whether the widespread cases of cancer are not due 
to sociological factors, which demand that we alter our genetic 
makeup in order to proliferate low-grade epithelia. The courts 
have led the way in this "crusade," punishing the healthier 
and more productive members of society in favor of "the 
deprived, the homeless, the malformed. ' ' This has been accom- 
panied by the systematic debauching of our monetary unit 
through international central bank manipulation, as I pointed 
out in "Secrets of the Federal Reserve," impoverishing the 
healthier, productive members of society. The subsequent ruin, 
in turn, has resulted in the weakening of our immune systems, 
creating the phenomena of AIDS, cancer, and many other 
degenerative types of illnesses. 

The first codifications of law recorded in civilization ac- 
knowledged the importance of law to our human systems. 
Noah enjoined his sons to observe justice, to cover the shame 
of their flesh, to bless their Creator, to honor their father 
and mother, and to refrain from iniquity and uncleanness. 
These principles were later refined into the form in which 
we know them, the Ten Conunandments. Man's very existence 
was predicated upon his obedience to the Law of God. Tradition 
maintains that this law was formulated as a verbal acknowl- 
edgement of the covenant between God and His People. It 
entailed consideration from both parties, and thus was a legal 
and binding contract according to the established principles 
of law. However, this Covenant did not encompass all of 
the known population of the world, but merely that group 
known as God's People, the People of Israel. As chronicled 


in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, Man, that is, Adam, 
was ruddy of complexion. This ruddiness was the conscious 
reminder of his dedication to upholding the Law of God. 
Whenever he transgressed this law, he would blush, in con- 
scious acknowledgement that he had been disobedient. The 
blood would rush to his face, in a visible blush, as the mark 
of his disobedience and the reminder that he must fulfill the 

Because of this dedication, Adam had an immortal soul. 
His son, Enoch, differed from Adam because he was mortal. 
Henceforth, God's Law would deal with the mortality of His 
People. God later blessed the seed of Isaac, because "Abraham 
obeyed My Charge and kept My Commandments and obeyed 
My Law." Among Isaac's sons, a term later shortened to 
more popular usage as "Saxons," was Jacob, whose name 
was later changed to Israel. Since that day, Israel has been 
the chosen People of God. Isaac's sons, the Saxons, brought 
God's Law to the nations of the world, as they emigrated 
and settled in other lands. This law was codified by the jurists 
of England, principally by Coke and Blackstone, as the English 
common law. It was later transformed, after having been 
brought across the Atlantic Ocean by English colonists, as 
the Constitution of the United States. The Founding Fathers 
were acutely conscious of their precepts and thek mission. 
Samuel Adams, the main instigator of the struggle for Ameri- 
can independence from England, declared, "We have come 
here to establish our Israel." 

The history of civilization has always been marked by the 
clearly defined milestones of codified law. In 2250 B.C., 
the Code of Hammurabi was promulgated "to establish law 


and justice in the land. ' ' We have also been greatly influenced 
by the codes of Roman jurispradence, which were administered 
as the ruling code of the world for some thirteen hundred 
years. Kent's Commentaries, the principal legal textbook for 
American lawyers throughout the nineteenth century, notes. 
Vol. I, p 556, "The great body of the Roman or civil law 
was collected and digested by order of the Emperor Justinian, 
in the former part of the sixth century. ... It exerts a very 
considerable influence upon our own municipal law." 

The Roman jurists developed the principle of ' 'jus naturale, ' ' 
that is, a code of laws which reflected the laws of nature 
and the natural order. In his Commentaries, Blackstone ex- 
pands upon this "law of nature." "Law of nature — ^the Will 
of his maker is called the Law of Nature, being coeval with 
mankind, and directed by God Himself as a course superior 
in obligation to any other. It is binding over the globe in all 
countries and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, 
if contrary to this." 

Blackstone also writes that ' 'Revealed Law is only scripture. 
Upon these two foundations, one, the law of nature, and 
two, the Law of Revelation, depend all human laws; that is 
to say, no human law should be suffered to contradict them." 

This is in strange contrast to our present day legal system, 
in which the rape of justice daily contradicts both the Law 
of Revelation, and the law of nature. 

Because it was developed over a period of many centuries, 
Roman law had ample time to respond to the emerging prob- 
lems brought on by its historical growth. Founded by Romulus 
in 753 B.C., Rome became a Republic in the year 509, after 
the expulsion of the Etruscan kings. In 450 B.C., the Laws 


of the Twelve Tables were formulated. The earliest Roman 
law was the Jus Quiritium, developed by the Quirites, who 
were the First Families of the Republic. As patricians, the 
Quiritian Law was developed primarily to protect their families 
and their property. These families were known as gentes, or 
the clans. Their descendants have since been known to history 
as "gentlemen," as contrasted to the less distinguished masses, 
or plebs, as the freedmen, or non-gentiles, were known. The 
Latin "gentilis" meant belonging to the same clan or gentes. 
In those European nations which developed from these Roman 
antecedents, the gentes' descendants were known by the sobri- 
quet "gentilhonmie" in France, and as "gentlemen," later, 
aristocrats, in England. 

The privileges arrogated by the First Families, the gentle- 
men, became a source of constant criticism and contention 
from the plebs. In fact, ancient Rome soon developed into 
the two groups which have remained fairly constant for three 
thousand years, the older families, which held the majority 
of property, and the masses. In the twentieth century, they 
are usually known as Republicans, and Communists. 

The essential difference between the two classes was that 
the patricians, or gentlemen, knew who their parents were, 
and the plebs, who paid little attention to such niceties, did 
not. Because of their family records, the patricians were able 
to hand down their property to their heirs, while the plebs, 
even if they prospered, had no family records with which to 
protect their holdings. This fundamental distinction led to 
the demands of the plebs that the government intervene to 
support them, demands which, some twenty-five centuries 
later, led to the Communist Manifesto, and Karl Marx's de- 


mand that all inheritance be abolished. In the United States, 
this precept of Communism was enshrined in punitive inheri- 
tance taxation and income taxes. 

The Quiritian Laws in ancient Rome served to protect the 
family lines of the patrician families, and to provide inheri- 
tances for their descendants, their rightful and acknowledged 
heirs. Property and inheritance laws have been a basic part 
of our laws since that time. Roman law was divided into the 
fas jus and the boni mores. By fas was understood the will 
of the gods. The scholar Breal derives this word from the 
Greek "oeuis," meaning, the divinely inspired word, the laws 
given by heaven for earth. Jus also derived from the Sanskrit 
ju, to join, bond or unite, meaning the family bonds and 
ties which transcended the mortality of man. This was later 
interpreted as the jos or jaus of the Vedas, and the jaes or 
jaos of the Zend-Avesta. Boni mores was an essential ingredi- 
ent of the maintenance of the patrician family; it meant dutiful 
service, respect, chastity, and fidelity to the law of contract, 
the law of the family. 

The stem family discipline of the Roman patricians, which 
enabled them to continue their family lines, was steadily bat- 
tered by the rapidly multiplying plebs, whose mathematical 
proliferation and willingness to endure a lower standard of 
living resulted in their greatly outnumbering the patricians. 
Under this pressure, the great landed estates were broken up 
into smaller, individually held parcels of property, as the 
gentes, or clans, began to disintegrate. Heretofore, strict laws 
had governed the ownership of property in Rome. Heredia, 
that is, plots of land within the city proper, had been granted 
to the heads of the gentes, the leaders of the patricians. Our 


word heredity derives from this custom, referring to the passing 
on of these plots of land to the heirs of the patricians. 

Emboldened by their increasing numbers, the plebs began 
to demand more and more "rights" for themselves. The is- 
suance of the Twelve Tables marked a watering down of the 
original Jus Quiritium. This process was greatly enhanced 
with the Jus Civile, at the establishment of the Republic. 
Our "civil law" derives its name from the outcome of the 
centuries long struggle between the patricians and the plebs, 
when the plebs insisted upon a law which granted them more 
privileges, as "civil" laws. In 471 B.C., the plebs celebrated 
their final triumph, with the establishment of the "tribunes," 
as the expression of their newfound political power. Thus 
the patrician age in Rome lasted a scant three hundred years, 
a short period in the long history of Rome. Nevertheless, 
much of the power and organization of Rome continued to 
be based on the stem precepts of its founding patricians, just 
as much of the protection afforded to its citizens in the United 
States by the Constitution had been laid down by the stem 
precepts of our own Founding Fathers. Even today, our lawgiv- 
ing bodies are frequently referred to as ' 'tribunals, ' ' as recogni- 
tion of the triumph of the plebs in Rome in 471 B.C. 

In 445 B.C., Caious Canuleius led the final assault of the 
plebs against the entrenched privileges of the patrician families. 
He wrested from them the source of their continuing power, 
the protection of their blood lines. By very stringent and exclu- 
sive marriage bans, they had managed to preserve their blood 
lines by prohibiting marriage with a pleb. Canuleius now 
succeeded in overcoming this ancient prohibition. From that 
time on, plebs were allowed to marry into the patrician families. 


Rome was now "democratized." With this democratization 
came the inevitable dimunition of the powerful blood lines 
which had so encouraged the ascendancy of Rome. Rome, 
in the time of the passage of a mere three cenmries, had 
already begun her downhill road to decline. With the new 
democracy came increasing power and growing complexity 
of the Roman legal system. Cicero was led to publicly denounce 
the wellknown practice of bribing jurors. By the end of the 
fourth century, B.C., Ammianus Marcellinus protested that 
' 'We see the most violent and rapacious classes of men besieg- 
ing the houses of the rich, cunningly creating lawsuits. Doors 
are now daily more and more opened to plunder by the deprav- 
ity of judges and advocates who are all alike." 

We could remind Marcellinus of the old saw that "The 
more things change the more they remain the same. ' ' Certainly 
his complaint could be echoed in any American city today. 
At the present time, our economy is imperilled by the burgeon- 
ing merger and acquisition activity among the large corpora- 
tions, as they prey upon and swallow up each other. Corpora- 
tions were wellknown in Roman law; the provisions for the 
establishment of corporations had been copied from the laws 
of Solon. Private companies were entitied to stay in business 
as long as they did nothing contrary to the public law. This 
precept was soon ignored. Both Augustus and Julius Caesar 
were forced to dissolve the corporations, because then- machi- 
nations created widespread faction and discord among the 
people. It was during this crisis that a schism developed which 
has remained fairly constant to the present time, the schism 
between the civil law, which was designed to protect the 
public, and the law merchant, or the law of commercial activi- 


ties, which was designed solely to protect the merchant. Al- 
though civil law takes into consideration the rights of the 
individual, commercial law only recognizes the stipulations 
of the contract, however this might infringe upon the rights 
of the citizen. Also, commercial law was pragmatic in its 
origins, having developed strictly from mercantile operations, 
whereas civil law ostensibly was based upon religious precepts 
and the Law of God. 

By 467 A.D., Roman civil law, overtaken by historical 
developments, had reached the end of its legal authority. In 
476, the Roman Catholic Church sought to resuscitate the 
power and authority of the ancient Roman law through its 
worldwide operations, with the presentday version of the Ro- 
man Empire headquartered in the Vatican, in Rome. The Ro- 
man Senate re-emerged as the Vatican's College of Cardinals. 
In contrast to this development, England became the repository 
of the ancient law of Isaac's sons, or Saxon law. Three branches 
of this law were established there; the Danes brought Dane 
Lag, the Danish Law, to England; the West Saxons brought 
the West Saxon Law to England; and the ancient Britons 
had their traditional Mercan-Lage, or Mercian Laws. King 
Alfred the Great codified the English common law in 872 
A.D., as the Dooms of Alfred, taking his inspiration from 
tiie Covenant of Moses. By this upholding of the contract 
with God, Alfred assumed the title of "Great," becoming 
the representative of the People of Israel. 

Blackstone notes that "The common law of England is 
generally founded in Biblical principles." Alfred the Great 
began his Dooms of Alfred with the Ten Commandments. 
In the eleventh century, Henriciius Bracton blended the English 


common law with the Roman law, as it had been revised in 
the Justinian Code of 533 A.D. This became operative in 
England as a Christian version of Roman law. Hugo Grotius, 
a lawgiver whom one of our Founding Fathers, James Madison, 
called "the father of the modem code of nations" firmly 
believed that God's law was superior to human laws. This 
view upheld Cicero's earlier contention that a law of the state 
which was in contradiction of natural law could not be viewed 
as law. 

The Anglo-Saxon common law developed in three distinct 
steps: first, as the conmion law; second, as Equity; and third, 
as Parliamentary enactments. Each development represented 
a fiirther watering down and perversion of the original Teutonic 
or Anglo Saxon precepts. In the United States, we have fol- 
lowed a similar path. American law began as Constitutional 
law, the enshrinement of the ancient Teutonic strictures which 
protected the rights of the individual from powerful lords, 
which today we call the State. Coirmiercial legal requirements 
then gradually took over as equity law or the law merchant, 
continually subduing Constitutional precepts of law, a process 
which was typified by the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth 
amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These 
amendments contraverted the original intent of the Constitu- 
tion, as Congressional or Parliamentary enactments, which 
were and are legislative powers delegated to the law merchant. 
Included in these developments are the Federal Reserve Act, 
the Internal Revenue Service code, and the National Recovery 
Act of the Roosevelt Administration. The latter was overturned 
by the Supreme Court, as obviously being imconstitutional. 
However, the Federal Reserve Act and the Internal Revenue 


Service have never been challenged before the Supreme Court. 

The principal feature of the ancient Teutonic law, from 
which our common law derives, was "veragelt," a legal princi- 
ple which established the payment of compensation for death 
or injury. Also known as "manngold," it evolved into the 
term "wergeld" under Saxon (or Isaac's sons) law. The 
amount of wergeld was always stated in schillings. After Wil- 
liam the Conqueror invaded England and established the power 
of the "Black Nobility" there (see "The Curse of Canaan," 
by Eustace MuUins), the nation was once again divided into 
two classes, the foreign lords and the native bom population. 
The natives became known as borders, or villeins. A "border" 
was a villein of the lowest rank, who held his cottage only 
at his lord's pleasure, and only if he produced sufficient income 
to the lord to justify his continued presence. This became 
known as the legal principle of Bordlands Anglice, governing 
the land held by a border in tenure under Anglican law, which 
was also known as villeinage. 

The fundamental change in legal authority in England after 
the Norman Conquest eliminated many of the principles of 
the ancient Anglo-Saxon law. However, it continued to be 
the basis of the legal system, because it was so firmly rooted 
in long recognized Roman and Saxon precepts. These precepts 
could be traced all the way back to Alaric the Goth Visigoth, 
who issued laws for his Roman subjects well before Justinian. 
His code was known as the Breviarium Alarici, or the Lex 
Romana Visigothorum. In England, Alaric's precepts were 
preserved in the Lex Salica, circum 500 A.D., in the Dooms 
of Ethelbert, of 600 A.D. , and in the Lex Saxonum. However, 
legal historians often choose to ignore these precepts, prefer- 


ring to attribute the development of the common law to Henry 
of Bratton, whose name was later corrupted to Bracton. He 
died in 1268 A.D. These historians claim that "legal mem- 
ory," that is, the record of our legal system, can only be 
traced through written precepts to the coronation of Richard 
I in 1189. Bracton served King Henry in for many years, 
as the model for Henry's justices. His legal work was based 
upon the treatise of Azo of Bologna, who is remembered as 
"Master of all the masters of the laws." Bracton, in turn, 
served as the model for the most illustrious name in English 
common law. Sir Edward Coke. 

Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634), was bom of an old Norfolk 
family, which traced its lineage back to William of Coke of 
Dedlongton, in 1206. Coke not only managed to codify the 
English common law in his Institutes; he was also embroiled 
in most of the major political disputes of his time. He was 
bom to the lord of the manor of Milkham. At the age of 
nineteen, he began the study of law in 1571 at Cliffords Inn 
at the Imer Temple in London. He completed his studies 
some seven years later, in 1578, and was called to the bar 
on April 20 of that year. His first marriage, in 1582, was a 
fortunate one. He married Bridget, the daughter of John Poston 
of Suffolk. She brought him a dowry of thirty thousand pounds. 
After her death, he made an even more advantageous second 
marriage, choosing Lady Elizabeth Hatton, granddaughter of 
the great Cecil, Lord Burghley. The Burghley family, the 
Cecils, were one of the three mling families of England. 
Coke's political future was now assured. His first marriage 
had brought him money; his second marriage, power. He 
had now become privy to the small inner circle of the men 
who actually mled England. 


Coke had won Lady Elizabeth despite the fact that, as a 
very desirable partner, she had been actively pursued by two 
of England's most powerful lords, the Earl of Essex, and 
Sir Francis Bacon. Essex was rumored to be the lover of 
Queen Elizabeth; Bacon, a founder of the Rosicrucian Society, 
maintained secret alliances with Freemasons throughout Eu- 
rope. In his continuing quest for power, he was able to draw 
upon these sources for support. He also became Coke's princi- 
pal rival in seeking the influential post of chief justice of the 
common pleas. Again, Coke won the post. As the protege 
of Lord Burghley, he was named Chief Justice of the King's 
Bench in 1613. In this office, he had the pleasure of prosecuting 
another former rival, the Earl of Essex, in 1600. Later, he 
was the prosecutor of Sir Walter Raleigh in 1603; in 1605, 
he prosecuted the perpetrators of the Gunpowder Plots. 

When his daughter married the elder brother of the Duke 
of Buckingham at his wife's home, Oatlands, Coke further 
cemented his growing political alliances. Throughout a long 
legal career. Coke dedicated himself to completing his monu- 
mental work on law, first published in 1628 as Coke's Insti- 
tutes; it was also known as Coke on Littleton. Subsequent 
volumes of this work continued to appear until 1644. Coke's 
work remains the fundamental treatise on law, although it is 
seldom taught in American law schools. After the triumph 
of equity, the system of the law merchant, in our system of 
jurisprudence, Coke and Blackstone's works were relegated 
to remote shelves in the rare book rooms. 

The lasting influence of Coke's work may be attributed to 
its firm grounding in both Roman and Anglo-Saxon law. Coke 
returned to the principles of the ancient Jus Quirites, when 
he divided the people into two classes, the nobility and the 


commonalty. This was a restatement of the earliest legal divi- 
sion in Rome, the patricians or the gentes, and the plebs. 
Coke began his work with the statement, "Reason is the 
life of the law; nay, the common law itself is nothing but 
reason . . ."He continues with a Latin maxim, "neminam 
oportet essem sapientorem legibus; no man (out of his own 
private reason) ought to be wiser than the law, which is the 
perfection of reason." 

Coke also commented in the Institutes that "the common 
law of England is called right, sometimes common right, 
and sometimes communis justitia." He dwelt on the principle 
of ligeance, or a ligando, that is, the quality of allegiance as 
"the highest and greatest obligation of duty and obedience." 
With this precept, he had returned to that stem sense of duty 
which had guided the patricians of Rome and the establishment 
of the Roman Empire. It was just such a sense of duty which 
guided our Founding Fathers, and such leaders as General 
Robert E. Lee. 

These basic qualities of Coke in his work later made a 
great impression on the imprisoned poet Ezra Pound, who 
had been shut away without trial because of his obedience 
to such a stem sense of duty. Coke also spent much of his 
later life as a political prisoner. During his years as a prisoner. 
Pound was able to study the entire work of Coke, which 
had appeared in four parts: 1. The reprint of Littleton's treatise 
on tenure, which was to serve law students during ensuing 
centuries as their first textbook; 2. the text of various statutes 
of the Statute de Donis, and other statutes to Magna Carta 
to James I; 3. criminal law; 4. the jurisdiction of the different 
courts of law. He later published his further studies of the 
law. Coke's Reports, which appeared in thirteen parts. 


Despite his powerful political patrons, Coke frequently 
found himself under attack by his many enemies. On Feb. 
26, 1620, he delivered an important speech on the problems 
of the scarcity of money, a statement which increased the 
number of his enemies by the number of those whose fortunes 
were made by trading in money. After much study of the 
problem, he found that the scarcity of money could be traced 
to seven causes, which he enumerated as: 1. the turning of 
money into plate; 2. the use of gold folia in gilding; 3. the 
undervaluing of silver; 4. the East India Company ' 'who inter- 
cept the dollars and other moneys that would otherwise come 
into the Kingdom and bring in for it nothing but toys and 
trifles; 5. the excess of imports over exports; 6. the French 
merchants for wine carry forth 780,000 pounds per annum 
and bring nothing but wines and laces and such like trifles; 
7. the patent for gold and silver lace and thread which wastes 
our bullion and coin and hinders the bringing of it into the 

Much of Coke's definition of the problem facing his nation 
four centuries ago is applicable to the plight of the United 
States as we approach the twenty-first century. We too are 
plagued by an excess of imports over exports. We import 
not only wine and lace, but oil and many other expensive 
products. Coke's emphasis on the necessity of maintaining 
the nation's supply of bullion echoes the preoccupation of 
our Founding Fathers, when they inserted into the Constitution 
the specific provision that lawful money should consist of 
gold and silver. However, it was Coke's open criticism of 
the activities of the East India Company which caused him 
to undergo the most severe pressures. This company repre- 
sented then, and for many years afterward, the secret govern- 


ment of the British Empire. With full knowledge of this power, 
Coke refused to hold his tongue, when more prudent men 
would have remained silent. The passion for justice which 
ruled his life was not confined to the courtroom, but was 
applied to every realm of life. Chambers Encyclopaedia notes 
that "from 1606, Coke stood as the champion of national 
liberties, opposing any illegal encroachment of both church 
and crown." He openly criticized the Spanish marriage of 
King James I, who married a Catholic. This marriage resulted 
in a civil war, the end of the Stuart dynasty in England, and 
the Glorious Revolution. 

King James I responded to this criticism by sending Coke 
to the Tower of London. The imprisonment lasted for nine 
months; Coke was released in August of 1622. While he 
was in prison, his enemies sought to close in on him. Five 
different lawsuits were filed against him. He won them all. 
He was called up by government agents four times for lengthy 
examination "on state interests" with no incriminating results. 
His chambers were repeatedly ransacked; again, no evidence 
against him was found. Nevertheless, his private papers were 
seized and brought to the council to be searched. His victorious 
emergence from these trials later caused him to refer to his 
"seven great deliveries while in the Tower" (Holkham Ms 

For the remainder of his life. Coke remained under suspi- 
cion. In 1631, King Charles I gave the order that his papers 
should be secured (SPDP S.P.D. clxxxiii 490) lest he be an 
influence on the people. However, Coke continued to denounce 
any interference by the Crown with the liberties of Parliament. 
He opposed King Charles I's demands for additional subsidies 


for the Crown; he continued to speak against illegal taxation; 
and he denounced the King's favorite, the Duke of Bucking- 
ham. For these reasons, his career as a citizen of England 
was as illustrious as his career as a jurist and as a legal scholar. 
After his imprisonment in the Tower of London, he was se- 
cluded in his home in Stoke Poges. On the news that he 
was seriously ill, a King's Warrant had been prepared (S.P.D. 
cclxxii 65), and an envoy, Sir Francis Windebank, was sent 
to Stoke Poges to seize Coke's personal papers. These effects 
were kept by the government for seven years. Many of his 
most important manuscripts disappeared; even his will was 
never returned to his heirs. They had to assign his belongings 
without the benefit of his testament. Sir Edward Coke died 
at Stoke Poges on September 3, 1634. His personal story is 
typical of the treatment of a great man by envious and lesser 
rivals, who knew how to abuse their governmental powers. 
Many years later, one of his descendants, Thomas Coke, was 
finally named Lord of Holkham; his present heir is known 
as the Viscount of Coke. 

Sir Edward Coke's long and fruitful life embraced the years 
of the British Empire's greatest power, which had been attained 
under Queen Elizabeth, from 1558 to 1603. James I followed, 
from 1603-1625; Charles I from 1625 to 1649. Coke had 
entertained Queen Elizabeth at his home in Stoke Poges in 
1601. During that visit, he presented her with gifts worth at 
that time more than one thousand pounds. Coke's patron, 
Lord Burghley, was Elizabeth's secretary of state. Whether 
because of or in spite of his illustrious patronage, Coke never 
hesitated to challenge Elizabeth's successor, King James I. 
Coke's successful impeachment of Sir Francis Bacon was 


widely interpreted as a direct attack upon the authority of 
King James, and the king himself believed this was the case. 
Coke had stood before the King, citing Bracton to his face, 
"The king should be subject to no man, but to God and the 
law." After King James' death, his enemies circulated the 
claim that he had been a homosexual, a slander which has 
been traced to but one originator, Anthony Weldon, who had 
been excluded from court circles. As a consequence of this 
exile, he developed a pathological hatred of the Stuart family. 
He first penned the story about King James in 1650, twenty- 
five years after James' death. Antonia Fraser, a prominent 
historian, attributes the slanders to the fact that James had 
begun to suffer from early senility, years before his death, 
causing "peculiar unorthodox behaviour." In support of King 
James, historians cite cardinal facts of his life; that he was 
the first in history to unite the feuding tribes of Scotland 
into one nation; the man who united Scotland and England; 
and the man who encouraged the propagation of the Bible 
in the language of the people; the King James version of the 

Coke's impeachment of Sir Francis Bacon not only caused 
King James to imprison him; it also brought down upon him 
the wrath of the rapidly growing Masonic movement through- 
out Europe. Freemasons and their shock troops, the lUuminati, 
have continuously sought to wreak their sinister program on 
the people through control of the legal system. To lose the 
chief justice of England was a serious setback to their plans. 
In retrospect, we can only wonder that he was not executed, 
as the death penalty was a frequently employed punishment 
of political offenders. Apparently the Cecil connection was 


too great, and Coke was allowed to die quietly at his home. 
The Dictionary of National Biography honors him with an 
effusive memorial, "in his mode of stating what he believes 
or wishes to believe, he often reaches a perfection of form, 
exhibiting that freedom from flabbiness and that careful use 
of terms which is essential to a good legal style." 

Legal historians have pointed out that perhaps never before 
or since has one man made so much law. He denied the 
right of the king to judge cases personally, or to give jurisdic- 
tion to ecclesiastical courts at the expense of the courts of 
the common law. He asserted that it was unlawful to give a 
commission (such as a royal commission) the power to hear 
and determine offenses which should be heard in the ordinary 
courts. Such practice robbed the citizen of the protection of 
established law. Coke maintained that no martial law which 
was executed by military law should be carried out without 
following the common law process. He briUiantly expounded 
the conmion law, simultaneously defeating Sir Francis Bacon's 
project to codify the law, a tactic for which Bacon had appar- 
ently been engaged by his Masonic conspirators. Coke thus 
gave us an exposition of the common law which has spread 
it throughout the English-speaking world. Coke laid down 
in Peacham's case (1615) that it is contrary to law to ask 
the judges separately before trial in a pending case to give 
their opinions in camera and ex parte. This practice has become 
a growing abuse in the American legal system. It was Sir 
Edward Coke, standing alone, who denied the right of the 
king to delay or stop proceedings in the common law courts. 
Coke further denied the right of the King to make law by 


Coke's monumental Institutes fixed the common law for 
the next three centuries, and established its supremacy over 
the Church, the Admiralty, the Star Chamber, and the code 
system of law which was propounded by Sir Francis Bacon. 
Coke also established its supremacy over the royal prerogative, 
through his insistence upon grand jury indictments, jury trial 
protection against unlawful searches and seizures (from which 
he himself was not protected), protection against double jeop- 
ardy, and the right of habeas corpus. It seems impossible 
that one man could have done so much, and thus he remains 
an inspiration to all who share his passion for justice. Few 
Americans today are aware of Sir Edward Coke's influence 
upon our Founding Fathers. Our historians ignore Coke's great 
feat in backing the Petition of Right of 1628 in England, 
which directly challenged the ascendancy of King Charles I. 
King Charles not only ignored the Petition of Right; he contin- 
ued on his arrogant course while his popular support steadily 
eroded. He was executed in 1649. The Petition of Right later 
became a major factor in the drafting of our Declaration of 
Independence and the Constitution's Bill of Rights. 

The rivahy between Sir Edward Coke and Sir Francis Bacon 
continued to affect the history of England long after both 
were gone. Ironically, it was Coke's challenge to the Crown 
as an absolute monarchy which resulted in the limited mon- 
archy which we find today in England. His challenge exposed 
the vulnerability of the absolute monarchy, a situation which 
was eagerly exploited by a group of bankers in Amsterdam. 
They financed Oliver Cromwell and his Puritan forces' military 
takeover of England, resulting in the execution of King Charles 
I. When Cromwell's death without a suitable heir led to the 


collapse of this dictatorship, and the restoration of the mon- 
archy with King Charles II, the Amsterdam bankers used 
their financial skills to cause unrest and economic chaos in 
England. After King James II succeeded Charles, the resulting 
problems proved too much for him, and he was forced to 
leave the throne, being succeeded by William of Orange, 
the Amsterdam bankers' choice, who became King William 
in. This event is known historically as "the Glorious Revolu- 

The Glorious Revolution is a historical event which is little 
noted in the United States. It refers, not to our own successful 
American Revolution, but to the even more momentous revolu- 
tion of 1688 in England. No historian has noted that the history 
of the world since 1688 has been directed by the consequences 
of the Glorious Revolution, which not only ended the attempts 
of the Vatican to recover its extensive landed holdings in 
England which had been seized by King Henry the Eighth, 
but also resulted in the establishment of the Bank of England 
and its espionage service. Great Britain's notorious SIS, the 
Secret Intelligence Service, which in turn set up our own 
Central Intelligence Agency, under the name of Office of 
Strategic Services, during World War II. 

The Glorious Revolution not only made possible the charter- 
ing of the Bank of England, which was to become the world's 
most influential central bank; it also opened the door for the 
subsequent usurping of the English Crown by the lUuminati 
in 1714, when George I, Duke of Hanover, ascended to the 
throne of England. Since that date, the English monarchy 
has been prominent in the world machinations of the Freemason 
movement. The Amsterdam bankers had first subdued the 


English Crown when they financed Oliver Cromwell's rule 
of England as a Calvinist dictator, controlling England as 
Lord High Protector from December 1653 to September 1658, 
when he died. After Charles II, King James II succeeded to 
the throne. A Stuart who had converted to Catholicism in 
1670, James married a Catholic, Mary of Modena, in 1673, 
and launched a campaign to rescind more than one hundred 
years of Protestant rule in England, by returning the nation 
to the fold of the Roman hierarchy. However, this goal was 
strongly resisted by the great majority of the EngUsh people, 
who were Protestant, and had no wish to return to submission 
to Rome. At first, James' crusade was not taken too seriously 
in England, because he had two daughters who had been 
baptised as Protestant. However, he now had a son and heir 
who was baptised as a CathoUc, ensuring that the throne of 
England would descend to a Catholic prince. It was this birth 
which provoked the Glorious Revolution against him. 

A small group of EngUsh aristocrats, led by the "King- 
maker," the Duke of Devonshire, with his associate, the Duke 
of Marlborough, sent a cypher letter to WiUiam at the Hague, 
inviting him to take the throne of England. WilUam had married 
James' daughter, but his claim could only be exercised legally 
at the demise of James and his Catholic heir. James further 
angered the English people in June of 1688, when he jailed 
seven bishops in the Tower of London. Their offense was 
that they had refused to read his latest proclamations about 
religion from their pulpits. The bishops were then tried by a 
jury, and were acquitted on all counts. 

At the time of the Glorious Revolution, King James had 
an army of 40,000 men, led by carefully chosen officers, all 


of whom were Roman Catholics. The challenger, William 
of Orange, had only 13,000 men. To compound his problems, 
his fleet was blown off course and missed their landing spot. 
The Duke of Devonshire hastened to their rescue, and received 
William's daughter. Princess Anne, at his castle. James was 
then informed that despite his superior numbers, his troops 
would not obey their Catholic officers, and he had little chance 
of succeeding against the invaders. He abdicated to France. 
His abortive attempt to make a comeback in Ireland also met 
with defeat. William was now King William in, the King 
of England. He signed a Declaration of Rights on February 
13, 1689, which ended the king's power to suspend the deliber- 
ations of Parliament or to dispense with its laws, which had 
been the goal of Sir Edward Coke's mission. Coke's Petition 
of Right had now become the law of the land. England has 
been a constitutional monarchy ever since. The official release 
of the British Information Service, the propaganda arm of 
England, states that "the United Kingdom is a parliamentary 
democracy with a limited constitutional monarchy. Govern- 
ment is carried on by Her Majesty's Government in the name 
of the Queen, who reigns but does not rule. The Queen is 
an integral part of Parliament." 

The Declaration of Rights of 1689 was followed by an 
even more powerful contract between the English monarchy 
and the people of England, the Act of Succession of 1701. 
This Act specifically barred the Stuarts from ever again claim- 
ing the throne. The Act further placed the Hanover line of 
Germany, which was waiting in the wings, in the direct line 
of succession. It specified that all future monarchs must belong 
to the Anglican Church, the Church of England. It specifically 


barred Catholics from the throne. Later monarchs received 
the title of head of the Church of England. Other clauses of 
this Act secured parliamentary supremacy by requiring that 
the monarch must go to Parliament each year and request 
his annual stipend. The royal household now existed at the 
pleasure of Parliament, which controlled its pursestrings. 

In 1694, King William III chartered the Bank of England. 
Since that date, there has never been another revolution in 
England. A history of civil wars and revolutions against the 
throne had come to an end. A privately owned central bank, 
the Bank of England, now controlled the issuance of money, 
which had formerly been a royal prerogative. The throne's 
goodwill was secured by the assignment of a large number 
of shares to the royal family. 

The sudden access to funds provided by the Bank of England 
ushered in a great flowering of English culture and international 
prestige. The Bank's monetary manipulations created enor- 
mous fortunes for its shareholders, and great estates were 
built throughout the countryside. The fortunate few who had 
invited William to take the EngUsh throne, and who had subse- 
quently been invited to become charter subscribers to the Bank 
for 10,000 pounds each (the equivalent of ten million dollars 
in today's currency), made certain the success of the Glorious 
Revolution. One of these chosen few, the Duke of Devonshire, 
was appointed Lord High Steward of England by King WilUam, 
given a seat on the Privy Council, named Steward of the 
Royal Household, and given the coveted award, the Most 
Noble Order of the Garter. After William's death, his daughter, 
now Queen Anne, continued the Duke's appointment as Stew- 
ard of the Royal Household. 


Queen Anne married Prince George of Denmark. Although 
seventeen children were produced, they all died. Anne was 
extremely self-indulgent, and was plied with rich foods by 
her solicitous staff. She became very fat, and endured poor 
health because of her excesses, which finally caused her death. 
Once again, the throne of England was a matter of contest. 
Historians have suspected that Queen Anne's overindulgences 
were deliberately encouraged by some of her staff, to ensure 
that there would be no heir to the throne. She ruled from 
1702 until her death in 1714. 

The successful claimant who replaced Queen Anne was 
the Elector of Hanover, in Germany. Although he was merely 
the head of a small principality, the Elector was descended 
from Henry the Lion (1129-1195). Henry the Lion, Duke of 
Saxony, was the only son of Henry the Proud, and was a 
prominent member of the Guelph dynasty. At that time, the 
fate of Europe was contended for by two opposing forces, 
the Guelphs, representing the new "Black Nobility," and 
descended from the Canaanites, or Phoenicians (see MuUins' 
"The Curse of Canaan"), andtheGhibellines, who represented 
the ancient Teutonic Knights and the ruling dynasty of Europe. 
Frederick of Barbarossa, a member of the Hohenstaufen fam- 
ily, was head of the Ghibellines during the time of Henry 
the Lion. Henry the Lion persuaded the Hohenstaufens to 
make peace with the Guelphs, (known as Welfs in that area 
of Europe). Henry, whose capital was Brunswick, a city later 
to figure importantly in the development of the lUuminati 
movement, married Matilda, daughter of Heiuy II, King of 
England. The Hanovers later came into possession of the Gos- 
pel Book, a twelfth century manuscript from the Abbey of 


Helmarhausen, which sold it to the King of Hanover in 1861. 
In 1983 the family put it up for sale; it was purchased by a 
consortium of German interests in 1983 for eleven million, 
nine hundred and twenty-thousand dollars. 

The Hanover family had spent some twenty years diligently 
preparing their claim to the throne of England. Their official 
genealogist and historian was one of the most wellknown 
scholars in Europe, Gottfried Wilhelm Liebniz (1646-1716). 
Leibniz had been secretary of the Rosicrucian Society in Nu- 
remberg in 1667. He then moved to Frankfort, where he was 
employed by the Elector of Mainz from 1676 until his death 
in 1716. Not only did he serve the Brunswick family loyedly 
as their historian; he was also a lawyer, and served them as 
a judge and administrator. His massive work. Codex Juris 
Gentium Diplomaticus Hannoverae, not only traced the descent 
from Henry the Lion, who had married into the British royal 
family; it also documented the later developments. Elizabeth, 
one of King James Fs Protestant daughters, had married Freder- 
ick the Fifth, the Elector of Palatine. Their daughter, Sophie, 
married Ernest Augustus, the first Elector of Hanover. Al- 
though Sophie was not a claimant to the English throne, having 
died before Queen Anne, her son, who was now Elector of 
Hanover, was able to overcome the other claimants by the 
sheer weight of Leibniz' tremendous amount of research. Thus 
Leibniz, secretary of the Rosicrucian Society, not only brought 
the Hanovers to the throne of England; with him came the 
fraternity known as the Freemasons. 

Because of these mystical connections, Leibniz, who 
founded such esoteric systems as economic science, and many 
other branches of physical science, was a close correspondent 


with his fellow Rosicrucian, Sir Francis Bacon in England, 
the historic opponent of Sir Edward Coke. Bacon, subsequently 
given the title of Baron Venilam, authored a book, "The 
New Atlantis," which describes the purpose of the House 
of Solomon. Nicolai, among others, has ascribed to this cele- 
brated romance the origin of Masonry in its present form. 
Leibniz was at the very heart of the new intellectual movement 
of the eighteenth century, a spirit of liberalism and humanism 
which has been traced directly back to the ancient cult of 
Baal (The Curse of Canaan). He was a major influence in 
the development of legal doctrine, reaffirming doctrines of 
Christian natural law which originated in the Golden Renais- 
sance of the fifteenth century. His writings shaped the thinking 
of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefiferson in their phrasing 
of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of 
the United States. In addition to providing intellectual inspira- 
tion for the American Revolution, Leibniz's writings also be- 
came the inspiration for the Industrial Revolution. It was his 
influence which led Benjamin Franklin to establish the Ameri- 
can Philosophical Society. Franklin served as colonial Post- 
master General, and carried on a worldwide correspondence. 
He went to England in 1757; the following year, he worked 
with Matthew Boulton Jr. on electricity, metallurgy, and the 
harnessing of steam power. Josiah Wedgwood, the potter, 
and Boulton's personal physician, Erasmus Darwin, organized 
a group which duplicated the aims of Franklin's Junto in 
Philadelphia, the organization being known as the Junto of 
Birmingham. It was later known as the Lunar Society. Through 
its influence, Manchester by the year 1790 had become a 
major industrial power. Boulton built the massive Soho Works, 


the first great manufacturing plant. It used water through a 
system of canals and steam power. The Soho plant became 
wellknown as the headquarters of the Lunar Society. 

With Leibniz' able assistance, the Elector of Hanover be- 
came George I, King of England, in 1714. He spoke no En- 
glish, and stubbornly refused to learn a single word. Only 
German was spoken at the royal court in London. He ruled 
from 1714-1727. George 11 ruled from 1727-1760, and George 
in, whose name figures so prominently in American history, 
ruled after 1760, placing him in the crucial role of provoking 
the American colonists until they erupted in revolution. He 
was succeeded by William IV in 1830. In 1837, the grand- 
daughter of King George III, Victoria, became Queen. She 
married Prince Albert of the German province of Saxe-Coburg- 
Gotha, whose family name was Wettin. During the First World 
War, this sounded suspiciously German, and it was legally 
changed to Windsor, the name by which the present royal 
family of England is known. 

The Glorious Revolution unleashed many currents in history 
which remain strong today. The European battle between the 
rival forces of Protestant and Catholic was exacerbated by 
the ascension of William of Orange in 1688. For more than 
a hundred years, the historical enemies, England and France, 
had been at peace. William changed this arrangement, by 
joining the League of Augsburg against France, which resulted 
in seven wars between England and France between 1689 
and 1815. The alliance of France with the rebelling American 
colonists was but one minor aspect of this longstanding strug- 
gle. One legacy of this rivahy is the present contretemps 
between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland. The Protestants 


proudly wave banners depicting their great patron, William 
of Orange. William's participation in the League of Augsburg 
was but one aspect of the growing conspiratorial work of 
the Masons. The League was essentially a Masonic foreign 
policy apparat which was determined to destroy the traditional 
balance of power between the reigning monarchies of Europe, 
finally displacing them by setting up their own World Order 
(see The World Order, by Eustace MuUins). 

In effect, Leibniz and his fellow intellectuals, with the ascent 
of George I in 1714 to the throne of England, became the 
secret powers behind the throne. In 1717, it was announced 
that Freemasonry was officially revived in England. From 
this base of power. Lord Sackville was dispatched to Italy 
in 1733 to set up Freemason lodges there; in 1735, Lord 
Derwentwater was sent to Paris to organize a Grand Lodge. 
The result was the destruction of the monarchy in those nations. 
Through the secret forces which led to revolution, England 
was finally able to dispatch its great rival, France, and to 
end her claims to world power. The new order was announced 
at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, when the triumphant Ma- 
sons, led by the banking power of the Rothschilds, dictated 
their terms, not only to France, but to the other nations of 
Europe. Financed by the monetary power of the Bank of 
England, enforced by the British Navy and the worldwide 
intrigues of the Secret Intelligence Service, the Masons were 
well on their way to fulfilling their historic goals. 

Leibniz' accomplice, Sir Francis Bacon, had paved the way 
as the aposfle of the new humanism in England. He thus 
imposed on this nation his interpretation of the ancient rites 
of Baal, the cult of Canaan, and the predecessors of Europe's 


Black Nobility. He was one of the founders of the Rosicrucians, 
the Knights of the Rosy Cross, and the group known as the 
Free and Accepted (Speculative) Masons, who had departed 
from the function of the Masons as a craft organization. Schol- 
ars have identified much of Bacon's work as reflecting the 
Rosicrucian Manifesto. 

Under the Hanovers, the Freemasons were able to step up 
their own monopoly of secret societies in England. On the 
12th of July, 1798, an Act was passed in Great Britain, known 
as the Sedition Act, for the Suppression of Secret Societies. 
In his definitive work, "The Brotherhood, the Secret World 
of the Freemasons," Stephen Knight complains that the Ma- 
sons have never complied with the stringent requirements for 
listing their members under this Act. However, he seems 
unaware that the Act specifically exempts the Freemasons 
from compliance. Its language reads, "And whereas certain 
societies have long been accustomed to be holden in this 
kingdom, under the denomination of Lodges of Freemasonry, 
the meetings whereof have been in great measure directed to 
charitable purposes; be it therefore enacted, that nothing in 
this Act shall extend to the meetings of any such Society or 
Lodge which, shall, before the pasing of this Act, have been 
usually holden under the said denomination, and in conformity 
to the rules prevailing among the said Societies of Freema- 
sons." In effect, this Act banned all secret societies except 
the Freemasons. 

Such a powerful ban reflected the active participation of 
the now reigning family of England, the Hanovers, in the 
lodges. From 1782-1790, the Grand Master of England was 
His Royal Highness Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland; 


from 1791-1812, His Royal Highness George, Prince of Wales, 
who subsequently became King George IV; from 1812-1842, 
His Royal Highness Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, 
son of King George III. The Duke of Sussex united the rival 
lodges, the Ancient and the Modem, into a single potent 
force. Thomas Howard, the Catholic Duke of Norfolk, had 
been Grand Master in 1730 despite many Catholic edicts issued 
against membership in the Freemasonry movement. Several 
Earls of Strathmore have also been Grand Masters of England. 
A Strathmore married the Duke of York, later King George 
V, and is now Queen Mother of England. 

A century after the passing of Sir Edward Coke, another 
great legal scholar appeared in England. Sir William Black- 
stone published his monumental Conmientaries in 1765. Black- 
stone continued and expanded Coke's work, by further defining 
the language and the principles of the common law. In Book 

1 of his Commentaries, he lays down the three absolute rules 
of civil liberties: one, the right of personal security; two, 
the right of personal liberty; and, three, the right to private 
property. Blackstone divided the law into the rights of persons 
and the rights of things, private wrongs as opposed to civil 
or public wrongs, and crimes and misdemeanours. In Section 

2 of his Commentaries, he writes that "Ignoranti juris, quod 
quisque tanatur scire, neminem excusat. Ignorance of the law 
is no excuse, because who can ignore God's will." This be- 
came the presentday legal maxim, "Ignorantia non excusat 
legem; ignorance of the law is no excuse." This was further 
qualified by the presence of fraud, or a mistake in fact, as 
"Ignorantia facti excusata." 

Sir William Blackstone was bom in 1723. He was called 


to the bar in 1746, and was named Solicitor General to the 
Queen in 1761. Like his predecessor, Sir Edward Coke, he 
also had a powerful benefactor. Prime Minister Sir Robert 
Walpole, who named him to the prestigious foundation of 
the Charterhouse School, and to Oxford's exclusive Fellow 
of All Souls. The Commentaries appeared in four volumes, 
the first brought out in 1765, and the other three volumes 
appearing over the next four years. He made fourteen thousand 
pounds from the sale of the Conunentaries, an enormous sum 
for that age. The Commentaries also proved to be a great 
influence in the legal doctrines of the United States for the 
next century. They were finally supplanted by a native product, 
Kent's Commentaries, as the basic textbook for American 

Calvinism, a stem branch of Protestantism which had origi- 
nated in Switzerland under the aegis of a French leader, Calvin, 
had played an important role in the winning of England from 
the Catholic Stuart dynasty. Oliver Cromwell had been an 
ardent Calvinist, as was the eventual victor over the Stuarts, 
WiUiam of Orange. After the American Revolution, an adept 
combination of Calvinist and Masonic influences was brought 
to bear at the Constitutional Convention. Although the princi- 
ples of Sir Edward Coke had been a contributing influence 
to the writing of the Declaration of Independence, and survived 
in the Bill of Rights, which was a belated addition to the 
Constitution, the convention itself was dominated by Episcopa- 
lians, that is, for all intents and purposes, by a branch of 
the Anglican Church, and by a strong Jesuit presence. How- 
ever, the guiding principles of the convention were laid down 
by Freemasons, many of whom were also members of the 


other dominant groups. Bradford notes that Daniel Carroll 
represented the State of Maryland at the convention. He was 
the brother of the Archbishop of Baltimore, and was a Mason, 
as well as a Catholic. 

The convention purported to draft the Constitution as the 
final protector of the rights of independent citizens against 
any oppressive force of government. However, as we have 
previously noted, the Bill of Rights was added, not as an 
afterthought, but as a device to ensure the adoption of the 
Constitution. Much of the work of the convention was mere 
window dressing to conceal its real purpose, which was to 
establish a strong central government with legal authority to 
provide repayment of loans made to the Americans by British 
financiers, principally those who were also stockholders of 
the Bank of England. The new government was also commis- 
sioned to insist upon the repayment of mortgages to British 
lenders, which the post-Revolution courts, notably led by 
George Wythe, a drafter of the Constitution, and called the 
father of our legal system, duly demanded from the debtors. 

On July 9, 1778, meeting in Philadelphia, Congress had 
approved the Articles of Confederation, which then became 
the ruling body of law for the young nation. These articles 
established the principles of states' rights, and effectively ruled 
out the possibility of a strong central government, a federal 
power. When the Constitutional Convention met in Philadel- 
phia on May 27, 1787, its secret agenda was to emasculate 
the Articles of Confederation, and to authorize the establish- 
ment of a strong federal government. The delegate who was 
entrusted with the task of carrying out this secret mission 
was Edmund Randolph. During the previous year, Randolph 


had been elected Grand Master of the Masonic Lodges of 
Virginia. His father, a leading Tory, and King's Attorney, 
had returned to England at the outbreak of the American Revo- 
lution. He never returned to America. 

Edmund Randolph opened his plan with an unexpectedly 
strong attack on the Articles of Confederation. He claimed 
that "the confederation fulfilled none of the objectives for 
which it was framed." He then listed a number of objections 
to the Articles, among them, ' 'It is not superior to state constitu- 
tions. Thus we see that the confederation is incompetent to 
any one object for which it was instituted. Our chief danger 
arises from the democratic parts of our constitution." 

Although one might have expected cries of outrage from 
the defenders of liberty who were present, none were made. 
In fact, most of those assembled were of like mind; the few 
who might have objected preferred to remain silent and go 
along with the crowd. Randolph's proposals received strong 
and concerted support from his fellow Masons at the conven- 
tion. He then worked out a Constitution which largely scrapped 
the Articles of Confederation, and replaced it with a Constitu- 
tion which authorized a strong centralized federal government. 
A cloak of concealment was thrown over this creation by 
the hasty addition of a "Bill of Rights," intended as a sop 
to those who otherwise would never have voted for ratification. 
Well-hidden within the basic framework of the Constitution 
were Masonic plans and authorizations for a national judiciary 
power, which would exercise final authority in disagreements 
between the branches of government, while the national execu- 
tive power was given little opportunity to enforce the Bill of 


During the first few years of the Republic, the national 
judiciary was discreetly quiet. The Supreme Court met in a 
basement room, and appeared to be little more than an orna- 
mental power within the government. However, it asserted 
itself sharply when John Marshall became Chief Justice of 
the Supreme Court. He had recently succeeded Edmund Ran- 
dolph as Grand Master of the Virginia Lodges, which have 
played a major political and judicial role ever since. Marshall 
made his first bold bid in 1803, in the wellknown case of 
Marbury v. Madison. Marshall's court ruled that the judiciary 
has the power to strike down any law. The legal background 
of Marbury v, Madison was that it was a brazen exercise in 
partisan politics. The case became a cause celebre after James 
Madison, the Secretary of State, worked far into the night, 
hastily signing commissions for members of the Federalist 
Party on his last day in office. On the following morning, 
Thomas Jefferson came in as the new Secretary of State. 
Because Madison was a stalwart of the opposing Federalist 
Party, Jefferson threw Marbury's commission into the waste- 
basket, even though Madison had signed it. Marbury then 
brought suit to claim his due appointment as a justice of the 
peace. Chief Justice Marshall, who was also a leading member 
of the Federalist Party, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and 
awarded Marbury his commission, a decision delivered along 
strict party lines. Marshall's decision created the precedent 
for the supremacy of the federal power. 

On September 3, 1807, Marshall delivered another famous 
ruling, in U.S. v. Burr, as reported by Mr. Ritchie. He declared 
that "the laws of the several states could not be regarded as 
rules of decision in trials for offences against the United States, 


because no man could be condemned or imprisoned in the 
federal courts under a state law." This legal decision came 
about because of Marshall's role as "one of the usual sus- 
pects." For many years, Aaron Burr had been one of the 
most active Masonic conspirators in the new Republic. He 
had plotted to set up a separate and independent republic in 
the states bordering the Mississippi River. When Burr was 
charged with treason for this plot, he was defended by his 
attorney, Edmund Randolph, a former Grand Master of the 
Lodges of Vu-ginia. Sitting as judge in this important case 
was Justice Marshall, who was then Grand Master of the 
Lodges of Virginia. The decision was a foregone conclusion, 
because Masonic law decrees that a Mason must always rule 
in favor of a fellow Mason, due to his "obligations." 

Despite the success of Edmund Randolph and his fellow 
Masons in writing a Constitution which gave the federal gov- 
ernment supremacy over the states, many legal authorities 
continued to cast doubt on the validity of that power, until 
the Civil War silenced forever the Americans who still opposed 
a strong federal power. In Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 S 
Wheaton 193, the Chief Justice of the United States observed 
that "the powers of the states remained, after the adoption 
of the Constitution, what they were before, except so far as 
they had been abridged by that instrument." 

During the nineteenth century, the available legal textbook 
for American lawyers was Kent's Commentaries. In Book I, 
p. 490, Kent commented on the Marbury v. Madison decision. 
"The question, said the Chief Justice, was whether an act 
repugnant to the constitution can become a law of the land. 
The powers of the legislature are defined and limited by a 


written constitution. But to what purpose is that limitation if 
those limits may at any time be passed? The distinction between 
a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished 
if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are 
imposed, and if acts prohibited, and acts allowed, are of equal 
obligation. If the constitution does not control any legislative 
act repugnant to it, then the legislature may alter the constitu- 
tion by an ordinary act. The theory of every government with 
a written constitution must be, that an act of government 
repugnant to the constitution is void." 

What Kent does not deal with here is the power of the 
judiciary to reverse itself on national issues, as has repeatedly 
occurred. The Supreme Court today declares that an act is 
not repugnant to the constitution. Tomorrow it rules that the 
act is repugnant to the constitution, and is void. No safeguard 
exists that the court cannot be subjected to varying influences 
which bring about these stunning reversals on decisions. 

Kent further observed, in Lecture xviii, "The limitation 
of state power or sovereignty would exist in only three cases: 
where the terms granted an exclusive authority to the union; 
where it granted in one instance an authority to the union, 
and in another prohibited the states from exercising a like 
authority; and where it granted an authority to the union, to 
which a similar authority in the states would be absolutely 
and totally contradictory and repugnant." 

The American Republic had the benefit of a written constitu- 
tion, plus the well-established precedents of the English com- 
mon law. The legal basis of the common law was firmly 
established in England, one source being "The Laws of En- 
gland," sec. VI, chapter 31, which stated, "Be it therefore 


enacted etc. that the common law is, and shall be, in force 
in this government, except such part (pertaining to the prov- 
inces) laws of England are the laws of this government." 
At that time, America was a province of the British Empire. 
Kent notes in Book I of the Conmientaries, p. 514, 

"The common law includes those principles, usages and 
rules of action applicable to the government and security of 
persons and property, which do not rest for their authority 
on any express and positive declaration of the will of the 

The Laws of North Carolina, chapter 5, which were enacted 
in 1785 by this free state, declare, "An act to enforce such 
parts of the statutes and common laws as has been heretofore 
in force and use here, and the acts of assembly made and 
passed when the territory was under this government of the 
late proprietors and the crown of Great Britain." C. J. Pearson 
says that "The laws of our state rest for a foundation upon 
the conmion law of England." However, the Supreme Court, 
in 8 Peters 658, stated, "It is clear there can be no conmion 
law of the United States (only constitutional law)." 

The authority of Constitutional law has been steadily eroded 
in the United States by the growing dependence upon the 
law merchant, and the consequent violation of individual rights 
of American citizens. This development flies in the face of 
James Madison, who wrote the Fifth Amendment to the Consti- 
tution. Madison stated that power must come from the people; 
"the government has only such powers as the people delegate 
to it through a social covenant, the Constitution which is 
derived from God's Covenant with man. This derivation limits 
the power of the process of law and the powers of government. 


This covenant cannot be contravened as it is 'the law of nature 
and of nature's God.' " 

The natural laws written by Madison and the other Founding 
Fathers laid down the separation of powers of the legislative, 
executive and judicial branches of the government and the 
nexus imperium, the law of checks and balances, safeguards 
which are now largely being ignored and contravened by the 
judiciary through the adept usage of admiralty law and jurisdic- 
tion of the law merchant. In modem times, the law of checks 
and balances has been redefined by the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives, Jim Wright (who has since resigned), "We 
(the Congress) will write the checks and the people will have 
to provide the balances." 

Chapter 3 

A Plague of Lawyers 

In his "Institutes," Sir Edward Coke defines a lawyer as 
"one who is set in place of another." In the early years of 
the American Republic, many of the Founding Fathers were 
either lawyers or trained in the practice of law, as part of 
their classical education. As a result, we have maintained 
the fiction that lawyers themselves are personages of unim- 
peachable probity, so much so that in the rare occasions when 
a lawyer absconded with a widow's funds, it was a moment 
of great shock. Such occurrences have now been relegated 
to the era of old W. C. Fields' comedies; the lawyers no 
longer abscond with the widow's funds. They merely transfer 
them to their own bank account and then send the widow an 
enormous bill for "services rendered." Charles Dickens gave 
us the most memorable portrait of a lawyer's techniques in 
his rendition of Uriah Heep; servile, insinuating, and once 
he has taken your funds, overbearing and demanding. Dickens 
also posed the great problems endured by those who found 
themselves delivered over to the hands of lawyers, in his 



rendition of the case of Jamdyce v. Jamdyce, a legal struggle 
which went on for generations , beggaring the clients but enrich- 
ing the lawyers. Unfortunately for Americans, Jamdyce v. 
Jamdyce has proved to be the model on which our legal profes- 
sion has modeled itself; our courts are filled with similar strag- 
gles, the least of which may come to a decision in a mere 
five years. 

The Rand Foundation recently completed a study of our 
legal profession, finding that soaring legal costs accompany 
delays in getting to trial, which now reach an agonizing eigh- 
teen months, on the average. The Rand noted that half of 
the $30 billion annually spent on lawsuits goes to lawyers. 
Fifteen billion a year, much of which is created by deliberately 
prolonging the time and expense of litigation, goes to the 
lawyers for shuffling a few papers. Their expenses rarely entail 
more than five per cent of this amount: consequently, hundred 
dollar power lunches, fifty thousand dollar a year memberships 
in country clubs, and many other perquisites must be pursued 
in order to sop up the excess cash. 

When an American citizen hires a lawyer, he enters the 
office of the practitioner under the now defunct image of the 
profession as that closely akin to one's physician, into whose 
hands one delivers the vital question of one's personal health; 
or of one's minister, who will be glad to cooperate in one's 
eternal salvation. However, just as the physician is likely to 
give you a new drag whose side effects will be worse than 
what is ailing you, or that the minister will divert your financial 
contribution to some tart in Harlot's Alley, the lawyer may 
prove to be even more devastating. Few people realize that 
an association with a lawyer may tum out to be the most 


dangerous step you can take, possibly resulting in the loss 
of your home, job, family and life's savings. They have no 
idea that lawyers often engage in one or more of the following 
practices during a single case of litigation — ^subomation of 
perjury; conspiracy to obstruct justice; and flagrant violation 
of the Constitutional rights of the opposing party. 

Perjury, that is, false swearing under oath, is one of the 
most prevalent practices in our courts, not only by witnesses, 
but also by lawyers, who often coach witnesses to repeat 
carefully directed and totally false testimony. I once appeared 
with an attorney in a traffic case in New Jersey, which went 
on for about five hours in a stuffy small town courtroom (no 
air conditioning). At the end of the case, the judge, who 
ruled against us, informed the attorney that of all the testimony 
heard that evening, his was the most incredible! Subornation 
of perjury, that is, going over the prospective testimony of a 
witness, and instructing him what not to say or what he should 
say, is the linchpin of our present courtroom drama, the adver- 
sary system of justice. Two pit bulls are released into the 
arena, to tear at each other until one sinks into death. This 
system has little to do with justice, but much to do with 
power, profit, and augmentation of fees. The practice arose 
because a lawyer who did not know what his witness might 
say on the stand would be sitting on a keg of dynamite, 
wondering when it would go off. Many cases, which have 
been arduously prepared, have been lost in a twinkling when 
a witness goes beyond the scope of a question, and volunteers 
further information which destroys the client's case. 

For this reason, lawyers rely heavily upon pre-trial deposi- 
tions, or pre-trial discovery. Once these are typed up and 


presented to the court, they are set in stone, removing the 
fear that the witness will volunteer extra information or alter 
his testimony. Like Congressional speeches which are daily 
reprinted in the Congressional Record, the testimony may 
be subjected to intensive editing, alteration and deletion, all 
without any notice to the witness or the court. The altered 
deposition is then presented to the court, after a lawyer's 
extensive changes, as "sworn testimony"! Should an error 
be exposed, it would be blamed on the court reporter. 

The other tools of pretrial discovery are written interrogato- 
ries and requests for admission, both of which are also an- 
swered under oath. The interrogatories constitute one of the 
greatest abuses of parties. They were sometimes expanded 
to as many as fifty or even one hundred questions, some of 
which were so artfully phrased that the party who answered 
question 18 would be asked it again in question 74 so that 
in answering it, he would totally contradict his answer to 
question 18. Interrogatories are always identified as "continu- 
ing in nature" — that is. First Set of Interrogatories, followed 
by Second Set, ad infinitum. Some courts now limit the number 
of questions in a single interrogatory to twenty or thirty, but 
no correction of the abuse of "continuing" interrogatories is 

As I have repeatedly pointed out in Motions for Protective 
Orders against Depositions to the court, pretrial discovery is 
actually "pretrial trial." The lawyer actually conducts the 
hearing with himself sitting as judge and jury, with no actual 
judge being present. Judges have been universally hostile to 
my motions and have always denied them, indignant that a 
"layman" would question one of the most profitable and 


arrogant practices of the legal profession. I identified them 
as "bills of attainder" which are absolutely forbidden by 
the Constitution, being too naive at that time to understand 
that the law merchant or admiralty procedures of our courts 
ban any and all Constitutional protections of citizens. Pretrial 
discovery is also modelled after the ancient Star Chamber 
procedures; the subject of the deposition is summoned to a 
room where he is placed under oath, with the understanding 
that anything he says may be used against him. As Roy Cohn 
has pointed out, discovery has become the bread and butter 
of the legal profession. Previously forbidden by both common 
law and the Constitution, it is now the sacred cow of our 
legal procedures. Legal authority Emily Gouric pointed out 
in an article in Albemarle Magazine, July, 1989, that lawyers 
in the state of Virginia have been able to engage in this profit- 
able practice since the early 1970s. She quotes Robert Taylor 
as stating, "Discovery takes a great deal of interest out of 
trial practice," further pointing out that it prolongs cases five- 
fold and makes them much more expensive. 

Although we may think that the proliferation of lawyers 
and their willingness to abuse everyone is something new, 
an affliction peculiar to modem civilization, we have only to 
turn to the scriptures to find these warnings, 

"Woe unto you, you masters of the law! you snatch the 
keys of knowledge. 

"And Jesus said. Woe unto you, you masters of the law! 
You heap great burdens on the sons of men, yea, loads by 
far too great for them to bear. . . . Woe unto you, you 
masters of the law! you snatch the keys of knowledge from 
the hands of men; You close the doors; you enter not your- 


selves, and suffer not the willing ones to enter in. His words 
provoked the Pharisees, the lawyers and the scribes, and they, 
resenting, poured upon him torrents of abuse. The truths he 
spoke came like a thunderbolt from heaven; the rulers coun- 
selled how they might ensnare him by his words; they sought 
a legal way to shed his blood." 

This gospel offers striking insights into the practices of 
the legal profession, not only in the time of Jesus, but even 
more so today. We should not honor this profession by calling 
it the "practice of law," but rather, as the subversion of the 
law, and the rape of the law, the all-too-famiUar methods 
by which God's law is subverted and perverted by dedicated 
and professional criminals. Note the dictum, "the rulers coun- 
selled how they might ensnare him by his words." I have 
just identified this conspiracy as pretrial discovery. Further, 
"they sought a legal way to shed his blood." This too is 
the goal of our legal practices. 

To protect American citizens from just such abuses, the 
Founding Fathers added certain guarantees, which they termed 
"the Bill of Rights," protective measures which had been 
cited by Sir Edward Coke earlier in his Petition of Right, 
and which had long been envisioned by enlightened European 
scholars. Of these rights, none is more important than the 
Fifth Amendment, which was personally authored by James 
Madison, the prohibition of self-incrimination. However, the 
legal profession has boldly circumvented this guarantee 
through pretrial discovery. They attempt to force a party or 
a witness to provide statements which will destroy his testi- 
mony and his case. "The rulers counselled how they might 
ensnare him by his words." In so doing, "they sought a 


legal way to shed his blood." What does this mean? It means 
precisely what it says. They sought a legal way to shed his 
blood. When you go into an American court, the legal profes- 
sion seeks a legal way to shed your blood. No technique 
associated with this goal is too vicious or too base to be 
excluded from the arsenal of the lawyer, even though its barely 
concealed purpose, openly approved by the judge, is to shed 
your blood. This may seem rather coldblooded, or even un- 
christian, to the intended victim, who fails to recognize his 
dilenmia. The court is the reincarnation of the ancient Roman 
arena, where the Christians are present only because they 
are to be thrown to the lions. Their struggles provide amuse- 
ment for wealthy but bored spectators. The court has adopted 
the old Roman rule of absolute impartiality, extending compas- 
sion to none in the arena, whether plaintiff or defendant. 
Each of them is to be equally torn and mangled until only 
shreds are left on the teeth of the lions. The doctrine of "legal 
immunity" is also an important part of the Roman games, 
as our courts may more properly be known. The cheering 
audience sits high above the arena. No lion is strong or agile 
enough to leap into the seating, and present a threat to the 
spectators. Judges, lawyers and the jury can safely watch 
the torment of the victims without fearing for their safety. 
Not a drop of blood will splash onto their silken robes. This 
is justice. 

Our jurisprudence demands that we hire an attorney to repre- 
sent us, because the legaj system has grown so complex that 
only a highly skilled practitioner is qualified to present our 
case. There is some truth to this claim, but it is far from the 
whole story. In fact, civil procedure as it is practiced in our 
courts can be learned in a few hours. We are speaking now 


of the basic practices. The ramifications of our civil procedure 
are in fact infinite; the present writer has contributed his modest 
addition to it by observing that under our present legal system, 
any case is in fact endless and can be continued ad infinitum, 
depending on the extent of funds of the rapidly impoverished 
parties to the action. This writer has found most attorneys 
not only unqualified, but unfamiUar with many aspects of 
legal practice, a discovery made when I repeatedly filed mo- 
tions which attorneys, both in private practice and employed 
by government agencies, had no idea how to answer or to 
argue. Their way out of this dilemma was one on which 
they have relied constantly during this writer's forty years 
of practice in the courts; they simply have the judge deny 
the motions without argument. 

The layman will exclaim, "But that's impossible! The 
court's duty is to hear and to resolve all motions of the liti- 
gants." In a perfect world, this would be true. The dodge 
by which they ignore it is one of the most treasured privileges 
which judges have granted to themselves. It is called "judicial 
discretion." The first line of defense for the judges is "judicial 
independence." No one can influence a judge, because he is 
absolutely removed from any possibility of influence, whether 
family, financial or political. His second line of defense is 
"judicial immunity." This is the claim that when a man puts 
on the black robe of ancient physical and ritual sacrifice of 
victims, dating from the time of the cults of Babylon, he is 
placed beyond any criticism or retribution, and removed from 
any liability for violations of morality, national loyalty, or 
religious concepts. As I stated in a letter to the press October 
12, 1985. 

' 'The present practice of ' 'judicial independence, ' ' ' 'judicial 


discretion" and "judicial immunity" is intolerable in a free 
society. A judge is simply a monitor or policeman who sees 
to it that the statutes are observed. No one can be "immune" 
from the consequences of his actions in a law-abiding society . " 

In a previous letter, October 10, 1985, I had noted that 
"For twenty-five years I have filed suits in area courts in 
which the evidence in my favor was stricken or ruled inadmissi- 
ble, while the evidence against me, including hearsay from 
mental patients and patients with brain damage, was admitted. 
I have sued four attorneys, all of which suits were dismissed 
on demurrers (insufficient cause of action) which is barred 
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I went to the U.S. 
Attorney with a list of forty-two consecutive motions I had 
filed, all of which were denied, while motions against me 
were perfunctorily granted. I later learned that this fellow 
was a political crony of "our crowd." I never heard from 
him to this day." 

Of the three unholy practices of judges, the doctrine of 
"judicial discretion" is the most pernicious and the most 
frequently encountered. Briefly, this means that the judge 
has the option of personally ruling for or against any motion 
without going into its legal merits. He may also ignore it 
altogether by "taking it under advisement." This means that 
he postpones his decision for months, or even years, leaving 
the case in limbo. His fellow members of the legal profession, 
the opposing lawyers, eagerly accept this denouement, because 
their meters will continue to run throughout the period of 
the judge's monumental wrestling with the merits of the mo- 
tion, until he finally reaches his decision. In truth, little or 
no such "wrestling" overtakes place. The judge merely buries 


the motion until the agonized screams of the victims force 
the lawyers to request that he deliver his opinion. 

But what does all of this have to do with justice? asks the 
gentle reader. The answer to that question is in the title of 
this book. It is not titled "In Praise of Justice" or "The 
Merciful Qualities of Justice." It is only the rape of justice 
with which this writer is concerned, that is, those who are 
forced to submit to indignities for the pleasure and profit of 
others. Force, as in rape, is the backbone of all legal practices. 
Every order handed down within the confines of an American 
courtroom is delivered with a backup of force. Armed bailiffs 
stand on guard in the courtrooms, not merely to intimidate 
those appearing, but also to arrest, incarcerate, or even to 
beat or kill anyone who challenges what is taking place. The 
attorney whom you hired is a willing participant to this force. 
He never informs you, when he hands you his bill, that he 
is bound as "an officer of the court." You pay their fees, 
but the lawyers' primary obligation is to the court, that is, 
to the legal system and the practices for which it stands. A 
wit commented that the Pledge of Allegiance for lawyers should 
read, "I pledge allegiance to the legal profession and to the 
criminality for which it stands." 

Sir Edward Coke's definition of a lawyer as "one who 
stands in the place of another" takes us back to a more open 
type of justice. In earlier civilizations, differences between 
citizens were settled by trial by combat. The dissenters might 
fight to the death, or until one was disinclined to continue. 
The triumph went to the battler who was left standing. Our 
boxing matches follow the same principles. The winner is 
the one who is still standing, or who has outpointed his oppo- 


nent throughout the bout. The victors emerge, not only as 
champions, but also as leaders. This led to the hiring of ' 'cham- 
pions" to stand in for those not able to enter the lists or 
who obviously had no chance of winning. This is the raison 
d'etre for the hking of attorneys today. Your lawyer is a 
"hired gun" who will go up against the fastest gun in the 
West, in your stead. The legal profession maintains that you 
have no chance of winning in our complex legal system; there- 
fore, you must hire a champion, an attorney, to appear in 
your place. 

In some forty years of court appearances, I have never 
found myself in a legal situation in which an attorney would 
have been better able to represent my interests than I could 
do for myself. The reality is that no attorney can "represent" 
you. As an officer of the court, he can plead or "pray" your 
case before the court; in other words, he intercedes with the 
imperial presence of the court in your behalf. He "prays" 
that the lions may be called off before you are torn to bits. 
He beseeches the court not to award damages or penalties 
against you which are several times greater than your total 
assets, but to exercise mercy and reduce them to a sum only 
slightly greater than your entire net worth. 

This explains why the patron saint of lawyers is Saint Mat- 
thew. In Matthew 5:40, he counsels, "And if anyone would 
go to law with thee and take thy tunic, let him take thy 
cloak as well." This is not merely an exhortation to turn the 
other cheek, but rather, to allow the attorney, who is making 
off with your tunic, to turn back and appropriate your cloak 
as well. For this reason, I have advised my audiences for 
many years that the ancient adage, "A man who represents 


himself in court has a fool for a client," must be brought 
up to date with the admonition that "A man who hires a 
lawyer is a fool." 

Few Americans experience any qualms at turning over the 
most intimate details of their personal and financial lives to 
a lawyer, yet the risks should be apparent to anyone. For 
years I have counselled anyone who plans to meet with or 
consult a lawyer to take adequate precautions. The first precept 
is "Never discuss any details with a lawyer over the tele- 
phone." In one case which dragged on for three years, the 
opposing counsel, one of the most influential and highly paid 
lawyers in the state, repeatedly demonstrated that he believed 
he was dealing with a fool, by calling me unannounced at 
my home in the afternoons, and trying to obtain verbal commit- 
ments from me about various legal maneuvers in which we 
were engaged. I filed a complaint against him with the court. 
The judge never took any action, but it did stop the telephone 
calls. In almost every action in which I have been a party, I 
have had to file repeated motions with the court, complaining 
about the illegal procedures followed by opposing counsel. 
Motions for Reprimand. To date, none of these has ever re- 
sulted in a reprimand. 

The second precept which I offer is that you should never 
go alone to a lawyer's office. In recent years, books on legal 
problems have suggested that you obtain a signed agreement 
with your lawyer, agreeing on costs, etc., before engaging 
him to represent you. This would have been unheard of a 
few years ago, and is rarely requested even today, because 
few lawyers would sign such an agreement. They would pi- 
ously inform you that such an agreement would place too 


great a limitation on their ability to represent your case. The 
lawyer wants only a blank check from you, not an agreement 
before his meter starts running. He will eventually fill in the 
blank check with the sum of your net worth. Also, when 
you go to an attorney's office, you would be wise to bring a 
relative or a trusted friend with you. I have taken as many 
as eight people into judges' chambers for motions hearings, 
or into a lawyer's office for a required appearance. In every 
instance, the judges and lawyers have not dared to voice any 
objection, or to ask. Who are all these people? It is also 
wise to tape record any conversation with an attorney. Here 
again, most attorneys would object to this, as it places them 
on notice that you do not trust them, and automatically places 
limits on the amount of damage they will be able to inflict. 
A fatal mistake made by many citizens is their naive belief 
that because a lawyer is a relative, a close friend, or a longtime 
neighbor or country club member, he can be trusted. In fact, 
you would probably be safer with a stranger handling your 
affairs, as thousands of widows and orphans could attest. 
Lawyers trade upon such associations as relationship, member- 
ship in a religious or a fraternal organization, or any human 
contact which they can use to "bring in the business." The 
Washington Post recently noted that "an ambitious associate 
can generate profits to a firm of $200,000 per year on gross 
billings of $300,000." Note these figures. They indicate that 
two-thirds of the billing is net profit to the firm, with costs 
amounting to one-third of charges. The Post noted that large 
D.C. law firms pay associates with two to four years' experi- 
ence $85,000 to $100,000 per year, in the salary range of 
the attorney general of the United States. Partners of large 


law firms bill clients at $225 per hour, while associates' charges 
are $125 per hour. A typical eighty partner firm pays a mean 
income per partner of $360,000 per year on $938,000 of 
gross revenue, which means that the firm must gross $29 
million annually, or $80,000 for every day of the year. Merely 
organizing the file and indexing documents in a lawsuit can 
cost from $2500 to $5,000, while the drafting and filing of 
a complaint costs upwards of $10,000. No wonder people 
sneer, "Sue me," knowing that few people can afford such 
expensive justice, regardless of the merit of their complaint. 
A single motion before the court will cost from $5,000 to 
$30,000. The present writer sometimes filed as many as three 
motions at a time, during a period of maintaining eight or 
more cases in state and federal courts. None of the motions 
were the one or two paragraph motions such as those filed 
by opposing attorneys. My motions ran from five to ten pages 
of documented legal arguments, with ample quotations from 
precedents and legal authorities. I discovered that the judges 
rarely bothered to read these motions, much less allow them 
to be argued in court. I routinely filed interrogatories or an- 
swered the opponent's interrogatories, which the Post states 
costs $5,000 for each answer. Oral depositions are billed at 
$1500 to $2,000 per day per partner, with half that fee charged 
for the ever present associate, plus $300 to $500 per day for 
the court reporter and costs of the written transcripts. Litigation 
only a few months old can already have accrued costs of 
from $50,000 to $100,000, witii little or no progress being 
made towards a solution. 

In my forty years of practice, lawyers' fees for the work I 
did for myself would have been billed at more than five million 


dollars. To nip the growing tendency for citizens to appear 
as their own attorneys, lawyers have been urging the Internal 
Revenue Service to compute the legal costs of litigation for 
persons representing themselves, and then to tax the full 
amount as accrued income. To date, the IRS has not acted 
on the proposal. 

One of the legal profession's dirty little secrets is the frequent 
abuse of women by lawyers. Features have repeatedly been 
run on such magazine type programs as "60 Minutes" about 
sexual exploitation of women who find themselves alone in 
a lawyer's office. Here again, I must emphasize the danger 
of going alone to any lawyer's office, whether you fear rape 
or not. You can expect the rape of justice to routinely take 
place, whether physical rape occurs or not. A woman who 
has been through a trying experience with her husband, and 
who has reluctanfly decided to seek a divorce, is akeady 
distraught. Many attorneys are quick to take advantage of a 
woman who is akeady facing serious emotional difficulties. 
Before she knows it, she is athwart his desk and undergoing 
an examination which she never anticipated. One common- 
wealth's attorney was finally removed from office, after a 
series of complaints from outraged women, over a period of 
years, forced reluctant officials to abandon their coverup and 
to take action. Legal observers conjecture that perhaps only 
ten per cent of such incidents ever result in a formal complaint. 
First, the victim realizes that despite the unwelcome nature 
of such attentions, she is dependent on this lawyer to salvage 
some funds or property from her collapsing marriage. She 
has already established dependency, merely by going into 
his office. If she storms out and goes to another lawyer, voicing 


her complaint about his behaviour, the lawyer, because of 
"professional courtesy," is obliged to call his colleague and 
ask if the charges are true. His peer will drop a hint that the 
lady in question shows serious signs of being "disturbed"; 
she may wind up with no one to represent her. 

The iconoclastic writer, Robert J. Ringer, has inveighed 
forcefully against the destructive influence which lawyers in- 
flict in the business world. He states that "the proper time 
to lock Legalman in his cage is when you are serious about 
closing a deal." Like most of us, he learned about lawyers 
the hard way, after they repeatedly prevented the closing of 
deals on which he would have netted millions of dollars. He 
defines Legalman as ' 'the omnipresent defender of the nonexis- 
tent problems of people" and as "one of the players in the 
game of business who got into the park by sneaking under 
the fence, then took it upon himself to assume the role of 
head skimmer." 

In some forty years of documenting the greatest crimes 
which have been committed against the American people, I 
discovered that in every instance, at the very heart of each 
of these events, like a malignant virus, were the lawyers. 
John T. Flynn, writing in the New Republic, May 22, 1935, 
chronicled Professor William Douglas's address to a conven- 
tion of lawyers in Durham North Carolina, as follows: 

"It is sad but true that the high priests of the legal profession 
were active agents in making high finance a master rather 
than servant of the public interest. They accomplished what 
their clients wanted accomplished and they did it efficiently, 
effectively, and with despatch. They were tools or agencies 
for the manufacture of synthetic securities and for the manipula- 


tion and appropriation of other people's money. In doing this, 
they followed the traditions of the guild. They never took 
seriously the nature of their public trust." 

The New Republic further commented on these statements, 
"These great law firms have guided their greedy and acquisitive 
clients through the mazes of trickery that the financiers had 
not the wit to travel alone. No cause seems too reprehensible 
for the lawyers to gild with their own sadly tarnished respect- 

When you suggest a course of action to a lawyer, the usual 
response is, "Oh, you can't do that." This response is almost 
automatic, because it is incumbent upon every lawyer to dis- 
courage any client from striking out on his own strategic 
course. He must place his destiny totally in the hands of the 
lawyer, no matter how incompetent that attorney may be. 
Also, they are very reluctant to guarantee results from any 
course of action. In his heyday, financier J. P. Morgan com- 
plained that no matter what he proposed, lawyers would tell 
him he could not do what he wanted to do. Morgan said, 
"Mr. Elihu Root is the only lawyer who tells me how to do 
what I want to do." The result of this compliance was that 
Elihu Root became the preeminent lawyer on Wall Street. 
Financiers flocked to his offices when they discovered that 
no matter what manipulations they could devise, Root was 
capable of coming up with a legally acceptable formula to 
allow them to get away with it. He finally became the patron 
saint of America's corporations, when he worked out the strat- 
egy of setting up tax exempt foundations for millionaire entre- 
preneurs who wished to preserve not only their money, but 
also their power. 


J. P. Morgan later chose Elihu Root to set up the agitprop 
operation, the League to Enforce Peace, in 1916. Its purpose, 
notwithstanding its seemingly pacifist title, was to involve 
the United States in World War L It later took the name of 
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace," headed by 
Alger Hiss, who later went to prison for committing perjury, 
when he lied about his handing secret documents to Soviet 
agents. After World War I, Root became the honorary chairman 
of the newly estabUshed Council of Foreign Relations, which 
had been set up as the American branch of the Rothschild 
policy group, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in 

Elihu Root is also remembered as the man whom President 
Wilson sent to Russia in 1919, with twenty million dollars 
in cash to bail out the collapsing Bolshevik regime. This 
money was taken from the one hundred million dollar Special 
War Fund which Congress had appropriated for President Wil- 
son's use. The record of the expenditure of this twenty million 
dollars by Root's Special War Mission to Russia is recorded 
in the Congressional Record, Sept. 2, 1919, as authorized 
by Wilson's private secretary, Joseph P. Tumulty. 

However, it is Root's role as the legal mastermind of the 
chartering of the influential tax exempt foundations which 
has laid his dead hand upon the throat of all living Americans. 
In 1909, he drew up the legal charter of the Carnegie Founda- 
tion, as its principal incorporator. His fellow incorporators 
were Frederic A. Delano, son of China's most famous opium 
dealer; Cleveland H. Dodge, of the National City Bank, and 
financier of Wilson's presidential campaign; and the longtime 
Rockefeller henchman, Daniel Coit Oilman, who had been 


trained by the German Illuminati in devious techniques of 
subversion. Oilman also incorporated the Russell Sage Founda- 
tion, and other vital undercover operations. Elihu Root then 
incorporated the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 
in 1921. His assistant, Philip Jessup, ran the CEIP after Alger 
Hiss was sent to prison. 

The epitome of the great corporation law firm is the Wall 
Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell. Its founders' background 
provides ample proof of the ruthless nature required if one 
is to succeed in this bandit profession. The Cromwell who 
founded the firm, William Nelson Cromwell, was publicly 
denounced on the floor of Congress as "the most dangerous 
man in America!" This description was not the prose of some 
reckless demagogue; it is to be found in a document published 
by the Congress of the United States, a 736 page volume, 
"The Story of Panama" the House Hearings on Panama in 
1913. "In September, 1904, during the absences of Secretary 
Taft from Washington, Mr. Cromwell, a private citizen, practi- 
cally ran the War Department. John F. Wallace, Chief Engineer 
of the Panama Canal, testified before the Senate Committee 
on Feb. 5, 1905, 'Cromwell appeared to me to be a dangerous 

In these Hearings, Congressman Rainey was quoted as fol- 
lows: "The revolutionists were in the pay of the Panama 
Railroad and Steamship Corp., a New Jersey corporation. 
The representative of that corporation was William Nelson 
Cromwell. He was the revolutionist who promoted and made 
possible the revolution on the Isthmus of Panama. At that 
time, he was a shareholder in the railroad and its general 
counsel in the United States — ^William Nelson Cromwell — 


the most dangerous man this country has produced since the 
days of Aaron Burr — is a professional revolutionist." 

And you thought lawyers were dull! Congressman Rainey 
used language which we might expect to describe Leon Trotsky 
or Al Capone; however, he was talking about the founder of 
the most august law firm on Wall Street. And what has been 
the history of this firm since the passing of its notorious 
founder? Cromwell trained and produced a protege who out- 
stripped his predecessor, the famous John Foster Dulles. A 
relative of the Rockefeller family, Dulles was closely linked 
with international espionage groups headquartered in Switzer- 
land and England. He can be described as the architect of 
the Second World War, as well as the man who singlehandedly 
issued the orders which precipitated the Korean War. At the 
Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the senior partner of the J. 
P. Morgan Company, Thomas Lamont, wrote, "All of us 
placed great reliance upon John Foster Dulles. ' ' History proved 
that that reliance was not misplaced. 

In 1933, when a victorious but penniless Adolf Hitler needed 
funds to build his Nazi regime, his personal banker. Baron 
Kurt von Schroder, arranged a private conference with Hitler 
at the Schroder residence in Cologne, Germany. Attending 
this meeting as representatives of Kuhn, Loeb Co. and other 
Rothschild interests were John Foster Dulles and his brother, 
Allen Dulles, who later founded the Central Intelligence 
Agency. The bankers, through their emissaries, guaranteed 
Hitler the funds to install his Nazi government. However, 
this did not mean that they were Nazis, or friendly to the 
precepts of Nazism. They were bankers who were making a 
sound investment in a coming event, the Second World War. 


Whatever one's feelings might have been towards Adolf Hitler, 
there was no escaping the fact that without him, there could 
be no Second World War. The Governor of the Bank of 
England, Sir Montague Norman, whose financial manipula- 
tions precipitated the Great Depression of 1929-1933, was 
one of the first bankers to acknowledge this situation, and to 
advance Hitler funds from the Bank of England. 

During the 1920s, John Foster Dulles brought to Sullivan 
and Cromwell as clients the blue chip firms of Wall Street — 
J. P. Morgan Co., the National City Co., Dillon Read, W. 
A. Harriman Co., and Brown Brothers, which later merged 
to form the firm of Brown Bros. Harrimans. Dulles' instant 
stature as the senior partner of the nation's most influential 
law firm reflected a truism of the profession, that the senior 
partner of such a firm is merely the one who has the greatest 
credibility. His word will not be challenged, his authority 
will not be denied, and when he exerts his influence on behalf 
of a political candidate, a church, a university, or any institu- 
tion, funds will be raised and the goal will be reached. Behind 
this facade of respectability are the facts; that such senior 
partners have been and are deeply involved in the greatest 
international swindles and acts of treason throughout the twen- 
tieth century. They attain the rank of senior partner precisely 
because they have the talent of telling the most outrageous 
lies with the highest degree of credibility, whether they are 
launching a securities issue or the campaign of a candidate 
for the presidency of the United States. 

John Foster Dulles ensured his place in history by sending 
a telegram from Tokyo to President Truman, "If it appears 
that the South Koreans cannot repulse the attack, then we 


believe that U.S. force should be used." It was this telegram 
which Truman used as his authority to plunge the United 
States into the Korean War. The use of tiie imperial "we" 
by Dulles notified President Truman that the most important 
leaders of the World Order wanted this war; he had no choice 
but to obey. Dulles was rewarded for this extraordinary act 
by his appointment to one of the nation's most influential 
posts, the presidency of the Rockefeller Foundation. Ostensibly 
a "charitable" organization, from its inception the Rockefeller 
Foundation was planned by John D. Rockefeller and his legal 
adviser, Elihu Root as a business operation using extraordinary 
means. It is more properly described as a "syndicate," which 
was the term Roget used to describe a trust. Roget further 
describes a syndicate as a cartel, or a monopoly, which also 
is an accurate description of the Rockefeller Foundation. The 
purpose of the foundation's charter was to perpetuate a corpora- 
tion in perpetuity by removing it from any threat of a takeover 
by other interests. In a world in which everything is for sale, 
the shares of a corporation are the most saleable item of all. 
This means that no matter how profitable and powerful a 
corporate entity you may build, it can be bought out from 
under you by anyone who can raise the necessary funds. It 
was Elihu Root's brilliant contribution to the future downfall 
of American industry that a tax exempt foundation would 
forever remove the possibility of any outside force capable 
of buying control of the corporation. Standard Oil, the Rocke- 
feller Oil Trust, placed its controlling shares in the Rockefeller 
Foundation in 1913. They remain there today, insulated against 
any outside threat. The foundation gave Standard Oil an enor- 
mous financial advantage over its competition, as Congressman 


Wright Patman, chairman of the House Banking and Currency 
Committee, pointed out in remarks before Congress. While 
it could not be swallowed up by any other company, it could 
proceed uninterrupted on its course of swallowing up or domi- 
nating its rivals. This impregnability also made possible its 
profitable cartel agreements with monopolistic firms in other 
countries, such as its historic 1926 agreement with I. G. Farben 
in Germany to control the world's chemical business. 

In "The World Order," I painstakingly traced the back- 
ground of the officers and directors of the Rockefeller Founda- 
tion from 1913 to the present day. Very few of these directors 
had any background in charitable work; however, most of 
them had very impressive backgrounds in such "humanitar- 
ian" endeavours as chemical warfare, international espionage, 
munitions manufacture, cartel agreements, and so forth. On 
the whole, charity was lacking in their resumes. 

Although society has been, on the whole, over-respectful 
of lawyers in recent years, mindful of their power and their 
ability to inflict grief on their critics, diligent investigation 
discloses a few rare expressions of doubt in national organs 
of the media. Harper's magazine, October, 1976, featured 
an article, "A Plague of Lawyers," by Jerome S. Auerbach. 
He notes that the Constitution of Carolina declared it "a base 
and vile thing to plead for money or reward." The states of 
Massachusetts and Rhode Island prohibited lawyers from serv- 
ing in their colonial assemblies, a striking contrast to today's 
situation, as we find that ninety per cent or more of state 
legislatures are now members of the legal profession. The 
historian Crevecoeur described lawyers as "weeds that will 
grow in any soil that is cultivated by the hands of others; 


and when once they have taken root, they will extinguish all 
other vegetation around them." 

The historian, Ferdinand Lundberg, wrote in Harper's, April 
1939 about "The Priesthood of the Law," in which he de- 
scribed ' 'the Purchase of the law. ' ' Lundberg quoted a historic 
case, Gebhardt v. United Railways of St. Louis, Mo. 1920, 
in which the decision noted that "the law does not make a 
law office a nest of vipers in which to hatch out frauds and 
perjuries," a withering comment on the legal practices which 
had come to light in this case. 

The Saturday Evening Post, Dec. 2, 1933, noted in an 
editorial that ' 'When the Attorney General of the United States 
finds it necessary, in addressing an anti-crime conference, to 
refer to 'unscrupulous lawyers who aid and abet crime (the 
historic "mouthpiece" Ed. Note), criminals and employing 
every artifice in their defense, the public cannot fail to realize 
that in the relation between lawyers and crime it faces a problem 
at once peculiar and ominous.' The Attorney General went 
on to say that 'there is reason to believe that in many localities 
a certain number of lawyers are in touch with and regularly 
employed by the criminal element, being the scavengers of 
the bar. . . . We find connivance and connection between 
lawyers and crime, with its concomitants of jury fixing, bribery 
and perjury.' " 

One of the most astounding examples of legal conspiracy 
in America is described in the exhaustively detailed book, 
"Senatorial Privilege," by Leo Damore, Regnery 1988. The 
nation's leading journals have resolutely ignored this docu- 
mented work. Damore relates the amazing story of a phalanx 
of lawyers, sworn to a Mafia code of Omerta, or silence. 


which formed around Senator Edward Kennedy in a conspiracy 
to obstruct justice shortly after the body of a young woman, 
who was said to be pregnant, was found in his abandoned 
car. The District Attorney in this case, Edward Dinis, later 
publicly denounced the jury system in the state of Massachu- 
setts as "absolutely discriminatory," and "a systematic denial 
of justice throughout Massachusetts." He also attacked the 
scandal ridden probate court system as "a littleknown citadel 
of judicial patronage and favoritism operating in an atmosphere 
of intimidation." The Chappaquiddick incident, as Kennedy's 
escapade came to be known in the national press, not only 
destroyed Kennedy's chances of being elected President; it 
also destroyed the journalistic career of Roger Mudd, who 
was already accepted as the coming heir to Walter Cronkite. 
When Mudd interviewed Kennedy on September 29, 1979, 
he asked the fateful question, "Do you think, Senator Ken- 
nedy, that anybody really will ever fully believe your explana- 
tion of Chappquiddick?" Kennedy made the equally fateful 
answer that he found his own behaviour "beyond belief." 
The liberal phalanx vowed to get Mudd for having exposed 
their champion in the lists, and he was subsequently dumped 
by the network in favor of Dan Rather. 

This writer was exposed to the true character of the legal 
professionals early in a writing career. An attorney accompa- 
nied me on an afternoon outing along the Garden State Parkway 
in New Jersey. Enjoying the openness of the newly completed 
superhighway, I was tooling along in a new Hudson at a 
comfortable ninety-five miles per hour, when I was surprised 
to see a black Chrysler draw up beside me. The young trooper 
motioned to me to pull over. When we stopped, the attorney 


hastily drew out his card and handed it to the trooper. He 
took one look at it, said "Okay," but added plaintively as 
he drove away, "But try to hold it down, willya?" 

This same lawyer asked me to accompany him to a court- 
house in a small town, ostensibly to do some legal research. 
When we went into the deserted record room, he asked me 
to wait by the door in case the somnolent clerk wandered 
in. I stood there while he calmly ripped out several documents 
from the files and walked away. I expected that we would 
be seized and sentenced to serve at least ten years, but we 
walked by the clerk, nodded a brief "Thanks" and were on 
our way. I later learned that it is customary for lawyers to 
"delete" records in this manner, to alter entries, or to prepare 
substitute pages which are then inserted in the files to replace 
the genuine ones. Whatever is on paper can be forged or 
destroyed — ^this, I discovered, is an unwritten motto of the 
legal profession. 

On October 5, 1988, the Washington Post headlined a feature 
gist of the story was that cocaine was becoming an increasingly 
serious problem among the lawyers practicing in our nation's 
capitol. One attorney admitted to the press that he frequently 
represented his clients in court while he was high on cocaine, 
stating that while he was under the influence of the drug, he 
felt "like nothing could go wrong." Another addict, Richard 
Winters, said, "The thing that is really tragic in the legal 
system is this concept of the officer of the court as a superhu- 
man. This is what keeps a lot of lawyers who are addicts, 
either alcohol or substance abuse addicts. . . . locked up in 


their closets and unable to say, Christ, I have a problem, 
somebody please help me." 

The same issue of the Washington Post recounted the story 
of an immigration attorney accused of preparing documents 
for illegal aliens designed to defraud the inmiigration service. 

In her documented work, "The Trial Lawyers," Emily 
Gouric chronicles some of the successful techniques of the 
nation's most famous attorneys, among them Howard Weitz- 
man, who won acquittal for John DeLorean on charges of 
conspiring to distribute cocaine, by first filing some fifty proce- 
dural motions, including Freedom of Information requests. 
Weitzman knew that the judge would probably deny all or 
most of them. This process is informally known as ' 'exhausting 
the court." It is wellknown among lawyers that judges have 
a very short attention span; by flooding them with a mass of 
procedural motions, the lawyer can usually beguile the judge 
into a state of passivity, allowing him to proceed with a strategy 
for the defense of a client who is probably guilty. It is a 
truism of American justice that only the guilty can afford a 
really good lawyer. The innocent must content themselves 
with someone from the third or fourth echelon, who has a 
discouraging record of lost cases. 

Gouric also describes the tactics of the famed Texas lawyer, 
Richard "Racehorse" Haynes, who represented Fort Worth 
millionaire T. CuUen Davis in his notorious Smith and Wesson 
divorce, as Texas style divorces are known. She also gives 
us Arthur Liman, who was featured in a TV series, "The 
Moscow Show Trials," as the North hearings before Congress 
were later described. Liman had been a protege of Nelson 
Rockefeller in an "investigation" of the Attica prison riots 


and killings. He is a partner in the Wall Street firm of Paul, 
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison. Liman's clients include 
takeover tycoon Carl Icahn, Lazard Freres, the investment 
bankers, and Pennzoil, which won a ten and a half billion 
dollar judgment against Texaco. Despite his role as chief coun- 
sel of the Iran-Contra Hearings, Liman recently stated on 
the op-ed page of the Richmond Times Dispatch, "We do 
not have political trials in this country." This will come as 
news to Col. Oliver North. 

Outraged clients find that in most states, it is impossible 
to find a lawyer who is willing to file a suit against another 
lawyer. Theoretically, lawyers have no more immunity against 
lawsuits than anyone else; in practice, membership in a bar 
association, a law firm, or a Masonic lodge usually prevents 
or discourages any lawyer from taking a case against another 
lawyer, no matter how flagrant the offense may be. This was 
demonstrated to me in the case of the wife of a wealthy 
entrepreneur. Unknown to her, he had built up a billion dollar 
operation. After he decided that his new wealth required him 
to have a companion whom he could flaunt in public, he 
began to spend most of his time with his mistress. The wife 
sued for divorce, hiring a lawyer who, for reasons never re- 
vealed, placed himself on the side of the wealthy and influential 
husband. She stated that her lawyer summoned her to his 
office for a conference with her husband's lawyer. Her attorney 
then requested that she sign a stack of seemingly "routine" 
papers in their presence. Hidden deep within the stack was 
a document which stated that she hereby relinquished all claims 
against any of her husband's property. She read it and refused 
to sign it, even though her own attorney had conspired to 


get her to do so. Although she was unaware of the ways of 
the business world, she was not stupid. Nevertheless, she 
did not fire her lawyer, but allowed him to represent her 
through the divorce procedure. The layman finds that it is 
extremely difficult to fire a lawyer for cause, due to court 
procedures which are designed to protect the legal profession, 
another Uttleknown aspect of our mediaeval legal system. 
You discover, as I did, that you cannot fire your lawyer, 
your attorney of record, as he is known to the court, without 
the permission of the court. What this entails is that you 
must find a lawyer to represent you in an appearance before 
the court, in which you request or pray the court to allow 
you to discharge your previous lawyer and hire this one. The 
procedure requires that you hire an attorney to file a motion 
that you wish to fire your first attorney; this motion is then 
argued before the court. Had she been appearing as her own 
lawyer, she could have done this herself, but few people are 
wiUing to risk everything in our arcane legal system by such 
an appearance. After hearing the motion, the judge then can 
exercise his "judicial discretion" as to whether he should 
allow you to fire the lawyer who has been selling you down 
the river. Such a motion is usually granted, with the stipulation 
that you must be sure to pay the fees of the lawyer who was 
misrepresenting you, as well as the fees of the lawyer who 
is now representing you. 

This unfortunate lady wound up with a mere $20,000 settle- 
ment from her husband; the lawyer claimed this was all he 
could get from him. Her husband then called her up, to taunt 
her as follows: "You didn't know I was a millionaire, did 
you?" She was enraged to find that he was indeed worth 


millions, which would now be lavished on his mistress. She 
immediately resolved to sue her lawyer for malpractice. She 
told me that for months she travelled the entire state, trying 
to find a lawyer who would sue the attorney who had robbed 
her. She was always given the standard response, "You have 
already accepted the settlement through your attorney. There 
is nothing I can do to help you." I informed her that I had 
been aware for years that no lawyer in this state, as well as 
in most states, will take a suit against a fellow lawyer. The 
bar association claims it will hear complaints from civilians 
against a lawyer, but in actual practice such complaints are 
promptly buried, never to be exhumed. 

I informed this lady that I had sued a number of lawyers 
in this state, acting as my own attorney. All of these suits 
were promptly thrown out by complaisant judges on the techni- 
cality known as "demurrer," legally making a claim that 
there is insufficient cause of action, but in reality, in legal 
jargon, saying, "So what?" The entke texts of my complaints 
against these lawyers had been copied verbatim from the stat- 
utes. One judge grinned at me as he chidingly remarked, 
"You know, Mr. MuUins, no one can expect to win every 
suit." I could have risked a contempt citation by replying 
that I would like to win one in forty years of pleadings, but 
I said nothing. I had akeady reported this selfsame judge 
for dismissing almost fifty consecutive motions without argu- 
ment, only to find that the federal attorney was one of his 
old pals. That complaint was buried, along with most of my 
other legal pleadings. I obtained some small satisfaction from 
these lawsuits against our sacrosanct legal profession, when 
one of the lawyers came up to me at the door of the judge's 


chambers, whining that during the last two years, my suit 
against him had caused his malpractice insurance to double. 
Small victories are better than none at all. 

The filing of lawsuits against lawyers by disgruntled, be- 
trayed and cheated clients remains one of the great untapped 
oilfields of jurisprudence in the United States. On November 
5, 1986, the Wall Street Journal carried a front page story 
about one "maverick" lawyer, Edward Friedberg, who has 
tapped this field, and found it a very profitable one. Friedberg, 
a lawyer practicing in Sacramento, California, gleefully sues 
his colleagues when clients inform him of their malpractice. 
The statement that this is an untapped oilfield is proven by 
Friedberg 's assertion that eighty per cent of his malpractice 
cases against other lawyers are settled before trial. Only seven- 
teen per cent ever go to trial. The reason was obvious; the 
lawyers were guilty, and they did not dare to face a jury. 
Friedberg says he has a great advantage in suing lawyers, 
and forcing them to take the stand in their own defense. ' 'Jurors 
hate lawyers. We rank just above used car salesmen. Besides, 
lawyers are lousy witnesses. They talk too much, and they 
are arrogant." 

Despite Friedberg 's enormous financial success — ^he wins 
million dollar awards for his clients in these malpractice suits, 
and takes one-third, plus expenses, for his contingency fee — 
no champion of the public has dared to enter the lists in 
other states. Certainly, other lawyers are aware of the thousands 
of cases begging to be filed for legal malpractice, but the 
profession has closed ranks. It is not merely professional cour- 
tesy — it is the fear that the entire profession will be imperiled, 
and perhaps destroyed, if the public was allowed to go into 


court with the amply documented cases of malpractice. The 
state bar associations and the Masonic lodges will never permit 
their members to do what Friedberg has done. Once the extreme 
cases of malpractice, negligence, and conspiracy to obstruct 
justice begin to be argued in the courts, the profession is 

The lady whose divorce case was previously cited, like 
most clients, was unaware of one legal tactic which is always 
devastating to the cause of the litigant. This tactic is called 
"an advisory meeting" with the attorney for the opposing 
client to discuss the ramifications of the case — ^how long it 
will take, what sort of pretrial discovery is contemplated, 
and, most important, how much each of them can milk his 
client of before bringing the case to its predetermined conclu- 
sion. Such conferences, known as "ex parte," that is, without 
the parties, and without their knowledge or consent, may 
include meeting with the judge to privately discuss the case. 
Ex parte is one of the most flagrant abuses of the presentday 
legal profession, and is strictly forbidden by law. A few indict- 
ments for this practice have surfaced in the last decade, but 
the chances of a lawyer being prosecuted for engaging in ex 
parte discussions are still closer to his chance of being struck 
by lightning. 

By statute, private citizens are forbidden by law from filing 
any paper with a court, unless they have previously filed the 
case themselves, thus notifying the court that they are attorney 
of record, and are representing themselves. In recent years, 
emphasis has been placed on filing "in propria persona," as 
a proper person, rather than as attorney pro se, the theory 
being that one thereby escapes being tainted as an officer of 


the court, or of being subjected to the jurisdiction of the 
court. However, anyone who enters a courtroom is presumed 
by the sitting judge to be under the jurisdiction of his court, 
and those who deny it can protest all the way to their serving 
of a six month sentence for "contempt of court." 

The language of the statutes forbid any clerk of the court 
to accept any paper for filing unless it is submitted by a 
licensed attorney, or a person representing himself. You may 
have a document which you believe will help your case. If 
your lawyer decides not to submit it to the court, you have 
no recourse. Your attorney will try to pass it off as irrelevent, 
although it could win your case. The problem is that your 
attorney has already agreed with the opposing counsel to watch 
you wash away down the drain. You must accept his decision, 
because the public education system carefully trains you to 
accept whatever a professional man tells you, without protest. 
Your doctor will tell you that vaccination is good for your 
child; your banker will tell you that the Federal Reserve System 
is not privately owned; and your lawyer will tell you that he 
has your best interests at heart. 

In recent years, public statements have surfaced which ques- 
tion the competency of American lawyers. Chief Justice Berger 
of the Supreme Court stated that ' 'American lawyers are incom- 
petent." President Jimmy Carter warned that "ninety per cent 
of our lawyers serve ten per cent of the people," which is 
probably a break for the other ninety per cent of wouldbe 
clients. Nevertheless, American lawyers show no incompe- 
tence in conspiracy to obstruct justice, conspiracy to suborn 
perjury, or their "ex parte" meetings during which they agree 
to sabotage their clients for the conmion weal. This writer 


has observed for forty years that American lawyers are ex- 
tremely competent in carrying out the abuses of the public 
which have enriched them throughout the twentieth century. 
The American Bar Association issued a carefully weighed 
statement that "it has long been aware that the middle seventy 
per cent of the population is not being adequately served by 
the legal profession. ' ' This may be a warning to the profession 
that our lawyers are overlooking seventy per cent of the avail- 
able market. The almanac shows some 651,000 members of 
the legal profession in the United States, including judges. 
Of this number, the American Bar Association has enrolled 
some 335,000 members. In theory, the American Bar Associa- 
tion is merely another professional group, whose function is 
to promote the practices of its profession. In fact, the principal 
function of the ABA, its state units, and its local bar associa- 
tions, is to form an impenetrable phalanx for the protection 
of its members from punishment for their transgressions against 
the public. These transgressions include not only offenses 
committed against individual members of the public, but also 
crimes by lawyers against the public weal and the common 
good. Many decisions obtained by lawyers through malpractice 
of their profession serve not only to injure individuals, but 
all members of the public as well. Anyone who has ever 
filed a complaint against a lawyer with a local bar association 
can testify that the complaint is met with thunderous silence. 
Once filed, it is never to be heard of again. Public conmiissions 
have repeatedly verified this claim by releasing their findings. 
Former Justice of the Supreme Court Tom Clark headed a 
commission, which, after an eighteen month study of the 
legal disciplinary system, published its findings that "the pre- 


vailing attitude of lawyers towards disciplinary enforcement 
ranges from apathy to outright hostility. Disciplinary action 
is practically nonexistent in many jurisdictions . ' ' We are given 
an official conclusion that there are few, if any, areas in the 
United States where a citizen can obtain any satisfaction after 
making a complaint against an attorney. The Clark Commission 
noted that ninety per cent of complaints against lawyers are 
dismissed without any person bothering to investigate the al- 
leged facts. If you live in Sacramento, you might be able to 
hire Edward Friedberg to handle your complaint against an 
attorney, if there is sufficient damages involved. As for the 
rest of the United States, you can save yourself a stamp by 
not writing to the local bar association. 

Outrage over the known abuses of the legal profession caused 
New York legislators to set aside $840,000 to fund disciplinary 
proceedings against lawyers. However, the disposal of these 
funds was left entirely to the discretion of the private New 
York City Bar Association, which has sole authority to hire 
or fire all employees entrusted with the handling of disciplinary 
actions against lawyers. As could be expected, the $840,000 
was turned into another boondoggle for the lawyers, providing 
salaries for their relatives, with the understanding that they 
would do absolutely no work on the job. 

One of the more colorful opponents of the legal monopoly 
is Andrew Melechinsky, the founder of the Constitutional 
Revival movement, which is headquartered in Fairfield, Con- 
necticut. In his literature, Melechinsky forcefully states, "Yes, 
Virginia, there is a conspiracy. The driving force of that con- 
spiracy is the bench/bar monopoly." A man who is willing 
to stand behind his beliefs, Melechinsky regularly patrols court 


buildings, wearing a large badge which reads, "Lawyers, 
Judges and Politicians Are Scum." Note that he does not 
qualify this statement. It does not read, "Some Lawyers, 
Judges and Politicians Are Scum." His characterization is 
all-inclusive. As an editor, I carefully analyzed his statement. 
I found that despite the most stringent editing, nothing could 
be either added to or subtracted from it to make it more 
direct. Melechinsky also pickets courthouses and law schools, 
bearing a large sign, "The court system is utterly corrupt." 
One does not do this sort of thing in free America without 
consequences. Melechinsky has been thrown into jail, but 
his vast knowledge of Constitutional procedures always secures 
his release. There should be a Melechinsky patrolling every 
courthouse in the United States, but so far he has carried on 
his crusade alone. 

Texas journalist Molly Ivins, an iconoclast herself, offers 
some explanation as to why Melechinsky describes our profes- 
sional legal talent as scum. A lawyer named Heard was to 
have been named the next president of the Texas Bar Associa- 
tion. At the height of his campaign, he was picked up during 
a police raid on a nude modelling studio. The Bar Association 
reluctantly chose another candidate as president. Other promi- 
nent attorneys make the news on charges usually found only 
in the supermarket weeklies such as the Star. Marvin Mitchel- 
son, who invented the concept of ' 'palimony ' ' for the discarded 
lovers of Hollywood movie stars, was charged with profes- 
sional misconduct after complaints originated from actress 
Julie Newmar and Eleanor Revson, of the cosmetics family. 
The complaints included charging excessive fees, failing to 
place a client's funds in trust funds, an allegation of moral 


turpitude, and that he had allegedly refused to pay one million 
dollars for jewelry bought in Switzerland in April, 1987. The 
two pieces of jewelry, from the collection of the late Duchess 
of Windsor, had been auctioned in Geneva. The AP story, 
dated Dec. 6, 1988, noted that the bar association now had 
more than twenty complaints against Mitchelson, which would 
be handled at a disciplinary hearing. On Jan. 15, 1989, Mitchel- 
son was ordered to pay interest and attorneys' fees on the 
one million dollars from April, 1987, when he took possession 
of the jewehy, although he had claimed that the money was 
not due until Oct. 21, 1988. His fellow California lawyer, 
Melvin Belli, known as the King of Torts, was written up 
in the Wall Street Journal as an exile from his twenty-five 
room San Francisco mansion, a local tourist attraction, after 
a court order was obtained by his wife. Now legally separated, 
he lives on a one hundred and five foot yacht. Although his 
staff has now been reduced to thirteen attorneys, Belli estimates 
that he has won more than $350 million in damage awards 
for his clients. In 1985, he lost a malpractice suit, resulting 
in a $3.8 million judgment against him. 

Six more malpractice suits have been filed against him in 
San Francisco Superior Court. However, this has not discour- 
aged his clients. He currently has one thousand cases pending, 
or seventy for each lawyer on his staff. He also faces Tax 
Court proceedings in which the government is asking for up 
to three million dollars on a transaction involving his San 
Francisco law office building. Belli vows revenge, threatening 
a lawsuit for malicious prosecution. Because he sold the build- 
ing to his children in 1981, the government wants up to three 
million dollars in gift taxes, stating that the sale was invalid 


because no money changed hands, nor was a written contract 
drawn up when the sale supposedly took place. Belli 's fame 
as "the King of Torts" was built on his mastery of courtroom 
drama. He pioneered "demonstrative exhibits," such as 
bloodstained bandages, gory pictures, and other materials 
which shocked the jury members into making large awards. 

If there is one word which describes the activities of the 
legal profession, that word is bribery. However, this practice 
is less important in the poorer areas of the nation than the 
equally effective force of intimidation. Bribery reaches its 
apogee in the large cities, and among the major law firms, 
which handle multi-million dollar cases . In small towns , money 
rarely changes hands, because the legal system functions on 
political influence, fraternal ties, and the ubiquitous club laid 
along the rear of the neck. There is a certain ' 'noblesse oblige, ' ' 
that is, I owe you and you owe me, or "one hand washes 
the other." The latter was the favorite saying of an attorney 
with whom I worked for several years. 

Few legal bribery cases are ever brought to the attention 
of the public. However, one such case, involving the august 
Wall Street law firm of Cravath, Swaine and Moore, exposed 
the activities of one of the firm's senior partners, Hoyt Augustus 
Moore. In the early 1930s, Moore was legal counsel for the 
giant Bethlehem Steel Company, a J. P. Morgan enterprise. 
This firm, in the course of its monopoly, tried to take over 
a competitor in the wke rope field, a practice supposedly 
forbidden under the stringent terms of the Sherman Anti-Trust 
Act. It seemed that a federal judge. Judge Albert W. Johnson, 
would uphold the decision against Bethlehem Steel. However, 
Johnson, wishing to appear a reasonable man, let it be known 


that for a token payment of $250,000 (the equivalent of five 
million dollars in 1989 funds), he could be persuaded to with- 
draw his objections to the takeover. In later testimony before 
a Congressional committee, Counsellor Moore stated that ' 'this 
amount is not excessive and not objectionable." Payment 
was delivered forthwith. Despite his public acknowledgement 
that he had committed the crime of bribing a federal judge, 
Hoyt Augustus Moore continued his distinguished legal career 
for some twenty-five years after the event. In 1959, he retired 
at the age of 88. Not only did the New York Bar Association 
ignore his admission of a crime; Judge Johnson was later 
elected president of his bar association! He later was indicted 
for bribery and conspiracy, but he won acquittal, after his 
co-conspirators refused to testify in the case. 

In September of 1 978 , Mahlon Perkins Jr. , the senior partner 
of another sacrosanct Wall Street law firm, Donovan Leisure 
(it had been founded by General Wild Bill Donovan, a World 
War I hero who later organized the OflBce of Strategic Services 
under British auspices during World War II, later reorganized 
as the present Central Intelligence Agency) pleaded guilty to 
lying under oath when he stated that he had previously de- 
stroyed certain documents that his opponent in an antitrust 
lawsuit had obtained court orders that he produce. Not only 
did Perkins lose the case; a verdict of $81.5 million was 
rendered against his firm. Perkins was sentenced to serve 
one month in prison, but the bar association refused to take 
any action against him. If the bar associations can ignore 
crimes of this gravity, how could anyone believe that they 
would take action on the complaint of a private citizen? 

Indictments against leading members of the legal profession 
could be cited for many pages; these will suffice to make 


the point. The fact remains, however, that the greatest damage 
they have inflicted has been the betrayal of the nation through 
their activities in international conspiracies. We have cited 
John Foster Dulles; although he is the most notorious of the 
conspirators, he has not lacked for emulators on many lesser 
levels. The Wall Street Journal has noted that his firm, Sullivan 
and Cromwell, seems to have lost much of its clout, and its 
important clients, in recent years. No doubt it requires a partner 
capable of similar intrigues before its enormous fees are re- 

Present legal practice, in the experience of the present writer, 
consists almost entirely of the game known as "Let's Make 
a Deal." The result of this practice is that few lawyers today 
have a working knowledge of legal strategy, or even of the 
requirements of writing a simple motion. Early on, in my 
appearances in our courts, I discovered that I was creating 
consternation in the ranks of these "nonpractising lawyers," 
because of the scope and length of my legal briefs. Because 
of my many years of training and practice as a researcher 
and writer, I had no objection to spending many hours reading 
such legal tomes as the United States Code or the Corpus 
Juris Secundum, books which my opponents rarely opened. 
As a result, the judges were hardput to deny my motions in 
the face of the feeble efforts of their distinguished colleagues. 
However, this never prevented them from doing so. Their 
only hope was that after persistent rejection on every level 
of the courts, I would run out of funds, or I would become 
discouraged and go away. In fact, I stayed on to see just 
how corrupt the system actually was. It was a fascinating 

The most tried and true technique of exhausting the opposi- 


tion, that is, by wiping out their financial resources, did not 
work in my case. I was not paying the expense of a large 
law firm, or of a single lawyer, to handle my work. My 
greatest expense was typing paper and ribbons, perhaps ten 
dollars a month. This expenditure enabled me to keep six or 
eight cases going in state and federal courts. However, my 
best efforts were usually torpedoed through the legal technique 
of "discovery." Briefly stated, discovery entails an order 
from the court that you turn over all documents and evidence 
of your case to your opponent, so that he will then have the 
weapons to fight you. The opposing lawyers sift through all 
of your documentation, extract all the evidence favorable to 
you, and have the judge declare it "inadmissible." At the 
same time, all evidence favorable to their side will automati- 
cally be ruled "admissible" by the judge. In forty years of 
court practice, I never saw this practice overlooked, nor did 
I ever see it fail to produce a decision against me. 

Discovery also requires prolonged appearances in pre-trial 
depositions, providing answers to lengthy questionnaires, 
known as Written Interrogatories, and answers to Requests 
for Admission. If these procedures fail to destroy you, the 
court then goes to Order for Production of Documents. Usually, 
this means that the court orders you to produce your great 
grandfather's passport and similar papers which have not been 
seen by anyone for many years. Failure to do so results in 
immediate court sanctions, including indefinite jail sentences 
until the documents are produced. The discovery techniques, 
on which present legal practice depends, constitute, first of 
all, a trial of the case by the opposing lawyer without benefit 
of judge or jury, and second, a bill of attainder against the 


party who is ordered to appear. Bills of attainder are strictly 
prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, yet every 
judge to whom I made this notice ignored it. At that time, I 
did not understand that the admiralty law of England has 
superseded the Constitution in American courts. Bills of attain- 
der are not prohibited in admiralty law. 

Roy Cohn, reputed to be a fierce opponent in a courtroom, 
writes in his autobiography, "In a Hall of Fame example of 
the tail wagging the dog, discovery has become the be all 
and end all of trial practice. Years are spent in 'discovering' 
the other fellow's case, in the privacy of conference rooms 
in brilliantly decorated law offices paid for by clients who 
are supposed to be getting a fair shake for their money and 
instead are all too often getting a shakedown by lawyers who 
would not know how to try a case before a jury if their lives 
depended on it. Depositions, it's called, and all it does is 
finally support incompetents who are afraid to show up in 

Cohn glosses over the fact that discovery is more often 
employed to destroy the opponent before trial, through pro- 
tracted expense and abuse. The Wall Street Journal noted 
that by September, 1988, the Wall Street firm of Drexel, 
Burham and Lambert had spent some $140 million to defend 
itself against charges of violations of securities laws, a cost 
which included $40 million for copying one and a half million 
pages of documents. The firm finally settled out of court, 
agreeing to pay $650 million in fines for charges which it 
might have been able to disprove in court, after paying legal 
costs of double the amount of the fine. The Department of 
Justice case against the giant American Telephone and Tele- 


graph Company was also a lawyer's dream, involving the 
payment of hundreds of millions of dollars in legal costs, 
which you, gentle reader, wound up paying through increases 
in your telephone bills. As you may have suspected, the Depart- 
ment of Justice, the largest law firm in the world, specializes 
in creating such lawsuits for the benefit of lawyers everywhere. 
This explains F. Lee Bailey's cryptic comment on "the cold 
fear associated with being a defendant in an American court. ' ' 
M & N Associates, in a poll taken in 1968, found that 68% 
of American citizens did not believe they could obtain a fair 
trial in any American court. The famed lawyer, Gerry Spence, 
in his most recent book, "With Justice for None" writes 
that "The truth is that there is no justice in any court for 
the American people." 

Libel suits also remain a fertile field for lawyers, as the 
judgments and legal expenses have no limits. When two liberal 
writers of the New York school, Lillian Hellman and Mary 
McCarthy, went to court against each other, the results were 
disastrous for both. Hellman had a long record as an habitual 
liar. After she married Hollywood script writer Dashiell Ham- 
mett, she took all the income from his work, refusing to 
allow his children by a previous marriage to receive any funds. 
However, it was her reputation as the most outrageous liar 
in a profession not noted for its dedication to the truth, which 
caused her fellow liberal, Mary McCarthy, to speak in exasper- 
ation during a nationally broadcast interview on the Dick Cavett 
show, characterizing Hellman as "a holdover . . . tremen- 
dously overrated, a bad writer and a dishonest writer." She 
followed this denunciation of Hellman, which might be ex- 
cused as legitimate literary criticism, with an actionable state- 


ment when she concluded, "Every word she writes is a lie, 
including and and the . " 

After brooding over McCarthy's statement for a few mo- 
ments, Hellman called her lawyers. In February, 1980, Mary 
McCarthy had to defend herself in a libel suit. Despite the 
fact that she had long been a darling of the literati, and had 
had many best sellers, she soon found her savings decimated 
by legal expenses. Her New York attorneys charged her 
$35,000 for filing one motion in this case. (I sometimes filed 
three and four motions in a single day, but I had no comparable 
expenses). The case dragged on, as cases do when one has 
expensive New York lawyers. Lillian Hellman died in 1984, 
before the case came to trial, a considerable relief to Mary 
McCarthy. It is a truism of the legal profession that one never 
can predict what a jury might do; the usual award in libel 
cases of this type is one dollar, but punitive damages, which 
are aptly named, and which are pure admiralty law, can amount 
to millions of dollars. 

The famed unpredictability of juries has now given rise to 
a new art, the art of jury selection. It is an art, because the 
final framing of the painting depends entirely on which jurors 
the lawyers have selected. One might call this the fine art of 
stacking the jury; although jury stacking is theoretically illegal, 
this has never prevented anyone from trying it. Members of 
a jury usually base their final decisions on factors of race 
and sex, or on the way a defendant, if she is a woman, 
does her hak. This is understandable when we consider that 
after days or months of listening to conflicting testimony, 
most jury members have not the faintest clue as to which 
party is in the right. In recent decades, juries made up entirely 


of poor, black Democrats in District of Columbia criminal 
cases have routinely voted for the conviction of white, middle 
class Republican White House staff members in political show 
trials. The Watergate trials were the apogee of this process, 
which reached a new wave with the conviction of most of 
Ronald Reagan's White House staff in recent years. Reagan's 
closest associates, among them Michael Deaver and Lynn 
Nofziger, were found guilty on vague charges by black juries, 
who were perhaps expressing thek resentment at having had 
to endure three hundred years of slavery in the United States. 
At any rate, the crimes of which they were accused were 
beyond the scope of these jurors, whose daily lives were 
filled with the necessity of surviving in a murderous, drug- 
saturated environment. The Moscow show trial of Colonel 
Oliver North continued this brave tradition. Even the Washing- 
ton Post was driven to comment on the possibility of injustice 
because "the entire jury was composed of another race." 
Even the Washington Post forbore to mention "the race that 
dare not speak its name" — the reader was left to conjecture 
whether Col. North was being tried before a jury of Chinese, 
or perhaps Indians. 

Our legal system is usually described as "the adversary 
system." The two opposing clients come before the court 
for an impartial judgment by either a judge or a jury, or by 
both. In practice, the court room adversarial system creates 
rancor and hostility on both sides. It precludes processes and 
solutions which are potentially satisfactory to both litigants, 
because it is more profitable for the attorney to keep them at 
each other's throats. Each attorney assures his client that he 
is certain to win, therefore the case must be prosecuted all 


the way through the court. Instead of arbitration, or dispute 
resolution, which would be much cheaper and more satisfactory 
to the litigants, they are deluded into going for a total victory. 
The lawyer gains everything and loses nothing by urging this 
path. If his client loses, he will try to persuade him to appeal 
this ' 'unjust' ' decision. The result is more fees for the attorneys 
and for the courts. 

Early in my legal experience, I was astounded when a 
lawyer with whom I was then associated gave me one of the 
keys to a successful legal practice — an attorney will often 
lose your case on purpose, so that you can then be persuaded 
to file an appeal. We were in court when I noticed that the 
defendant's attorney had failed to call a key witness to testify. 
This witness's testimony would have won the case, which 
was then lost. "Why didn't the lawyer call that witness?" I 
asked my associate. "Oh, that's routine," he assured me. 
"He wanted the guy to lose the case, so that he could file 
an appeal. It's only business." 

This was my first revelation about how our legal system 
really works. I have never forgotten it. Perhaps this was what 
Oliver Wendell Holmes, the patron saint of modem lawyers, 
meant when he said, "The law has nothing to do with justice, 
under a trial by battle system in which the goal is victory — 
not justice." He went on to say that the lawyer can permissibly 
employ a host of stratagems and tricks to obscure the truth, 
manipulate witnesses, and pander to the jury and the judge 
on the basest motions. The philosophical justification for the 
adversary system is the claim that the opponents are "evenly 
matched." This is never true, but it remains the favorite myth 
of the adversary system. In 1906, the legal authority, Roscoe 


Pound, described it as "the sporting theory of justice." Jerome 
Frank declared that "Of all the possible ways to get at the 
falsity or truth of testimony, none could be conceived that 
would be more ineffective than trial by jury. The client and 
the counsel have different personal agenda." 

Frank strikes at the root of the matter when he notes that 
client and counsel have different stakes in the trial. The client 
wishes to preserve his property and his liberty. The counsel 
wishes to keep the cash flow coming into his office. 

Dr. Richard Gardner noted in a letter to the New York 
Times, June 18, 1989, that "After 25 years of experience 
working primarily as a court appointed impartial examiner 
(primarily in custody litigation but more recently in child 
sex-abuse litigation), I am convinced that the adversary system 
is not only an inefficient way to ascertain the truth, but is 
the cause of significant psychiatric disturbance in all those 
unfortunate enough to be subjected to its procedures." 

Trial by jury, which was demanded as a right in our Declara- 
tion of Independence, and which is now guaranteed by our 
Constitution, is now threatened, not as a principle, but as a 
method which has been corrupted by the machinations of 
our legal system. Jury trial has been diminished by the tactics 
of the "adversarial" lawyers, and also by the carefully loaded 
"instructions" which the judge delivers to the juries. As I 
pointed out earlier, all evidence favorable to my case was 
routinely ruled inadmissible by judges, while all evidence 
against me was routinely admitted. How can any jury be 
expected to reach a fair decision under such circumstances? 
Even if I had been allowed to present the evidence in my 
favor, the judge would have neutered it by his loaded instruc- 
tions to the jury. 


Since the courts prevent anyone from adequately represent- 
ing himself in litigation, we return to the important factor of 
the quality of one's legal representation, when a citizen em- 
ploys an attorney. The late Roy Cohn, who died of AIDS, 
became the nation's most renowned lawyer on the strength 
of his political and ethnic affiliations. He represented such 
important clients as the Mafia, the Catholic Church, and mem- 
bers of the nation's wealthiest families. These clients were 
attracted to him, not merely by his legal abilities, but by his 
reputation for ruthlessness. His underworld clients included 
such notorious gang leaders as Sam (the Plumber) Cavalcante, 
Carmine Galanto, Tom and Joe Gambino, and Fat Tony Sal- 
erno. However, in a revealing study of Cohn's legal abilities, 
Nicholas von Hoffman states that Cohn's clients seldom re- 
ceived the legal quality they were paying for. He turned over 
most of his legal work to a cadre of poorly paid law students 
and recent graduates. Cohn himself had little time for the 
dreary work of preparing legal briefs, because he spent most 
of his hours in a mad search for pleasure. He "flung roses 
riotously, riotously, with the throng." He paid for as many 
as a half-dozen five hundred dollar a night callboys to accom- 
pany him on his yacht on a single outing. All of these "ex- 
penses" were charged against his legal fees, on which he 
paid no taxes. To maintain his alternative lifestyle, he often 
charged outrageous fees in cases which were nothing more 
than legal shakedowns. In August of 1978, he sued Henry 
Ford II, claiming that Ford had looted the company of $750,000 
in tribute extorted from a food concessionaire. The information 
had come to Cohn from a disgruntled former Ford employee. 
The charge was thrown out because Cohn had neglected to 
file it in the proper jurisdiction. When he threatened to refile 


the case, Ford gave him $100,000 in "legal fees" to drop 
the case. Cohn was later disbarred for taking $100,000 in 
"loans" from a wealthy client. He continued to flit from 
night club to night club in his Rolls Royce, maintaining his 
headquarters in a luxurious Manhattan townhouse. 

During these years, most of Cohn's legal abilities were 
squandered in efforts to survive special task forces from the 
New York U.S. Attorney, Henry Morgenthau, task forces 
from the Department of Justice in Washington, and task forces 
from the Internal Revenue Service. The wasting of many mil- 
lions of dollars in taxpayers' funds in the prosecution of Cohn 
was not based on moral objections, because of his homosexual- 
ity and his reputation as a "Mafia mouthpiece," nor was it 
based upon the fact that he was Jewish, because many of 
his opponents from government agencies were themselves Jew- 
ish, notoriously Henry Morgenthau. The battle against Cohn 
was waged because he had early on taken a turn to the right, 
unlike most of his Jewish colleagues. He played a crucial 
role in the prosecutions of atomic spies Julius and Eshel Rosen- 
berg, and in the prosecution of Alger Hiss. He also became 
Senator Joe McCarthy's chief of staff in McCarthy's short- 
lived and doomed anti-Communist crusade. 

Cohn represented the "neoconservative" group among 
American Jews, who were headquartered in the Trotskyite 
group, the League for Industrial Democracy, a Rockefeller 
sponsored operation. These Jews were vociferously anti-Mos- 
cow, because of Stalin's murder of Leon Trotsky in Mexico 
City, and they were unanimously in support of the State of 
Israel. Cohn was adopted by such rabid "anti-Communists" 
as George Sokolsky and columnist Walter Winchell, and fie- 


quently dined with them at their reserved table at Table Fifty 
in Manhattan's Stork Club. Other favored visitors to this table 
were J. Edgar Hoover and his consort, Clyde Tolson, and 
Frank Costello, then head of the New York Mafia families. 
It was the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg which 
caused the diehard Stalinist Communists in the U.S. govern- 
ment to vow revenge against Roy Cohn. Special "Get Cohn 
Squads" routinely sallied forth from the Department of Justice, 
the Internal Revenue Service, andvarious state U.S. Attorney's 
offices. Much of the ensuing harassment and publicity suc- 
ceeded only in bringing additional clients and fees to Cohn's 
offices. Prospective clients concluded that with all that govern- 
ment opposition against him, Cohn couldn't be all bad. Cohn 
was able to get away with these practices for many years, 
because he had early learned the precepts of surviving in 
this nation under our present legal system, that is, the difference 
between de jure, a confession which carried the force of law, 
and de facto, or mere gossip. Most of the charges against 
Cohn were based on mere gossip , the FBI ' 'raw files' ' obtained 
from informants who in every instance had a special interest 
in "getting Cohn." The FBI files were replete with items 
about the altar boys and handsome young priests whom his 
close friend. Cardinal Spellman, brought to the nightly outings 
on Cohn's yacht. In his frantic efforts to destroy Cohn, U.S. 
Attorney Morgenthau subpoenaed many of Cohn's clients be- 
fore grand juries. The Department of Justice routinely offered 
special deals to criminals who would testify against Cohn, 
bargaining to have criminal charges against them dropped if 
they would aid the Department to "get Cohn. ' ' These witnesses 
usually refused to cooperate, because they were more afraid 


of Cohn and his associates than of the Department of Justice. 

Roy Cohn was an exception in the present legal profession 
because he was theoretically of the right, whereas most attor- 
neys are pronouncedly loyal to the left. On July 22, 1988, 
the National Review noted that Queens President Claire Shul- 
man had refused to deliver her scheduled address to the graduat- 
ing class of the City University of New York Law School, 
because they insisted on the playing of the Communist anthem, 
"The Internationale," as the theme of the ceremonies. The 
school authorities had simultaneously banned the playing of 
the American anthem, "The Star Spangled Banner," and the 
display of the United States flag at the school ceremonies, 
because they would be "a distracting influence." Indeed, 
their display might have caused a riot among the fiercely 
Stalinist Communist law students. Notwithstanding the official 
ban, a few students risked their future careers and their diplo- 
mas by waving small American flags during the ceremonies, 
thereby guaranteeing they would not be hired by the Depart- 
ment of Justice or any other government agency. 

The fact that many American attorneys are dedicated Marx- 
ists of the Stalinist Communist persuasion, as opposed to 
the Trotskyite Tel Aviv Communist faction, does not prevent, 
but rather encourages them, to charge their clients as much 
as possible. As individual venture capitalists who are actually 
Marxists, they delight in charging their middle class conserva- 
tive American clients, who are usually businessmen, the only 
group of Americans who can actually afford to hire an attorney, 
tremendous fees for relatively little work of dubious value. 
The political allegiance of these attorneys has been epitomized 
in a new philosophical program of legal studies called ' 'Critical 


Legal Studies." This philosophy of revolution claims that 
all current American law is ' 'the instrument of capitalist oppres- 
sion," and that it must be "deconstructed" by a Stalinist 
conspiracy within the legal profession. This philosophy had 
found its apogee in the Legal Services Corporation set up 
by the U.S. government under the Stalinist Democratic Party. 
Its funds were promptly cut from $321,000,000 to $241,- 
000,000 in 1981, when the Reagan counter-revolution, led 
by the Trotskyite faction of the Conmiimist Party, swept into 
office in Washington. The Legal Services Corporation had 
been set up with the objective of providing legal aid to families 
too poor to afford an attorney, a group which encompassed 
most of the population of the United States. However, the 
young lawyers hired by the LSC foimd family legal matters 
such as divorce and custody too boring and too far removed 
from their Stalinist Conununist loyalties. They began to con- 
centrate on suing other government agencies, on housing and 
welfare disagreements. 

Critical legal studies found its natural home in the halls 
of Harvard Law School, which has been traditionally Marxist 
since its dominance by a Viennese inrniigrant, Felix Frank- 
furter, early in this century. Frankfurter was publicly de- 
nounced by President Theodore Roosevelt as "a dangerous 
revolutionary," a recommendation which caused his cousin, 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to appoint him to the Supreme 
Court. Today, Frankfurter's heirs at Harvard Law School are 
engaged in a bitter internecine struggle, in which two groups 
of diehard Marxists, outspoken enemies of the American Re- 
public one and all, have engaged in a civil war. The Marxists 
who are attempting to do away with traditional legal studies 


and replace them with the Critical Legal Studies program, 
in a campaign to do away with "bourgeois law," are opposed 
by the old line Marxists who have dominated the school since 
the days of Felix Frankfurter. The CLS advocates claim that 
the present legal system must be "liberated," so that it will 
no longer operate on behalf of property owners, but only on 
behalf of the "oppressed," with its goal as the ultimate "redis- 
tribution" of all privately owned property. The "Crits" argue 
that law professors should exchange their jobs every six months 
with janitors, a basic goal of the Maoist Communist philoso- 
phy. Jeffrey Hart characterizes the goals of the Crits as "the 
ministrations of vermin," although they offer eloquent testi- 
mony to the present insanity of the American legal system, 
and may thereby serve a useful cause. 

The extreme pro-Marxist bias of the American legal profes- 
sion may be explained by simple business necessities. A Marx- 
ist state which inflicts endless 1984 decisions on the people 
requires frequent hiring of lawyers in efforts to survive the 
diktat of the State power, and to defend one's person, one's 
liberty and one's property from Marxist seizure by the govern- 
ment. Once the state has become totally Communist, the need 
for personal representation apparently vanishes. This is made 
obvious by the fact that in the entire Soviet Union, there are 
only 27,000 professional lawyers, as compared to some 
675,000 in the U.S. Communist lawyers in the Soviet Union 
are members of the privileged classes, with membership in 
the Communist Party, and living as members of the Nomenkla- 
tura, the special class which enjoys a lavish life style while 
most of their Russian subjects live in misery and poverty. 
These "advocatura' ' are organized under statutes of the USSR, 


whereas, according to the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, "In 
bourgeois states, lawyers join professional organizations only 
to defend their own private interests." This definition ingenu- 
ously ignores the fact that Soviet lawyers are also preeminently 
concerned with their private interests. 

The Nomenklatura classification of American lawyers is 
most evident in the District of Columbia, where one in every 
seventeen residents is an attorney. In contrast, the state which 
has the most lawyers, Massachusetts, has only one lawyer 
for 212 residents; in more rural states, the figure drops to 
one in six hundred residents. The high ratio of lawyers in 
the District population is explained by the fact that the national 
government offers easy pickings for the parasitic greed of 
the legal profession. Arriving in the District as a Congressman, 
a lawyer may later be defeated for office, but this will be 
but the beginning of a more prosperous career as a lobbyist, 
or as a highly paid government bureaucrat whose decisions 
will involve billions of dollars. Current lobbyists in Washing- 
ton earn about $700,000 per year, with another $500,000 in 
perks such as chauffeured limousines, two hundred dollar din- 
ners, and a choice of expensive male or female prostitutes. 
The current American Medical Association lobbyist and a 
few other pleaders for special interests are paid about one 
million dollars a year, with an equal amount in personal ex- 
penses. The Internal Revenue Service chooses to look the 
other way at these events taking place on its own doorstep, 
preferring to reserve its most dure punishments for newspaper- 
boys, scrubwomen and waitresses. Those in the upper echelons 
of remuneration usually have little to fear from the IRS. When 
billionaire Ross Perot was advised to hire former IRS Commis- 


sioner Sheldon Cohen, he was able to save fifteen million 
dollars in taxes on his stock profits. Cohen lobbied a special 
tax bill through Congress for Perot, as is frequently done, 
and Perot laughed all the way to the bank. 

Because of their relative affluence, one might expect that 
American lawyers would be stolid, middle class conservatives. 
However, their incomes are largely dependent upon the exis- 
tence of a ruthless Marxist state power in Washington and 
in the various State capitals, as evidenced by the Critical 
Legal Studies group at Harvard, and by the bias of the younger 
lawyers hired at the Department of Justice in Washington. 
The Legal Services Corporation diverted most of its funds 
to such leftist groups as the American Civil Liberties Union 
and its favorite projects, among them Planned Parenthood, 
Safe Sex, the Sonoma County Sanctuary Movement, and other 
approved Marxist organizations. In September, 1988, the Legal 
Services Corporation mounted a well-financed campaign to 
force HUD to turn over foreclosed homes to the homeless. 
The resulting forced delays in sales cost taxpayers more than 
five hundred thousand dollars, and opened the door to wide- 
spread corruption in HUD. The chaos created by the LSC 
agitation created opportunities for many sellers of foreclosed 
HUD homes to bank the proceeds in their own bank accounts; 
most of it will never be traced, although a few HUD officials 
admit to embezzling millions of dollars, much of which they 
claim they turned over to the "poor," although they acquired 
yachts, expensive homes and other assets in the process. 

The Legal Services Corporation, like so many of the govern- 
mental aberrations which plague the nation, was the personal 
project of a single member of Congress, Senator Warren Rud- 


man of Vermont, in whose view the agency could do no 
wrong. A current critic of the agency, Clark Durant, insists 
that the agency should fulfill its designated mission of helping 
the poor, and that it should cease to fund leftwing think tanks 
to do away with laws on monogamy, lobby for a negative 
income tax, that is, government payments to those who pay 
no tax, and prompting the socialization of housing. Durant 
also outraged the American legal profession when he proposed 
that the Legal Services Corporation could stretch its budget 
by hiring paralegals to do much of the work performed by 
its staff of lawyers, such as the writing of wills, deeds, and 

The headquarters of the Marxist bias among American law- 
yers has been for many years the American Civil Liberties 
Union, whose existence and exposure played a dominant role 
in the 1988 campaign for the Presidency of the United States. 
The goals of the ACLU are succinctly stated in "The Red 
Network"; "it is directed by Communist and Socialist revolu- 
tionary leaders ... it works untiringly to further and legally 
protect the interests of the Red movement in all of its 
branches — ^Red strikes. Atheism, sex freedom, disarmament, 
seditious 'academic freedom,' and 'freedom of speech' for 
Communists only . ' ' Although it was an outgrowth of the Amer- 
ican Association for the Advancement of Atheism," and thus 
continuously battles any religious symbolism in any aspect 
of American life, it has always been first and foremost an 
agency of the Communist Party. The U.S. Fish Report notes 
that the ACLU had provided bail for Conmiunist defendants 
in a strike in Gastonia, N.C. during which the chief of police 
was murdered. 'The Civil Liberties Union was active from 


the beginning of the trouble in the cases both at Marion and 
Gastonia.' The N.Y. State Lusk Report says: 'The American 
Civil Liberties Union, in the last analysis, is a supporter of 
all subversive movements; its propaganda is detrimental to 
the State. It attempts not only to protect crime but to encourage 
attacks upon our institutions in every form.' The U.S. Fish 
Committee report officially stated, Jan. 1931, 'The A.C.L.U. 
is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United 
States, and fully 90% of its efforts are on behalf of communists 
who have come into conflict with the law. ... the main 
function of the A.C.L.U. is to attempt to protect the conmiu- 
nists in their advocacy of force and violence to overthrow 
the government, replacing the American flag by a red flag 
and erecting a Soviet Government in place of the republican 
form of government guaranteed to each State by the Federal 
Constitution.' Among its most active members are the afore- 
named Felix Frankfurter and George Foster Peabody. A direc- 
tor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Peabody exem- 
plified the close affiliation of some bankers with the most 
violent aims of the Bolshevik movement. 

A recent issue of the ACLU's 576 page Policy Guide lays 
down the party line to be followed in specific context; Policy 
318, "it opposes work requirements at government-assigned 
tasks as a condition of eligibility for welfare on the grounds 
of fairness, dignity and privacy." However, the ACLU offers 
no objection to the excesses of the Internal Revenue Service 
when it breaks into homes and offices to seize assets from 
private citizens in order to finance the "welfare state." As a 
proponent of "redistribution of income," the ACLU cheers 
when ruthless government agents seize the private assets of 


American citizens to finance its Marxist state. On foreign 
policy, the ACLU is succinct but undeviating, "Abolish all 
covert operations." The fact that most of the CIA's covert 
operations throughout the world have been on behalf of left- 
wing groups, rather than in opposition to them, carries no 
weight with the A.C.L.U., whose policies are generally 
adopted word for word by the Stalinist fanatics of the Demo- 
cratic Party. A.C.L.U. members quail at the mention of the 
horrible phrase, "national security," because national security 
is the antithesis of the A.C.L.U. program for a world Commu- 
nist government. Its members are often found engaged in 
active acts of treason, whether turning over secrets to foreign 
governments, or destroying the living standards which make 
Hfe bearable within the geographical limits of the United States. 
Policy No. 92 states that "the ACLU opposes tax exemptions 
for religious bodies," a policy which originated in its other 
incarnation as the American Association for the Advancement 
of Atheism. However, the A.C.L.U. does not oppose the 
large tax exempt foundations which contribute millions of 
dollars to the A.C.L.U. budget. Policy No. 242 urges that 
"all criminals except those guilty of such crimes as murder 
and treason, be given a suspended sentence . . . and sent 
back to the community." In fact, the A.C.L.U. actively inter- 
venes on behalf of murderers and those accused of treason, 
furnishing legal and financial assistance. Policy No. 242 has 
become the guideline for most American judges today; they 
routinely hand out suspended sentences, and return the most 
violent criminals to the community for "work release" and 
"community service" programs. Policy No. 210 calls for 
legalization of all narcotics, including 'crack' and 'angel dust,' 


contending that "the introduction of substances into one's 
own body" is an inalienable civil liberty. 

Despite its historic agenda, the ACLU Policy Book remains 
unknown to most Americans, even to those taxpayers who 
continue to be assessed many millions of dollars each year 
to pay for the frivolous and destructive lawsuits brought against 
communities by the A.C.L.U. Their target is often local gov- 
ernment bodies, thus avoiding the better-financed federal agen- 
cies. It was the rumored existence of this agenda which torpe- 
doed the Presidential campaign of Michael Dukakis in 1988. 
Dukakis seemingly had a clear road to the White House — ^he 
had a weak opponent, a fanatically supportive media coverage, 
the support of the entire government and academic bodies, 
and absolute support from all minorities, including the home- 
less and the homosexuals. His campaign was sunk by one 
photograph of a convicted rapist, Willie Horton, and by the 
A.C.L.U. agenda which had brought about the release of 
Horton. Dukakis proudly proclaimed that he was a card-carry- 
ing member of the A.C.L.U. , thus identifying himself irrevoca- 
bly in the public mind widi Willie Horton. At no time did 
he ever repudiate the Communist origins of the A.C.L.U., 
which had its original incarnation on Dec. 18, 1914, as the 
American League to Limit Armaments, a spinoff from the 
Emergency Peace Foundation, headed by Communist propa- 
gandist Louis Lochner. Its other founders were Jane Addams, 
of Hull House, later revealed to be a secret member of the 
Communist Party; John Haynes Holmes, a prominent Commu- 
nist activist; Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, a rabid Communist apolo- 
gist; Morris Hillquit, a founder of the Socialist Party and a 
paid agent of the Soviet Government; and George Foster Pea- 


body, a "capitalist" who sought to implement Lenin's de- 
mands for a nationalized bank and "confiscation of assets" 
for the "crime" of "concealing income," which became the 
official program of the IRS. It was Peabody who had rescued 
the tottering Soviet government in 1918 with ready infusions 
of cash, aided by his fellow directors of the Federal Reserve 
Bank of New York, William Laurence Saunders, deputy chair- 
man of the bank, who wrote to President Wilson on October 
17, 1918, "I am in sympathy with the Soviet form of govern- 
ment as the best suited for the Russian people," and William 
Boyce Thompson, a financier who announced that he was 
personally donating one million dollars to promote Bolshevik 
propaganda in the United States! 

Without funds from these bankers, Conmiunism, which 
has never won an election anywhere in the world, would 
have died an early death. Every Communist government has 
been installed by military takeover, a fact which the A.C.L.U. 
never mentions in its copious socialist propaganda. 

The A.C.L.U. continued to be liberally supported by the 
bankers, because of its dedication to their Soviet ideals. In 
1920, it took the name American Civil Liberties Union, under 
the leadership of Roger Baldwin, an Anarchist Socialist who 
had akeady spent a year in jail because of his revolutionary 
work. Its National Committee now consisted of Baldwin, Eliza- 
beth Gurley Flynn, and William Z. Foster. Both Flynn and 
Foster later became chakmen of the Communist Party of the 
United States. A 1943 Report of the California Fact Finding 
Committee on Un-American Activities concluded that "The 
ACLU may be definitely classed as a Communist front. At 
least 90% of its efforts are expended on behalf of Communists 


who come into conflict with the law." This conclusion was 
repeated verbatim in a 1931 judgment of a Special House 
Committee to Investigate Communist Activities in the United 
States. A Barron's weekly story, August 26, 1968 by Shirley 
Scheibla concluded that "Careful study of ACLU cases . . . 
reveals that nearly all the causes it has taken up tend to weaken 
law and order and the ability of society to defend itself. Some 
landmark cases give Communists more freedom to destroy 
the nation from within. Those involving the draft code erode 
the state's ability to defend itself against armed attack. Other 
significant ALCU cases diminish the authority of schools and 
police and the influence of religion." 

Typical of A.C.L.U. operations is the New York Student 
Rights Project. Its director, Alan Levine, told assembled stu- 
dents, "Oppressive institutions give you no right at all to 
say why you go there, how long you go there, and what 
you do while you're there. Indeed, you can not exercise the 
rights the courts have told you you have without disrupting 
the system." The already demoralized school system faces 
interminable lawsuits seeking "students' rights." Another 
A.C.L.U. operation, its National Prisoner Project, was defined 
in the A.C.L.U. national newspaper. Civil Liberties, issue 
of March, 1973, "First, get the prisoners out. Next, protection 
of prisoners' First Amendment activities. Next, reform of 
pretrial facilities." The A.C.L.U. Women's Rights Projects 
sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment, a lawyers' dream 
which would have resulted in every woman in the United 
States suing every man for her "rights." The A.C.L.U. Death 
Penalty Project worked to abolish capital punishment in the 
United States, a goal which was won and then relinquished 


as the death penalty was reintroduced to stem the rapidly 
mounting crime toll throughout the country. A.C.L.U. also 
is the leader in the national campaign for gun control, more 
properly called "gun seizure." It has long been a truism in 
Washington that only the possession of some five hundred 
million guns by American citizens has postponed the Commu- 
nist seizure of power in the United States. In the Soviet Union, 
only trusted members of the Communist Party are allowed 
to own guns. The Massachusetts A.C.L.U. Newspaper, The 
Docket, stated in its April, 1974 issue on Civil Liberties, 
"The Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts favors all bills 
that seek to control ownership of guns. Where firearms are 
widely owned, there is a threat to free expression of ideas." 
The truth is that free expression of ideas is prohibited where 
private ownership of guns is prohibited, as in the Communist 

The A.C.L.U. continues to work tirelessly against all forms 
of piety and religious observance throughout the United States, 
such as the singing of ' 'Silent Night' ' during Christmas celebra- 
tions in public schools, the posting of the Ten Commandments 
in the schools, and the installment of Nativity scenes on public 
property. A.C.L.U. leaders demand the removal of the words, 
"In God We Trust" from our coinage, and the phrase, "under 
God' ' from the Pledge of Allegiance, although the entire Pledge 
of Allegiance remains a favorite target of the A.C.L.U. 

For years, the A.C.L.U. claimed to be against all forms 
of racial discrimination. In 1963, the organization suddenly 
reversed its longstanding policy, coming out for racial quotas 
in every field of American life. It abandoned its cry for ' 'equal 
opportunity," replacing it with "preferential treatment" for 


its favored minorities. When columnist Pat Buchanan wrote 
a column exposing some of the A.C.L.U. treachery, its execu- 
tive director, Ira Glasser, wrote him a vehement letter, accusing 
him of "McCarthyism, terrorism and slime." How Glasser 
or anyone else could be terrorized by a mere newspaper column 
was not explained. 

In 1988, the A.C.L.U. finally involved itself in a situation 
about which the present writer had been complaining for many 
years, in letters to the press, articles, and books. This is the 
infamous section of the statutes which establishes severe penal- 
ties for anyone who reveals any information of complaints 
about a judge. A columnist had written about this statute on 
the editorial page of the Washington Post in 1977, suggesting 
that it was probably unconstitutional, as indeed it is. In 1978, 
the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, decreeing that 
the state could not prosecute reporters for reporting "secret 
judicial investigations." The state Judicial Inquiry and Review 
Commission routinely received complaints from the public 
against judges, which were promptiy buried. Its director finally 
admitted that in some fifteen years, only one or two complaints 
had actually been investigated. Nevertheless, the director of 
the commission continued to warn all complainants that it 
was a criminal offense for anyone to talk about his complaint, 
and that he would be prosecuted! 

The A.C.L.U. filed suit on the grounds that both the state 
code and the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission violate 
the First and Fourteenth Amendments protecting free speech 
and due process. The complaint stated that the law enables 
concealment of "evidence of substantial misconduct by 
judges." It took the A.C.L.U. seventy years to discover a 


statute about which citizens had been complaining for decades. 

Because of the numerous lawsuits which it generates, the 
A.C.L.U. functions as the godfather of the American legal 
profession. Most of these suits are intended to weaken the 
institutions of the nation, such as schools and churches, but 
many are so trivial in origin as to create new markets for 
lawyers where none previously existed. The flood of "job 
discrimination" and "sexual harassment" lawsuits which en- 
gulf our major companies have seriously weakened our ability 
to compete in the world economy. Thus the A.C.L.U. has 
actively worked to promote the rise of Japan, Korea and West 
Germany in their domination of our auto and appliance mar- 
kets, while simultaneously encouraging the wave of "mergers 
and acquisitions," promoting the giant monopolies which the 
Sherman Anti-Trust Act claimed to have outlawed. 

The professional organization by which the lawyers have 
become the Nomenklatura, or ruling, elite, in the United States 
is the American Bar Association. This organization selects, 
and for all practical purposes, elects judges to our courts. It 
not only ' 'recommends' ' judges, but also passes on their quali- 
fications, labelling them "able," "mediocre," or "not recom- 
mended." The reasons for the latter unfavourable designation 
remain shrouded in secrecy, but are always based upon political 
or ethnic prejudices. Rarely does it have any bearing on the 
character, the training, or the ability of the designate, "not 
recommended" simply means that the elitists of the American 
Bar Association have decided to blackball someone who does 
not fit into their narrow categorization. Such unfavorable deci- 
sion is always spared anyone who has the necessary qualifica- 
tions, the most important being membership in a Masonic 


lodge. The ABA system ensures that a small, dedicated group, 
existing in an atmosphere of conspiracy and secret goals, 
can dominate the selection of all judges in the United States. 
Like most invasions of our rights, the inspiration for the 
American Bar Association invasion came directly from En- 
gland. Our Constitution guarantees our citizens equal rights 
under the law; the British Secret Service has sought to under- 
mine this guarantee by decreeing that the laws of the United 
States shall be administered by persons who want unequal 
rights, or special licenses. The Constitution tried to prevent 
this by expressly outlawing grants of special privilege. The 
American Bar Association had its inception at a meeting in 
the summer of 1878 of some seventy-five lawyers from eleven 
states. The guiding force of the group was Simeon E. Baldwin, 
a descendant of Roger Sherman, a Governor of Connecticut, 
and a Justice of the state's Supreme Court. The ABA subse- 
quently underwent three periods in its history: from 1878 to 
1902, it was a strictly professional organization dedicated to 
improving the practice of law; from 1902 to 1936 was its 
era of national expansion, when it became a genuinely national 
organization; and from 1936 to 1950, when it became a truly 
elitist organization, which sought to extend its control over 
other aspects of American life. It was in 1936 that the ABA 
adopted a federalized constitution, creating a monolithic orga- 
nization which was tightly controlled by a small group of 
elitists. It also founded the National Association of Law 
Schools in 1900, giving it control of the crucial field of accredi- 
tation, and the National Conference of Commissioners of Uni- 
form State Laws, giving it access to the statutes of every 


The appearance of the ABA as a genuine national force 
first came in 1909, when a group of British lawyers arrived 
in Chicago to set up a monolithic organization. They were 
actively assisted by John D. Rockefeller, who was then setting 
up the University of Chicago to promote the principles of 
British Fabian Socialism, with a gift of fifty million dollars. 
The Illinois legislature then passed a statute that only members 
of the legal union, the ABA, would be allowed to practice 
law within that state. With this act, the State of Illinois, for 
all practical purposes, seceded from the constitutional union 
of states, by granting special privileges in violation of the 
Constitution. This statute also set up a class system in the 
United States. Other states were persuaded to adopt the Illinois 
statute, California in 1927, and the other states in the 1930s, 
until the ABA had achieved its goal of national power. 

Yale law professor Fred Rodell characterizes the union mem- 
bers of the ABA, the duly licensed and chartered "lawyers" 
as "purveyors of streamlined voodoo and chromium-plated 
theology," whose "weird and wordy mental gymnastics" 
enable them to carry on a "highclass racket." There are now 
some 180 "approved" law schools in the United States, li- 
censed by the ABA to turn out "approved" lawyers. On 
graduation, these lawyers are still mere apprentices, because 
they have been taught little or nothing about how the legal 
system actually operates, or what a lawyer must do to earn 
his fees. They are not taught the classics of the law, such as 
the works of Coke and Blackstone, but they endure months 
of semantic quibbling about the law of contracts or the meaning 
of a household. This is to prepare them for the practice of 
the law merchant. 


During some forty years of research into the problems plagu- 
ing this nation, the present writer dug down to the strata of 
a common plateau, which revealed the simultaneous origins 
of the various forms of criminality infesting the land. It had 
begun with a small fraternity of international bankers who 
first fastened their central banking system onto the nations 
of Europe, and later, in a secret meeting at Jekyl Island, 
Georgia in 1910, conspired to create a "Federal Reserve Sys- 
tem" (which was not federal, had no reserves, and was not 
a system, but a syndicate). In "The World Order," I revealed 
the tentacles of the financiers which manipulated the govern- 
ments of the world. I proved that the three professions which 
were doing the most damage were the bankers, the lawyers, 
and the doctors. Educators came in a strong fourth. In "Murder 
by Injection," I exposed the medical profession, and in the 
present work, I expose the legal profession, despite its function 
as a legal octopus whose fierce squirting of black ink confuses 
and subdues its prey. 

In all of these works, I have found myself dealing with 
essentially the same families and the same groups, both within 
the United States and abroad. A recent television expose of 
a Dr. James Burt, who had for years performed strange sexual 
operations on his women patients with the knowledge of his 
peers, carried the official disclaimer of the medical profession 
from a prominent physician, "Of course the other doctors 
knew what he was doing, but they wouldn't dare expose him. 
He might sue them, and no one wants to get involved in 
that horror which is our legal system." The lush profits from 
malpractice suits have made the medical field easy pickings 
for the legal vultures, while discouraging conscientious doctors 


from adequately treating their patients. The result is intended 
to be the final socializing of all medical practice in the United 
States, under the total control of the government. 

The ABA carries considerable weight in the operation of 
the legislative process. The Resolution of the 74th Congress, 
on Aug. 27, 1935, of the Joint Resolution Consenting to an 
Interstate Oil Compact to Conserve Oil and Gas, would not 
have been possible without the ABA, whose members drafted 
a Federal Oil and Gas Conservation Act in 1935, subsequently 
passed as a state law in South Dakota in 1955 and later in 
other oil-producing states. This drive for "conservation" was 
intended solely to protect the oil monopoly of the Rockefeller 
interests and their many subsidiaries. It forbade newcomers 
from drilling so as to control production and maintain high 
price levels. This program was originally formulated at the 
ABA annual meeting in Seattle in July of 1928. An act was 
written which removed the major oil companies from the con- 
trol of the anti-trust laws (vol. 53, pp. 72-89). In 1934, the 
Governor of Texas, who just happened to be the president 
of Humble Oil, one of Rockefeller's main acquisitions, used 
this ABA act to call out the National Guard, stopping further 
drilling by independent producers. Congress was then ordered 
to draft national approval of this act by the Joint Resolution 
of 1935. 

The ABA maintains a number of active subcommissions 
which constantly review and redraft laws controlling the daily 
lives of all Americans. Their recommendations, like their "ap- 
provals" of candidates for judgeships, are always accepted 
by the pertinent Congressional committees as worthy of being 
drafted into law without changing so much as a comma, yet 


no citizen has ever elected any member of an ABA commission 
to national office. Typical of these secret commissions is the 
ABA'S Section on Patent, Trademark and Copyright Law, 
which was exposed in the Senate Judiciary Hearings of Febru- 
ary 3, 1974 under the title, "The Organized Bar: Self-Serving 
or Serving the Public?" 

The Committee found that the incoming chairman of this 
influential ABA section was Theodore Bowes, a member of 
a secret ABA operation known as "the Tuesday Group." 
Bowes was a former General Patent Counsel for the Westing- 
house Corp., and a prominent Washington lobbyist in the 
field of patent law. The "Tuesday Group" was a clique of 
lawyers which drafted the Scott Amendments, proposals which 
would exempt many presently illegal patent practices from 
the antitrust laws. The "Tuesday Group" then persuaded Sena- 
tor Hugh Scott to introduce them on the Hill. Scott was a 
Washington politician who enjoyed many of the perks of a 
prominent political figure. He was able to indulge his penchant 
for collecting priceless Chinese antiques, a hobby which was 
beyond the means of most of his colleagues on Capitol Hill. 

The Judiciary Committee found that other ABA Sections 
were headed by lobbyists from leading corporations; the chair- 
man of the Environmental Controls Committee of the ABA 
comes from a large Richmond, Virginia law firm representing 
Humble Oil, three power companies, three raikoads, General 
Motors, a gas pipeline company and a chemical corporation. 
He seemed an ideal choice to draft regulations on pollution. 
The Judiciary Committee further stated, ' 'The Coal Committee 
(of the ABA) is headed by a lawyer from Consolidation Coal 
Co; his vice chairman is the lawyer for the National Coal 


Association; the Oil Committee chairman, the General Counsel 
of Cities Service and his vice chairman is General Counsel 
for Humble Oil; the Forest Resources Committee (of the ABA) 
has a chairman whose law firm represents Georgia-Pacific 
and Moore Oregon Lumber; the vice chairman's law firm 
represents U.S. Plywood, Champion Paper etc." 

The entire Senate Judiciary Committee report is a fascinating 
expose of the intrigues in which lawyers engage to protect 
the profits of their clients, while these firms defraud and injure 
the American public. The ABA also takes strong public posi- 
tions on many political issues; the entire organization unhesitat- 
ingly endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment in the confident 
expectation of generating billions of dollars in extremely profit- 
able lawsuits . Indeed, it was the fear of an avalanche of lawsuits 
which finally caused the ERA to be defeated. This one amend- 
ment would have paralyzed an ateady overburdened court 

Much like the American Medical Association (which is 
also headquartered in Chicago), the enormous influence exer- 
cised by the American Bar Association lies in its monopolistic 
practices. It controls the means of entering the profession by 
controlling the accreditation of law schools, just as the AMA 
controls the accreditation of medical schools and hospitals. 
In all but two states, Georgia and California, the wouldbe 
lawyer must attend an "accredited law school," that is, accred- 
ited by the ABA, before permission is granted to take the 
state bar examination, which is also prepared under the supervi- 
sion of the ABA. Legislation is now under way in California 
to end the opportunity for non-accredited students to take 
the bar exam in that state. The bar exam prevents anyone 


from practicing law, even though Robert H. O'Brien, chairman 
of the California Committee of Bar Examiners, admits that 
the bar exam does not accurately predict the ability of future 
attorneys. Those who pass are then admitted to the "inte- 
grated" bar association, the state monopoly, which has the 
power to punish any attorney who fails to conform to its 
stringent controls. For years the state bar associations have 
operated in open defiance of anti-trust laws, conspiring to 
fix fees, prohibiting advertising by attorneys, and prosecuting 
anyone accused of unauthorized practice of law. Competence 
is not an issue. The bar monopoly can and does prosecute 
highly skilled legal practitioners, such as paralegals, trust offi- 
cers, and others whose skills and experience more than qualify 
them to practice law. 

The ABA particularly frowns upon anyone who is labelled 
a "tax protestor" by the vigilant agents of the IRS, or who 
criticizes any person or institution of the EstabUshment. Al- 
though the ABA tries to present a public figure of a stem 
moral entity which prosecutes and punishes any attorney sus- 
pected of "moral turpitude," judges publicly known to have 
accepted bribes have been elected presidents of bar associa- 
tions. An ABA panel commissioned to look into the disci- 
plinary situation among lawyers in 1970 summed up its findings 
in one word , " scandalous . ' ' 

Although few Americans are aware of the ABA and its 
sinister machinations, its conspiracies afTect the daily cost of 
living for every American. The ABA strongly urges the exten- 
sion of state powers over the lives and property of every 
American. Whether one wishes to call this Marxism, or 1984, 
or Communism, it most definitely is not American, nor is it 


the Republic for which we stand. For this reason, there is 
now rising opposition to the ABA and the monopoly which 
it exercises over the practice of law. In Austin, Texas, Daniel 
Madison has filed a suit against the ABA, the Texas Supreme 
Court, the University of Texas Law School, and the Law 
Schools council for violation of the antitrust laws, and for 
conspiracy to keep power from nonlawyers. Madison explains 
his suit with these words, "If you're rich, you can have all 
the justice you want, but if you are a working class citizen, 
you may get little or none. That is the system in America." 
The precipitous decline in American production and export 
income has been ascribed to many factors, such as poor Ameri- 
can workmanship, the strength of the dollar, and other factors. 
However, only one scholar, Peter Ruber, has dared to put 
the blame where it most plainly lies. In his fully documented 
work, "Liability: The Legal Revolution and Its Conse- 
quences," he tells us that "Tort law was set in place in the 
60s and 70s by a new generation of lawyers and judges . . . 
Some grew famous and more grew rich by selling their services 
to enforce the rights they themselves had invented." Although 
a few Americans may have been pleased by the enormous 
settlements won for them by their lawyers against American 
manufacturers, the overall result has been devastating. More 
than thirty billion dollars a year is now spent on such lawsuits, 
according to recent studies by the Rand Corp., with more 
than half of this sum going to attorneys as fees. Huber says 
that the industrial havoc wrought by this practice "accounts 
for 30% of the price of a stepladder and 90% of the price of 
childhood vaccines. ' ' He writes that an amorphous new jumble 
of contract and tort law, called "contort law" overrules our 


most important economic freedom, the freedom to make ad- 
vance commitments and to arrange deals on terms mutually 
agreeable." Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 28, 
1988, Huber cites the reluctance of insurance companies to 
write liability coverage at any price, with a concurrent decline 
in overall safety as new technologies are withheld from the 
market, and the decline of American competitiveness in foreign 
markets." He says, "U.S. contort law gives foreign manufac- 
turers an important competitive edge." Huber has found that 
tort law costs the American consumer $300 billion a year! 
The overall verdict of Huber' s book is that there has indeed 
been a revolution in liability cases, with the result that in 
the past thirty years tort law, the law of accident and personal 
injury cases, has been altered by judges and law professors 
to make the law "more compassionate," and more anti-busi- 
ness, a logical result of the growing Marxism of the American 
bench. The results may be seen on every hand; in the rapid 
obsolescence of the "Rust Belt"; the growing deficit of the 
U.S. balance of trade, and in the growing foreign investment 
in the United States. In 1988 it had grown to $304 billion, 
which included 33% of chemicals, 12% of all manufacturing 
in the U.S., 12% of printing and publishing, and 10% of 
fiber and textile manufacturing. Huber is not the only one to 
attribute this tragic decline in American assets to the malignant 
depredations of our legal profession. 

Huber recommends as a first step the repeal of the judge- 
invented coUateral-soiu-ce rule, thus relying on direct insurance 
of goods and services. It is unlikely that the judges will back 
down from the dilemma which they themselves have created, 
or that the insurance companies could afford the vast amounts 


required for direct insurance coverage. Whatever the outcome, 
the situation can be traced all the way back to Starkey's apt 
observation during the reign of King Henry the Eighth, ' 'Every- 
one that can color reason maketh a stop to the best law that 
is beforetime devised." 

The excesses of tort law are the consequence of earlier 
abuses by lawyers in the early years of this century. Lawyers 
usually acted as claim agents for companies facing a damage 
suit, using their talents to persuade the victim to sign a release 
on payment of minimal damages. This practice backfired when 
the lawyers realized that they could make much more money 
by representing the victim against the companies, extracting 
huge settlements, of which they took one-third in contingency 
fees, plus untold "expenses." The practice was little more 
than ambulance chasing, but it proved very lucrative. 

The red lights of the ambulances still prove to be an irresist- 
ible attraction to the legal profession. The Wall Street Journal 
headlined on Sept. 1, 1988, "Texas Bar Rushes to Crash 
Site to Protect Victims from Certain Lawyers," "Attempting 
to protect victims' families from solicitations by unscrupulous 
lawyers, the State Bar of Texas rushed its own lawyers to 
the site of the Delta Airlines crash at Dallas International 
Airport." The article noted that "solicitation by lawyers is 
a crime, usually a misdemeanor, known as barratry." 

On Feb. 16, 1989, the Wall Street Journal memorialized 
"the dozens of lawyers who raced to Bhopal in the days 
after the accident and later brought the victims' cases into 
U.S. courts." The mad, mad world aspect of the lawyers' 
rush to Bhopal was occasioned by the tempting prospect of 
thousands of clients, when the Union Carbide plant at Bhopal 


had a gas leak in 1984. The lawyers actually signed up thou- 
sands of clients, but were thwarted when the Indian government 
assumed control of the litigation in 1986. Union Carbide agreed 
to a $470 million settlement, with payment to the registrar 
of the India Supreme Court. This apparently left the American 
lawyers in limbo, as they would have no access to the funds. 
In tort action, it is axiomatic that the lawyer takes his payments 
off the top. It is unlikely that India's biureaucracy will be 
willing to share the loot, most of which will probably never 
reach the victims. For the "Bhopal flyers" it may be a bitter 

Louis Vuitton, the French leather goods manufacturer, de- 
veloped another new angle on the attorney problem. Instead 
of continuing to hire lawyers to battle against counterfeiters 
who illegally put the Vuitton name on their products, Vuitton 
has now prosecuted more than fifty cases in New York by 
having judges appoint corporate counsels as special prosecu- 
tors. These counsels then launch criminal contempt proceed- 
ings against offenders who violate court injunctions against 
counterfeiting. Because such counterfeiting is now a $5.5 
billion a year problem, other manufacturers have followed 
suit. They have shifted their costs onto the shoulders of a 
public prosecutor, because they have notified him of the com- 
mission of a crime. It is then his duty to prosecute it. However, 
when the present writer has done this in the past, the govern- 
ment agencies have refused to prosecute. No action has ever 
been taken on notification of serious violations of law. 

The legal profession continues to make its fees from public 
misfortunes. When the A. H. Robins Co. of Richmond, Va. 
marketed a faulty intrauterine device, the Dalkon Shield, some 


195,000 women who were injured by it filed claims for their 
injuries. The firm sought protection under the Federal Bank- 
ruptcy Act, but eventually set up a $2.4 billion fund to settle 
the flood of personal injury lawsuits. In Sept. 1988, a confiden- 
tial report concluded that a major Wall Street law firm, Cadwa- 
lader, Wickersham and Taft (as in President Taft), violated 
conflict of interest laws in an "impermissible appearance of 
impropriety" by simultaneously representing a conmiittee of 
Robins' plaintiffs and the five trustees who will be disbursing 
the billions in settlements. The Cadwalader firm was said to 
have played the principle role in nominating four of the five 
trustees. Millions of dollars of potential revenue for the Cadwa- 
lader firm are at stake. 

The national crisis among the savings and loans banks has 
been explained by the involvement of lawyers in the longstand- 
ing campaign to "deregulate" them. Those same lawyers 
are now stepping in to write proposals for "resolving" the 
problems. The Wall Street Journal noted on Jan. 31, 1989 
that Thomas Vartanian, the former general counsel for the 
Federal Home Loan Bank Board, wrote the laws which deregu- 
lated the thrift banks. After they went bankrupt as a result 
of that deregulation, he joined the New York powerhouse 
law firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and Jacobson. The 
firm earned some twelve million dollars in 1988 by handling 
55 thrift mergers. Vartanian's deputy at the FHLBB, Patrick 
Doyle, also has built up a thriving savings and loan business, 
at the Washington law firm of Arnold and Porter. 

Washington remains the preeminent home base for the law- 
yer lobbyist, some eleven thousand now holding court there. 
The dean of Washington tax lobbyists is Charles Walker, 


whose CEW Associates represents a powerful corporate base, 
known as the Group of 14. These 14 major corporations include 
Alcoa, ATT, Bechtel, Champion, Dresser, DuPont, IBM and 
others, with aggregate sales of $260 billion a year, and employ- 
ing two million workers. They depend on CEW to handle 
tax code changes which will affect their profits. Walker came 
to Washington as the protege of Robert Anderson, Secretary 
of the Treasury from 1957-1960. Walker became overseer 
of Congressional relations for the Treasury Dept. , later writing 
the Tax Reform Act of 1969. He earned a valuable reputation 
as the man to see if you wanted something done in Washington 
in the tax field. His firm now makes millions per year. His 
mentor, Robert Anderson, was not so fortunate. Although 
he later became president of the American Bankers Associa- 
tion, he was disbarred in New York on Jan. 11, 1989, after 
conviction on tax evasion of $240,000 from 1983-84, and 
having operated an illegal bank which cost investors some 
$4.4 million. 

Chapter 4 

Judge Not 

The origin of the word "judge" is found in "juden," or, 
in Spanish, "juez." In the United States, the judge sees him- 
self, first of all, as the guardian of the present legal system. 
While carefully cultivating his public image as the epitome 
of impartiality, he succeeds in letting interested inquirers know 
that his impartiality may be swayed by certain considerations. 
For this reason, it is crucial that a citizen entering an American 
court as a litigant should discard the assiduously cultivated 
myth of "judicial impartiality." If you are a farmer, a small 
business operator, or a wage earner in any type of business, 
you are akeady "beyond the pale," as far as the judge is 
concerned. You have been consigned to the never never land 
of the hoi poUoi — the judge will not let anyone leave his 
court without being convinced that he is an elitist. 

During a national campaign to increase judges' salaries in 
1989, it was found that judges, whose salaries range from 
$89,500 to $115,000 a year, reported average extra earnings 
from $16,624 to $39,500. An Associated Press survey found 



that the median 1987 income for a federal judge was from 
$108,000 to $130,300. In pleading for the pay raise, Robert 
McWilliams of the 10th U.S. Circuit CT in Colorado, stated 
that 'Judges' salaries, rather than being geared to the income 
of the average taxpayer, should be geared to the average of 
practicing lawyers." However, the Associated Press survey 
showed that median income for America's 707,000 lawyers 
and judges was only $45,069, (Census reports). McWilUams 
apparently was unaware that judges' median income was al- 
ready more than double the median income for American 
lawyers. The demand for ever higher salaries is part of the 
judges' elitist drive. The judge has attended a university, his 
family had sufficient funds for him to go on to graduate law 
school and to become a professional man; and he later became 
a judge because he attracted the favorable attention of even 
more powerful elitists, who concluded that he would serve 
to protect their interests in the court. The judge resides in 
an upper income suburb, owning a home of considerable value 
in an area of other elitists. He belongs to a country club 
whose members are strictly limited to elitists. He maintains 
unadvertised affiliations in one or more religious, fraternal 
and political groups. Preeminent among such groups is the 
Masonic fraternal organization. The majority of Masonic mem- 
bers never go beyond the three degrees of the Blue Lodge. 
They are never informed that the higher degrees are forbidden, 
under pain of death, to disclose any of the machinations of 
the higher degrees to any member of the Blue Lodge. This 
does not mean that members of the Blue Lodge reap no advan- 
tages from their membership. On the contrary, they continually 
receive favorable treatment in the banks, in the courts, and 


from other businessmen. The courts are preponderantly exten- 
sions of the Masonic brotherhood. Most lawyers and judges 
are fellow lodge members. Preferential treatment is extended 
to all members of the brotherhood who come before the court. 
In our larger cities, most judges are also Zionist collabora- 
tors; if inactive Zionists, they have been screened by a Zionist 
organization and have been found satisfactory. A judge is 
almost always a member in good standing of one of the major 
political parties; he is almost never a member of an "indepen- 
dent" political movement. He is usually a member of an 
established church, if Protestant, usually Episcopalian, al- 
though more than half of the judges in the United States are 
Roman Catholic. He may even belong to some "extremist" 
organization, as Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black had long 
been a member in good standing of the Ku Klux Klan. After 
he had been appointed to the Supreme Court by President 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Black admitted his Klan member- 
ship. The leak had come from a Communist ideologue, during 
the heyday of the capture of the national Democratic Party 
by the fanatical Stalinist wing of the Communist Party. Klan 
membership was anathema to these ideologues; only Nazi 
affiliation carried a greater stigma. Black humbly promised 
never to go to another Klan meeting, and served on the Court 
for many years. Political realists in Washington knew that 
Black's political career had been built on his Klan membership 
in Alabama. Without it, he could not have been elected to 
the Senate. Once in Washington, he became a loyal supporter 
of FDR's most socialist policies, and was rewarded by the 
Supreme Court appointment. With the Klan affiliation hanging 
over his head. Black became an ardent supporter of every 


violation of the Constitution, as a member of the FDR court. 
The Black episode illustrates the necessity of a judge having 
powerful political support. Conversely, he need know little 
or nothing about legal problems or the actual practice of law. 
He is expected to show unwavering loyalty to the prevalent 
party line during his service as a judge. Those judges who 
at some point begin to believe that they are a power in them- 
selves, and who substitute their personal views for the exigen- 
cies of the current party line (which varies from day to day, 
as any practical political stance must do), are the judges whom 
you read about in the press. They are judges who are impeached 
for high crimes and misdemeanours, stripped of their office, 
and sent to prison. This is a very rare occurrence, as the 
sitting judge is never allowed to forget where his real allegiance 
lies. The judge exercises supreme power over the parties who 
stand before him in civil litigation or in criminal actions. He 
has equal power over the lawyers who stand before him, 
and he never allows anyone to forget that power. In this 
regard, the judge is not actually an employee of the city, 
state or nation which pays his salary. He is the tool of the 
secret entities who control all aspects of American life from 
behind the scenes. The servile press has made it fashionable 
to sneer at anyone who speaks of a "conspiracy," with the 
implication that anyone who believes there are conspirators 
is probably mentally ill, and should be secluded for the safety 
of society. We are often reminded that persons who claimed 
to have some knowledge of the inner workings of ' 'the conspir- 
acy" have been promptly spirited off to an asylum, where 
the continuous administration of mind-altering drugs soon con- 
vinces him that he was mistaken in his charges . The ' ' agitator' ' 


is soon reduced to a helpless, drooling inmate who, whenever 
he shows signs of recovering his wits, is immediately given 
a stronger dose of Thorazine, a la KGB. 

The fallacy of judicial impartiality could be denied by any 
practicing attorney. In our larger cities, the practice of "judge- 
shopping" among scheduled members of the bench is a daily 
occurrence. A lawyer will use any stratagem, not the least 
of which is the employment of carefully cultivated relationships 
with clerks of the court, to have a case moved from a judge 
known to be hostile either to the defendant, or to the type 
of crime he has committed, or to the lawyer himself. Through- 
out the legal profession, it is common knowledge that most 
judges with years of service on the bench are almost universally 
hostile to anyone who comes into a court without an attorney, 
and declares his intention of representing himself. The judges 
are also very hostile to women lawyers, and to blacks and 
other minorities. 

Judge Susan M. Skinner of Lee County, Florida, recently 
resigned her judgeship, citing sexism and "petty politics" 
in the judicial system as reason for resigning the judgeship 
she has held since 1984. She made her letter of resignation 
public, stating that "I have come to the conclusion that there 
is more to life than remaining as a part of this judicial system! 
I cannot envision myself emulating a number of the present 
judges with their infighting, envy, and dispassionate processing 
of their cases, nor can I further tolerate the total domination 
our current court administrator is allowed to exercise over 
the judiciary." Ft. Myers Fla. News Press, June 16, 1989. 

Judge Skirmer had caused a community uproar when she 
learned that a defendant had AIDS. She ordered him from 


her courtroom, saying that she was insulted by his audacity 
in appearing in court, and she feared he would spread the 
disease to others in the courtroom. A national public outcry 
was raised by the powerful homosexual community, and she 
realized that she would no longer be able to carry out her 
judicial duties in the atmosphere of harassment and intimida- 

Liberal elements in Washington had sought to replace the 
older members of the judiciary with blacks and women, a 
process hastened by President Jimmy Carter, who replaced 
some three hundred members of the federal judiciary. Some 
of them have since been indicted, while others have resigned. 

In 1717, Bishop Benjamin Hoadley informed the King of 
England, "Whoever hath an absolute authority to interpret 
any written laws is truly the lawgiver to all intents and purposes, 
and not the person who wrote them." 

Thus it is the judge, rather than the person who wrote the 
laws, who has been transformed from an impartial referee 
of the statutes into the creator of the statutes. Judges are 
now handing out excessive punishments, with little or no 
restraint on their decisions. The Wall Street Journal noted 
April 28, 1989 that federal judge Richard Owen had given 
some defendants one hundred years in a criminal case, and 
fifteen years in a tax fraud case, which was at least five times 
more severe than most attorneys thought appropriate. A federal 
judge ruled June 5, 1980 that the city of Parma, Ohio must 
provide three hundred units of low income housing annually. 
This was described as "the first federal takeover of a city." 

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled May 10, 1989 that District 
of Columbia Superior Court Judge Tim C. Murphy should 


have withdrawn from an assault case which had been brought 
by federal prosecutors, because at that very time, he was 
applying for a position with the Department of Justice. It 
was ruled a clearcut violation of ethical rules, although Judge 
Murphy defended his action by pointing out that "I taught 
judicial ethics for years." 

The overweening power of the judge in the American legal 
system has increased inversely to the decline of Constitutional 
guarantees of individual rights, and the concurrent rise of 
equity law. Equity originates from the Latin Aequitas, meaning 
equality of justice. Equity is defined by Sir Henry Maine in 
"Ancient Law" as "any body of rules existing beside the 
existing original or civil law, founded on distinct principles, 
and claiming incidentally to supersede the civil law in virtue 
of a superior sanctity inherent in those principles, principles 
stemming from praetor edicts." This is a reference to the 
annual proclamation on administrative law which was added 
to each year by the praetor, who corresponded to the lord 
high chancellor in English law. Equitable jurisdiction had 
been established in England by the reign of Edward HI. Equity 
has exclusive jurisdiction where it recognizes rights unknown 
to the common law, such as trusts; equity has concurrent 
jurisdiction where the law recognized the right but did not 
give adequate relief; and auxiliary jurisdiction when the ma- 
chinery of the courts of law was unable to procure the new 

Maine goes on to deplore the evils of this double system 
of judicature. The present writer found early on that when 
his opponents realized that they could not destroy him in the 
civil courts, they moved to have the case heard in the equity 


or chancery courts. At first, I was mystified by this move, 
although I was soon convinced of its purpose. I doggedly 
hung on, and was finally able to settle the case on my own 
terms. The existence of this double system of judicature is a 
powerful secret weapon, which both judges and lawyers use 
against the public, giving them a decisive tactic which they 
can deploy, just when the citizen believes that at last he will 
finally receive justice in the court. 

The abuses of our legal system are the more ironic when 
we learn that the traditional meaning of the scales of justice 
is that all things should be in harmony, weighed and establish- 
ing an equilibrium between warring opponents. Libra, the 
sign of the scales, is the seventh sign of the Zodiac, and is 
ruled by Venus; its jewel is the emerald, which represents 
the divine blend of colors, the blue of heaven with the gold 
of the sun. In tarot, the Justice card is represented by a seated 
and crowned Lord, who is the enthronement of the imperial 
dispenser of justice. King Solomon, The designation of the 
scales as the sign of justice was intended to decree that all 
worlds, and all forms of human nature, should attain a balance. 

In practice, this ideal has not been achieved. The scales 
of justice, rather than weighing the evidence presented by 
the opposing forces, until preponderance occurs on one side 
or the other, allow the adversary system to force the scales 
down on one side, justifying a decision in favor of that party. 
Thus the idea of balance has been abandoned, not only because 
of the adversary system, but also because the scales of justice, 
instead of signifying harmony, have been converted into the 
scales of commerce, in which commodities are weighed to 
determine their price before the sale. Equity law was a tremen- 


dous move in this direction, allowing first the admiralty courts, 
and then the law merchant, to supersede the common law 
and in the United States, our Constitutional law. In the law 
merchant, all law is concerned merely with the handling of 
economic disputes, and the scales of justice have become 
the scales of the trader, or the broker. 

Because of this development, the office of judge itself be- 
came an item of trade, to be auctioned off to the highest 
bidder. Just as the scales of justice are used to weigh the 
relative power, influence and finances of the parties, so the 
judicial robe became a saleable property. Although it is still 
ofifered in outlying areas of the nation as a bid for those 
who hold the reins of power, in the larger cities, it has been 
reduced to the sole element of price. This can be verified in 
our most reputable publications, such as the New York Times, 
Oct. 2, 1988. This newspaper featured a lengthy interview 
with Matthew Troy, who was formerly a pillar of the "system" 
as a New York City councilman, and a Queens Democratic 
Party leader. Troy served short prison sentences in 1980, 
after pleading guilty to filing false income tax returns. He 
now lectures at universities on the realities of our judicial 
and political system. Troy says that the public has an idea 
that politicians are crooked, "and usually they are right." 
He states that he swapped State Assembly votes for judgeships, 
that visitors came to his office with briefcases bulging with 
cash, and that he routinely turned down bribes from reporters 
and developers. One reporter offered to run favorable newspa- 
per stories about him for a mere $500 a week. 

Troy's most important revelation is his recounting of the 
current price lists for the purchase of a judgeship. "The usual 


price for a judgeship on the Supreme Court of New York 
was $75,000, with lower court posts going for $15,000. That 
was common knowledge that I grew up with." He continues, 
"A man came to see me, and he put a briefcase on my desk, 
loaded, absolutely loaded with cash. And he said to me, 'I'd 
like to be a judge.' I asked him, 'Are you a lawyer?' " 

Although money remains the ruling factor, the guiding prin- 
ciple of the legal system remains its allegiance to the Masonic 
order. In many areas, the local bench is merely a chapter of 
the Masonic Lodge. Because of the great secrecy maintained 
by the lodges, no accurate figures can be given as to the 
number of American lawyers and judges who are members 
of a Masonic lodge. Of the current total of 707,000 American 
judges and lawyers, it seems a good estimate that at least 
500,000 are lodge members. It could be as high as 90%. 
Figures have been established for England, in Stephen Knight's 
best selling book, "The Brotherhood." Shortly after publish- 
ing this book, which immediately became a best seller. Knight, 
who was a young man, died suddenly. Interested persons 
have been unable to obtain any details of his death. Knight 
states that "the Law Society (the English equivalent of our 
Bar Association) is one of the most masonic instimtions in 
the world. Ninety per cent of its members are Masons." He 
points out that this situation itself creates grave inequities, 
because the Law Society is the final arbiter as to who will 
receive legal aid and who will be denied it. In practice, a 
non-Mason has no chance of receiving legal aid in a suit 
against a Mason. 

Knight says that fifty to seventy per cent of all English 
judges are Masons. This figure is probably close to that in 


the United States. Lawyers soon become aware that if they 
expect to have any clients, and if they wish to win cases in 
court, they must join the Masons, because of most of their 
client referrals will come from this source. Knight cites the 
Unlawful Societies Act of 1799 requiring that secret societies 
could hold meetings only if the names of then: members were 
submitted to the local Clerks of the Peace. He notes that 
although this law has been on the books for almost two centu- 
ries, the Freemasons have never complied with it. However, 
he failed to consult the text of the Act, which specifically 
exempts the Freemasons, because the English Royal Family 
was and continues to be the official patron of English Freema- 
sonry. The lodges were brought to England in 1717 as the 
result of a conspiracy of many years, which placed the Hanover 
family on the throne of England. They have been consistently 
active in and faithful to their Masonic origins ever since that 

Americans who become involved in the legal mazes of 
our courts are often astounded by the strange decisions which 
are handed down by the judges. In nearly every instance, 
the strange outcome of the case can be explained by the omni- 
present Masonic influence. Thus, citizens have no way of 
knowing that they have been subjected to the arrant assump- 
tions of an Oriental despotism, masquerading under color of 
law. How can genuine justice be administered if the judge 
has taken an oath under penalty of death that he must always 
rule in favor of his brother Masons? 

The Masonic Handbook command is as follows (p. 183- 
184), "Whenever you see any of our signs made by a brother 
Mason, and especially the grand hailing sign of distress, you 


must always be sure to obey them, even at the risk of your 
own life. If you are on a jury, and the defendant is a Mason, 
and makes the grand hailing sign, you must obey it; you 
must disagree with your brother jurors, if necessary, but you 
must be sure not to bring the Mason in as guilty, for that 
would bring disgrace upon our Order." 

The Handbook continues, "You must conceal all crimes 
of your brother Masons. . . . except murder and treason, 
and these only at your own option, and should you be sum- 
moned as a witness against a brother Mason, be always sure 
to shield him. Prevaricate, don't tell the truth in this case, 
keep his secrets, forget the important points. It may be perjury 
to do this, it is true, but you are keeping your obligations." 

It is also important to note that the use of the word "obliga- 
tions" is a key ingredient of the Masonic code. Most persons, 
in referring to a moral problem, would use the word "duty," 
as did the Founders of our Republic; however, a Mason is 
certain to use the word "obligation" as a code warning to 
other Masons who may be present that they are now under 
an overriding order to carry out their obligation to the brother- 
hood. This obligation means that he must commit perjury in 
court, he must rule as a jury member in favor of a brother 
Mason, despite any evidence presented against him, and, as 
a judge, he must rule for the Mason. As a clerk of the court, 
or any other court official, he is obligated to alter, steal or 
destroy any official public records or documents which might 
compromise a brother Mason. This writer has frequently sent 
written complaints against Masonic judges and lawyers to 
U.S. Attorneys. In every instance, the Department of Justice 
has replied to documented charges of blackmail, theft and 


extortion, "You should hire a private attorney," meaning 
that you must find yourself a Masonic attorney and hope that 
he will handle your case against his brother Masons. 

The Masonic Handbook further commands that "If you 
cheat, wrong or defraud any other society or individual, it is 
entirely your business. If you cheat government even. Masonry 
cannot and will not touch you; but be very careful not to 
cheat, wrong or defraud a brother Mason or Lodge. Who 
ever else you may defraud, live up to your (Masonic) obliga- 

It is impossible for anyone to understand the depths of 
such depravity unless one understands the very origins of 
the Masonic brotherhood (see The Curse of Canaan, by Eustace 
MuUins). Its morality is dictated by the basic authority, the 
Will of Canaan: "Five things did Canaan charge his sons; 
"love one another (of the tribe), love robbery, love lewdness, 
hate your masters, and do not speak the truth." 

Canaan had lived out his earthly existence under the Curse 
of Canaan, a sentence of slavery which was fastened onto 
all of his descendants. The command to love one another 
referred only to these dkect descendants; it also gave the 
implied command that they were to hate all other occupants 
of the earth. They were further commanded to seek out their 
living by committing robbery, by promoting sexual vice 
through love of lewdness, and to hate their masters, because 
they had been condemned to live on earth as slaves. Finally, 
they were not to speak the truth, a command which launched 
the tidal wave of perjury which has now inundated our courts. 

The fact that Masonry stems from Biblical times is shown 
by its secret password, "Tubal Cain," which memorializes 


the line of Cain. Cain committed the first murder on earth, 
when he slew his brother, Abel. Cain's descendant, Nimrod, 
a demonic power, became the first ruler of the world. His 
reign was marked by sex orgies and child sacrifice, outrages 
which caused Shem, the son of Noah, to behead him, and 
to cut his body into pieces, as a warning to other malefactors. 
These pieces were sent to Nimrod' s priests as a warning to 
desist from their vile practices and demonic orgies. Instead, 
the priests treasured the remains as objects of worship. They 
were concealed in groves, in rural areas, as the Shrines of 
the first "Mysteries." Albert Pike, the theoretician of the 
Masonic movement, notes in his definitive work, "Morals 
and Dogma" that all Masonic rites originated in these Myster- 

The priests became the Gnostics, the knowing ones, that 
is, those who knew where the body, or the relics of Nimrod, 
were hidden in the groves. Throughout history, these relics, 
or later copies, have persisted as the symbols of the Canaanite 
resolve to "hate your masters" and to destroy them in such 
orgies as the French Revolution and the Communist Revolu- 
tion. Their final objective is to seize by force all the riches 
of the world and return them to the rebuilt Temple of King 
Solomon. Although perjury and abuse of the legal system 
remain crucial elements of the Masonic drive for control of 
the world, murder and assassination continue to be the final 
symbol of their operations. 

Thus a citizen of the United States has no idea, when he 
enters an American court, that he is now entering an arena 
in which furtive conspiracy is the dominant factor, where 
perjury and assassination are considered to be routine methods 


of operation. If he could be informed of this reality, he would 
be able to cite numerous precedents denying the judge's qualifi- 
cations on the grounds of bias. Equal protection to all is the 
basic principle on which rests justice under the law. Pierrer 
V. State of Ln. 59 S.Ct 536, 306 U.S. 354, 83 L.Ed. 757. 
' 'Prejudice of or bias on the part of the trial judge may constitute 
a denial of equal protection of the laws." Osborne v. Purdome, 
250 S.W. 2d 159. 

In a trial situation, the judge faces two imperatives; first, 
he must conceal the existence of his Masonic allegiance; sec- 
ond, he must impose by imperial decree his commands upon 
all who come before his court. There are many decisions 
which reflect these imperatives, such as U.S. Judge Thomas 
MacBride's decision in Case #9909, May 2, 1967, under 
Lx)rd Coke's ruling of 1608 in Peter vs. The Crown, that 
"no Officer of the Crown could be charged with a crime, 
even if he were guilty.' Judge M. L. Schwartz dismissed 
Case S 83-699 -MLS, April 11, 1984, under the Magna Carta 
of 215, that we had no right to file charges against public 
officials or members of the Bar because the Constitution of 
the United States did not apply in the jurisdiction of the federal 
courts. Judge R. A. Ramirez dismissed Case # 84-03 0503- 
RRAR July 23, 1984, under Bell v. Hood, which was also 
based on Lord Coke's ruling of 1608, citing the Magna Carta's 
stand that persons of a lower caste cannot present charges 
against members of the titled peerage class. 

These rulings in our federal courts ignore the first statute 
ever passed by the U.S. Congress in its first session, 1791. 
This statute concerned the punishment of judges and other 
public officials who failed to enforce the law. The statute 


commanded that the people be guaranteed the citizens' rights. 
The failure to do so was termed Insurrection. 

Sydney Smith, in his "Fallacies of Anti-reformers," noted 
that "if the law be good, it will support itself; if bad, it 
should not be supported by irrevocable theory, which is never 
resorted to but as the veil of abuses. All living men must 
possess the supreme power over their own happiness at every 
particular period. When a law is considered immutable, instead 
of being repealed, it is clandestinely avoided, or openly vio- 
lated; and thus the authority of the law is weakened." 

Sir Francis Bacon noted in his "Judicature," "Judges ought 
to remember that their office is jus decere, and not jus dare; 
to interpret law, and not to make law, or to give law. Judicius 
ofificium est, ut res, ita tempora rerum. A judge must have 
regard to the time as well as to the matter." 

Ralph Waldo Emerson, in "Worship," states that "We owe 
to the Hindoo Scriptures a definition of Law which compares 
well with any in the Western books; Law it is, which is 
without name, or color, or hands, or feet; which is the smallest 
of the least, or largest of the large; all, and knowing all things; 
which hears without ears, sees without eyes, moves without 
feet, and seizes without hands." 

Of Emerson's definition, the one most readily applicable 
in experiences with our court system is that it does indeed 
seize without hands. Seizure is always its prime moving force. 

Adam Smith notes in his "Wealth of Nations," "Justice, 
however, was never in reality administered gratis in any coun- 
try. ... In order to increase their payment, the attomies 
and clerks have contrived to multiply words beyond all neces- 
sity, and to corrupt the law with language." 


Robert Ringer notes in his ' ' Looking Out For Number One , ' ' 
"The practical consequences of government are that it uses 
the threat of violence either to force you to stop doing some- 
thing you want to do or to force you to do something you 
don't want to do, or to force you to give up something that 
is rightfully yours." 

Daniel Webster stated on March 10, 1831 in New York 
City, "The judicial power comes home to every man. If the 
legislature passes incorrect or unjust general laws, its members 
bear the evil as well as others. But juridicature acts on individu- 
als. It touches every private right, every private interest, and 
almost every private feeling. What we possess is hardly fit 
to be called our own, unless we feel secure in its possession, 
and this security, this perfect system, cannot exist under a 
wicked or even a weak and ignorant administration of the 
laws.' There is no happiness, there is no liberty, there is no 
enjoyment of life, unless a man can say when he arises in 
the morning, 'I shall be subject to the decision of no unjust 
judge today.' " 

In retrospect, when Daniel Webster made this statement, 
the powers of the judiciary were almost nonexistent, compared 
to the powers which they exercise today. What would he 
say if he were now alive, and confronted with the dictatorial 
powers which the judicial system has assumed over every 
aspect of American life? We have seen the seizure of the 
schools, the decision as to how our earnings shall be spent, 
what sort of neighborhoods we are to live in, and a judicial 
system on which the government agencies depend to enforce 
their decrees. 

A defense filed by Alan Stuart in Arkansas on July 3, 


1978 noted that a Hearsay Substitute had filed the complaint 
against him, in violation of the United States Constitution, 
and that a Hearsay Substitute was his accuser, whereas he 
had the right to face his accuser. Stuart pointed out that the 
District Attorney served both as an "Officer of the Court" 
under the judiciary, and as a law enforcement official under 
the executive department, which placed him in flagrant viola- 
tion of the doctrine of separation of 4)owers, and the system 
of checks and balances set up by the Constitution. Stuart 
also pointed out that the title, "Officer of the Court" is an 
unconstitutional title of nobility, that all lawyers are automati- 
cally a part of the Judicial Branch of the Government, whether 
elected, hired, or appointed. Article 1, Sec. 9 and 10 forbid 
Titles of Nobility. With the Hearsay Substitute being a lawyer, 
and the judge also a lawyer, a Conflict of Interest exists by 
having lawyers, or Officers of the Court, representing both 
sides. Stuart deposed that all lawyer judges have to disqualify 
themselves because of conflict of interest, which prevents 
them from presiding over a fair trial. This would seem to 
provide a useful alternative to the present abuses committed 
by judges who claim to be operating under "due process of 

Dr. Felix Cohen wrote in the Columbia Law Review, June, 
1935, "due process of law' means nothing in the light of 
recent judicial decisions that it is a metaphysical coverup phrase 
(another ubiquitous justification of judicial tyranny is the much 
abused phrase 'having your day in court,' which means that 
merely by allowing you to set foot in his hallowed precincts, 
the judge is giving you access to more justice than you are 
due, and upon extending this gracious privilege, the judge is 


then free to render whatever horrendous decision he pleases. 

Dr. Cohen continues, "Legal concepts (for example, corpo- 
rations or property rights) are supernatural entities which do 
not have a verifiable existence except to the eyes of faith. 
Rules of Law, which refer to these legal concepts, are not 
descriptions of empirival social facts but are rather theorems 
in an individual system. Jurisprudence. . . . is a special branch 
of the science of transcendental nonsense." Thus Dr. Cohen, 
who has labored for many years in the field of jurisprudence, 
comes to the inescapable conclusion that his lengthy experience 
has really been in the realm of fantasyland. Few Americans 
realize that while they are sitting in court listening to their 
paid counsel "defend" them and their interests, the judges 
are hard put to keep from grinning at the nonsense they are 
paid to Usten to. As Alan Stuart points out in his complaint, 
everyone and everything that is taking place in the court is 
Hearsay and Substitute, which is actually governed by abstruse 
concepts from the Kabbalah or from other mystical formulae 
which the citizen is never aware of. The present writer has 
heard much ' 'transcendental nonsense' ' in our courts, precisely 
what Dr. Cohen describes, and was finally able to define its 
origin in "The Curse of Canaan" as the modem day presenta- 
tion of the ancient Cult of Baal, as refined in the Kabbalah 
and the present statutes. It is not accidental that this "transcen- 
dental nonsense" is overseen by a judge who wears black 
robes. This itself in legal terminology is referred to the "cult 
of the Robe." Since man's beginnings, the garb of justice 
has traditionally been white. We have never asked ourselves 
when or how the robes of justice suddenly became black. 


but at that moment, the rape of justice began. Instead of the 
color of unsullied purity, we now have the black robe as the 
sign of Babylonian justice, of the Canaanite precepts originated 
by Nimrod, presented against the backdrop of the sexual orgies 
and the madness of child sacrifice which were the hallmarks 
of the "religious" rites of Baal and Ashtoreth. However, 
we must admit that there is no attempt to deceive anyone. 
The judge appears before us in his robe of Babylonian black, 
as the high priest of the rites of Nimrod. It is we who offer 
no objection, or ask the judge whatever became of his white 
robe. The dome of the courthouse itself is another symbol 
of Babylonian law, and is purposefully designed to confirm 
that we are now entering the jurisdiction of Babylonian justice, 
which is inflicted upon us by a Byzantine maze of secret 
intrigue and worldwide conspiracies. 

The character of those who put on the black robe is amply 
documented by public records. Time magazine reported July 
18, 1977 on the exploits of Associate Justice Yarbrough of 
the Texas Supreme Court. "Yarbrough was taped making a 
statement about a man who had testified against him, "I want 
Kemp wiped away ... the best thing would be to do it 
myself if I had a gun and silencer. ' ' ' Yarbrough was referring 
to a 1974 fraud scheme, in which Kemp had testified against 
Yarbrough and his associate, John Rothkopf, after they had 
received a $30,000 payment for a collection of rare coins, 
which they never delivered. Yarbrough then used his judicial 
position to obtain forged papers and a new identity for Roth- 
kopf, who hid out as a fugitive in Louisiana and Texas for 
several years. Yarbrough was subsequently indicted by an 
Austin Texas grand jury for soliciting murder, forgery, obstruc- 
tion of justice, and perjury. 


The Texas Supreme Court has been much in the news for 
the procedure by which its members are chosen. They cam- 
paign like any other politician for election to office, and must 
spend millions of dollars on their campaigns. Traditionally, 
most of their campaign funds are provided as donations from 
the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, with individual lawyers 
contributing as much as $25,000 to the campaign of a single 
candidate. Chief Justice Thomas Phillips, although running 
unopposed, managed to raise a $1.1 million campaign fund 
from some 4500 donors. The record-breaking $10.5 billion 
judgment which Pennzoil won against Texaco was followed 
by public consternation, when it was revealed that the lawyers 
who represented Pennzoil had contributed more than $355,000 
to the nine Texas Supreme Court justices from 1984 to 1987, 
preceding the announcement by the court that it would refuse 
a hearing to review the $10.5 billion judgment against Texaco. 
Three of the justices then resigned from the court, although 
a present candidate for the court has also raised $1.1 million 
in campaign funds, nearly all of it donated by lawyers who 
will subsequently argue cases before this same judge, if he 
wins the election. If not, they will argue before another judge 
to whom they have also contributed substantial amounts in 
campaign funds. 

Since the end of World War 11 , there has been increasing 
public criticism of judges, for abuse of power, corruption, 
and their arbitrary decisions, but little has occurred which 
improves the situation. The dirty secret of the judiciary is 
that their appointments always come from politicians, and 
that the moral or intellectual backgrounds of neither the judges 
nor the politicians is ever taken into consideration. Thus Presi- 
dent Harry Truman was described by poet Ezra Pound in 


"The Cantos," "Truman was loyal to his kind, the under- 
world." This was a direct quote from longtime Washington 
journalist Rex Lampman, whom I had taken to visit Pound. 
However, Pound was merely restating what most Americans 
already knew. Truman remained loyal throughout his career 
to Boss Pendergast, who was sent to prison for a multi-million 
dollar insurance scam. The New Republic noted March 10, 
1952 that Truman's appointment of some one hundred and 
twenty-five federal judges "has weakened the federal judiciary 
and lowered its prestige. The political handshake gained its 
greatest triumph when Tom Clark was appointed to the Su- 
preme Court of the United States." Clark was described in 
the New Republic as an oil lobbyist from the Texas State 
Legislature, and a protege of Senator Tom Connally. In retro- 
spect, the cronies whom Truman appointed to the federal 
bench probably were no worse than the dreary procession of 
legal hacks and lobbyists, wardheelers and bondsmen, who 
have been named to the bench by subsequent Presidents. Presi- 
dent Carter probably sunk the prestige of the bench to a new 
low with his naming of some three hundred political activists 
from the ranks of feminists and minority class agitators, a 
club of lunatics which turned the federal courthouses into 

In Harpers, Sept. 1934, Mitchell Dawson wrote, "Judging 
the Judges," "His Honor and his confreres on the bench have 
authority to rule upon the rights, duties, privileges, and immu- 
nities of everybody and everything within their respective 
bailiwicks. The aggregate power and responsibilities thus resid- 
ing in the judiciary are appalling." Dawson went on to com- 
ment upon the moral attributes of such power. He noted that 


three judges were noted among the pallbearers of Big Jim 
Colosimo, "the first of the big shots in the liquor trade and 
bootlegging." Big Jim was the protege of Edward G. Robin- 
son's characterization of the gangster, Rico, in his famous 
picture, "Little Caesar." Two judges and an ex-judge joined 
the cortege of city and state officials who followed the solid 
silver casket containing the body of Angelo Genna, the noted 
convict and killer. The Chicago Crime Conrniission said, 'A 
certain municipal judge was familiarly known to the criminal 
trade as 'cash register.' One magistrate was removed from 
office for accepting a 'loan' of $19,600 from Arnold Rothstein, 
the noted gambler. Evidence showed that the fixing of cases 
in the magistrates courts was an established business." 

So much for the judicial situation in 1934. The American 
Law JoiuTial noted in its issue of February, 1988 that a Wiscon- 
sin trial court judge and the senior partner of the state's largest 
law firm, the 278 lawyer firm of Foley and Larder, now faced 
sanctions for holding ex parte discussions in the fall of 1986. 
As we have pointed out, ex parte discussions, in which oppos- 
ing lawyers and/or judges, hold secret conferences to discuss 
cases without the parties being present, constitute one of the 
gravest problems of a legal system which pits the lawyers 
against the rest of the citizens. In Texas, a judge was severely 
criticized because he had given a relatively light sentence to 
a criminal who shot two men. The judge responded with 
surprise, ' 'But they were only queers. ' ' This brought a national 
protest from the powerful homosexual lobby. In Seattle, Judge 
Gary Little, judge of the King County Superior Court, shot 
himself after learning that a Seattle newspaper planned to 
run an expose of his twenty year sexual abuse of male defen- 


dants who came before his court. The local media had deliber- 
ately suppressed the story for decades. A reporter finally admit- 
ted that he had opened the door of Little's office in the state 
attorney general's offices, in 1968, and found Liftle kissing 
a blond, blue-eyed male student. Taped accounts had been 
available for years from juveniles who complained that Little 
had molested them while their cases were being deliberated 
in his court. Some of them were invited to stay overnight in 
his Seattle home, or at his weekend cottage on an island. 

In New York, a sensational trial of former Miss America 
Bess Myerson dragged on for weeks, before her acquittal. 
Myerson, who called herself "the Queen of the Jews" had 
faced sentences of up to thirty years on charges of obstruction 
of justice, mail fraud, bribery-related charges, and conspiracy. 
She and her lover, a contractor, had involved Judge Hortense 
Gabel in her lover's divorce proceedings. The chief witness 
against the judge was her own daughter, whom the press 
described as "eccentric" and suffering from depression. 

The politically influential State Supreme Court of New York 
Justice Louis Fusco Jr., who was under investigation by U.S. 
Attorney Rudolph W. GuiUani on accusations that he had 
improperly directed business to an insurance company operated 
by a friend, announced that he would not seek renomination. 
The president of the insurance company in question was known 
as a longtime friend of the judge, whose nephew was named 
vice president of the company. Another prominent Bronx 
judge, former Surrogate Bertram Gelfand, was ousted last 
year for misconduct. 

On Aug. 24, 1986, the Las Vegas Sun warned of "the 
ominous implication that federal judges — or any other citi- 


zen — will remain a subject to malicious prosecution for merely 
speaking out against injustice." The matter under discussion 
was the malignant persecution of Federal Judge Harry Clai- 
borne, which finally wound up before Congress. Congress 
then voted for his impeachment. What was behind this case? 
The Nevada High Court had already rendered a decision, 
State Bar of Nevada v. Claiborne, 756 P2d 464 (1988) that 
Claiborne had been guilty of nothing more than "mere negli- 
gence." Judge Claiborne, the bearer of a proud Southern 
name, had served with distinction in the U.S. Air Force during 
World War II. He later became one of the most respected 
defense lawyers in the West, devoting more than thirty per 
cent of his time to pro bono (without payment) cases for the 
public good, probably a higher percentage then than any other 
lawyer in the United States. After being named to the judge- 
ship, Claiborne continued to come down hard on the side of 
the public. He excoriated both FBI agents and IRS agents 
who brought cases before his court with fantastic, poorly pre- 
pared charges, which were usually based solely on information 
provided by their paid informants. In the paid informant busi- 
ness if you don't come up with something damaging against 
the subject, you don't get paid. This provides a constant stimu- 
lant to the imagination. 

Department of Justice agents launched a concerted campaign 
to block Claiborne's nomination to the federal bench in Septem- 
ber, 1978. Failing in their objective, they then began a cam- 
paign to destroy him. An editorial in the Reno Gazette Journal 
was quoted with approval by Justice Steffen, "The Justice 
Department and the FBI were so incensed at Judge Claiborne 
that the need for revenge blinded them to everything but one 


burning desire. The federal government could not rest after 
Claiborne denounced its strike force lawyers as 'rotten bas- 
tards' and 'crooks and liars.' It could not bear Claiborne's 
insinuations without retaliating." 

The retaliation of the federal agents was balked when they 
could find no bases for bringing any charges against him. 
They were forced to dredge up one of the nation's sleaziest 
characters, Joe Conforte, the world's most famous brothel 
keeper. For thirty years, Conforte had operated the famous 
Mustang Ranch, which never had any mustangs. In May 1976, 
a wellknown Argentine boxer was shot and killed outside of 
Conforte's Mustang Ranch. Three Reno Gazette Journal edito- 
rial writers won Pulitzer prizes for their stories exposing Con- 
forte's operations. In 1977, both he and his wife were indicted 
for income tax evasion. He then fled the country to escape 
tax jeopardy assessments of more than twenty-six million dol- 
lars, as well as two lawsuits filed after the Argentina boxer's 
death. IRS agents realized that Joe Conforte would be the 
ideal vehicle to get Judge Claiborne. They offered him a deal 
to testify about alleged ' 'bribes' ' to Judge Claiborne. In return, 
he would be allowed to return to the United States, all but 
three and a half million of the twenty-six million dollar assess- 
ment would be forgiven, he would be guaranteed that he 
serve no more than one year in a country club type of prison, 
and all other charges against him would be dismissed. It was 
an offer he could not refuse. The fact that IRS agents would 
be willing to forgive over twenty-two million dollars in overdue 
taxes proves that they are not serious about collecting taxes; 
it is much more important that they maintain the legal dictator- 
ship over American citizens, invoking Lenin's 1917 rule. 


"confiscation of all assets as punishment for concealing in- 
come." In effect, federal agents were paying Conforte more 
than twenty million dollars in a conspiracy to commit perjury 
and to obstruct justice — standard procedure in our "legal sys- 
tem." In fact, Conforte's testimony against Judge Claiborne 
was subsequently documented as being perjured. Nevertheless, 
Judge Claiborne was indicted, convicted, and impeached by 
Congress. He served a short prison term, and is once again 
practicing law in the State of Nevada, despite threats from 
federal agents that they will "get" him again. The point had 
been made. The federal government had sent a message from 
the District of Columbia to judges in every state — cooperate 
with Washington, or else. 

Establishment judges have been treated much more kindly 
in prosecution, notably Judge James M. Landis. A former 
law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, the leader 
of the Zionist movement, Landis later was named dean of 
the Harvard Law School, the private preserve of Viennese 
revolutionary Felix Frankfurter. Landis became one of the 
original Brain Trust in FDR's New Deal. He was named 
chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission, and became 
the eminence grise of President John F. Kennedy. Like many 
prominent Washington officials, he did not bother to pay in- 
come taxes. As a member of our "Nomenklatura," he saw 
no need to conform to the standards enforced against the 
peasants and the hoi poUoi. It was revealed that he had paid 
no income taxes for the years from 1956 through 1960. The 
press hastened to defend him as "a longtime crusader for 
ethics in government." While being charged with five years' 
delinquency in paying taxes, he was also named corespondent 


in a Washington divorce suit. Landis pleaded guilty to the 
tax charges, and paid back taxes on income of $410,000. 

In the Chicago court system, which was still in the hands 
of the remnants of the Capone mob, a sting operation netted 
ten judges in a ring of some sixty officials, who were convicted 
of comiption. A Cook County judge. Earl Strayhom, was 
accused in 1974 of not filing federal income tax forms for 
1966 through 1968, failing to declare $49,000 in income, 
and failing to pay $26,000 in taxes and penalties. He resolved 
the charges with a bargain payment of $11,000. 

In Austin, Texas, an AP release dated Nov. 6, 1988 noted 
that a Texas judge had been reprimanded by the State Commis- 
sion on Judicial Conduct for ' 'allowing her child to run around 
her courtroom during proceedings." She also called litigants 
and others "pure trash," and threatened to shoot a lawyer. 
She finally left the bench, crying and shouting threats at attor- 
neys. She told one lawyer that she had a gun, and that she 
could shoot two holes in his back before he could leave the 
courtroom. The Commission sternly noted that, "The com- 
ments of Judge Anthony are not consistent with the tempera- 
ment required of a member of the judiciary." 

During this same period, Mariposa County, Ca. District 
Attorney J. Bruce Eckerson was reported to have resigned 
under pressure of continued lawsuits and criminal allegations 
of corruption and misconduct; the chancery clerk in Rankin 
Cy., Ms. faced nine counts of embezzlement, and Middlebury 
Vt. county prosecutor Robert Andres was charged $400 for 
"kicking man in face." Meanwhile, Dr. Elizabeth Morgan 
piled up twenty-one months in jail after being jailed by District 
Court Superior Judge Herbert Dixon on contempt of court 


charges. Dixon is black; Dr. Morgan is white. Dixon had 
ordered her to turn over her six year old daughter Hilary to 
her ex-husband, whom Dr. Morgan claimed had been sexually 
abusing the child since she was two. Testimony from doctors 
and psychiatrists that the child had been abused had been 
ruled "inadmissible." Dr. Morgan has spent her time writing 
children's books, and becoming engaged to a Circuit Court 

One avenue open to Dr. Morgan would be habeas corpus. 
Kent's Commentaries points out, I, 619, "Every restraint 
upon aman's liberty is, in the eyes of the law, an imprisonment, 
whatever may be the place or whatever may be the manner 
in which the restraint is effected." Kent hardly expected that 
a woman could be locked up for almost two years without 

Corpus Juris Secundum 39A HC 159 states that a petitioner 
for habeas corpus has the right to represent himself in prosecut- 
ing the proceedings; the presence of the petitioner in court 
is not necessary to argue issues of law, but the presence of 
the petitioner is necessary where questions of fact are to be 
litigated. In the federal courts, habeas corpus provides a remedy 
for jurisdictional errors without limit of time. Dr. Morgan 
could cite CJS 39A, sec. 163, "A person whose detention 
is illegal, or a third person on his behalf, generally may present 
an application of habeas corpus; since it is intended for all 
who may be deprived of their liberty without sufficient cause 
and such person having standing to question their detention 
or deprivation of other rights." The writ must be brought 
against the proper person, generally whoever has actual custody 
of the prisoner. The title is Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus . 


The writ should state some reason for granting the writ, usually 
that "Adequate relief is unavailable from other courts or in 
other forms; government intrusion upon petitioner's First 
Amendment rights to political expression, invalidating the 
prosecution and resultant confinement; that petitioners Fifth 
Amendment right to due process is denied by his confinement. 
WHEREFORE your petitioner prays that the Court issue an 
order that the respondents show cause why this Petition should 
not be granted and the petitioner discharged; that the Court 
set out in the order a return of three days. That the Court 
set the matter down for hearing within five days after the 
return; that the Court hear and determine this matter, and 
upon final hearing issue Writ of Habeas Corpus and an order 
directing the respondents to discharge the petitioner from their 

Because the law has established that any "restraint" is 
grounds for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, not merely 
physical restraint or imprisonment of the petitioner, but any 
governmental oppression or "restraint" is similarly grounds 
for a writ of habeas corpus, the respondent named being the 
government agents who are responsible for such restraint. 
Thus a writ of habeas corpus may be filed against any federal 
agent, whether IRS, FBI, BATF, CIA or UN, who is imposing 
stress upon any citizen of this nation, whether it be extortion, 
intimidation, or threats against one's occupation of family 
members. Section 17 IB, CJS 39 A states that the writ must 
be made before the proper inferior court or judge; sec. 172B 
states the writ must be issued, or the court must show cause 
why it is not being issued. Sec. 179 states "The writ of 
habeas corpus is paramount authority over all other writs. 


Idaho; in re Dodd, 241 P 2d. Under a federal statute, state 
court proceedings pending proceedings in a federal court for 
a writ of habeas corpus will be null and void. ' ' Thus , a prisoner 
who applies for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, in 
theory, can halt state court proceedings against him. 

CJS 39A notes that habeas corpus is a prerogative common 
law writ of ancient origins directed to a person detaining 
another, commanding him to produce the body of the desig- 
nated prisoner at a designated time and place, to do, submit 
to, and receive whatever the court shall consider in that behalf; 
it is called 'the great writ' and is a 'civil remedy.' The term 
derives from the Latin, "You have the body." 

CJS 41 notes that "A person imprisoned for committing 
an act that does not constitute any offense may be released 
on habeas corpus. Hill v. Sanford, CCA. Ga. 131 F 2d 
417. This also applies to a person detained under an unconstitu- 
tional or invalid statute or ordinance; this is grounds for a 
writ of habeas corpus." 

Thus we find that any unconstitutional oppression or pressure 
against any American citizen is grounds for a writ of habeas 
corpus, that is, an order to relieve such pressure and to cease 
and desist. Habeas corpus is enshrined in the Constitution, 
Article 9, and cannot be suspended for any reason. 

CJS 39 A sec 37 states "Habeas corpus may be allowed 
where there has been a deprivation of fundamental or constitu- 
tional rights. It has been held that questions decided by court 
having jurisdiction thereof may not be considered in habeas 
corpus proceedings in another court, whether or not constitu- 
tional principles are involved. Craig v. U.S., C.A., CCA. 
Cal. 89 F 2d 980." 


CJS 39A sec 39, "The writ of habeas corpus is designed 
to give a person whose liberty is restrained an immediate 
hearing to determine the legality of the detention. Walker v. 
Wainwright, Fla. 88, S.Ct 962, 390 US 335, L.Ed. 2d 1215. 
Habeas corpus provides a prompt and speedy remedy or adjudi- 
cation of a person's right to liberation from illegal restraint, 
or to be free of whatever society determines to be intolerable 
restraint." Bland v. Rodgers, D.C. 332 F.Supp. 989. 

Thus the widespread impression that the writ of habeas 
corpus applies only to persons detained in prison is merely 
one application of the writ. It can and should be used to 
apply to every instance of illegal and unconstitutional oppres- 
sion by any government agent against any American citizen, 
' 'whatever society determines to be intolerable restraint. ' ' Note 
that it does not say "whatever the court determines." The 
people have the final jurisdiction and determination in the 
matter of "intolerable restraint," and they must exercise their 
jurisdiction in determining that restraint. It applies not only 
to the forcible and illegal detention of a person's body, but 
it also offers an immediate legal remedy for any undue restraint 
upon any citizen of the United States in his pursuit of life, 
liberty and property. For the first time, our citizens now have 
a weapon which enables them to take action against any act 
of oppression by government agents, or power-crazed federal 
officials, many of whom are secretly in the pay of foreign 
powers. FREEDOM NOW! This is the message which the 
writ of habeas corpus brings to us. If any federal, state or 
local agent is acting to oppress you, now is the time to file 
a notice with the proper court, naming that person, the nature 
of the restraint, and requesting a writ of habeas corpus which 


will free you from that restraint. If the judge responds to 
your plea by dismissing it on the grounds that you are not 
actually being held in detention, you must refile the writ, 
stating the exact nature of the writ, and noting that the statutes 
do not require that you are being held in actual physical deten- 
tion. The writ may be issued upon receipt of any governmental 
order which restrains you from any legal act or which attempts 
to deprive you of your personal property. The income tax 
functions as the primary restraint upon all citizens of this 
nation, because it sets up a primary lien upon all of our income 
and personal property, at the behest of the Federal Reserve 
System, which is the secondary lien upon all income and 
personal property in the United States. Thus the writ may 
be filed against the IRS or against the Federal Reserve System, 
or both; its ramifications may be extended to each and every 
restraint imposed upon us by King George and the Bank of 

England. The writ should state that , acting 

in his capacity of agent for , has willfully and 

intentionally sought to deprive you of your Constitutional liber- 
ties, and has thereby restrained you from exercising your privi- 
leges of citizenship in the United States (of the states)." The 
judge must then allow you to argue in his court the nature 
of your restraint; he must then decide if it is a restraint, which, 
in the light of the facts presented, would be difficult to deny. 
If so, he has no recourse but to grant you the writ of habeas 

The Genocide Convention adopted by our Congress also 
offers opportunities for our citizens to seek relief under its 
provisions. For instance, the present writer was prevented 
from marrying or raising a family by the malicious acts of 


federal agents, who continuously had me discharged from 
gainful employment, thus effectively ending my line, and fur- 
ther sought to have me detained in an insane asylum, which 
they were unable to effect. This clearly constitutes an act of 
genocide under the terms of the Convention, because the ac- 
tions taken against me by these federal agents were solely 
inspired by my presence by act of birth as one of a group of 
American citizens singled out for punitive action and eventual 
extermination by said federal agents, as part of the federal 
goal to conunit genocide against my racial grouping. The 
Genocide Convention was actually drafted after World War 
II to protect Zionists and Zionists only; it has never been 
invoked for any other group. The Zionists sought to use it 
to punish, outlaw and exterminate all of their present and 
potential enemies, which encompassed all other groups in 
the world. However, the language of the Convention could 
not be written expressly to limit to the Zionist conspirators, 
thereby opening the door for anyone to invoke it in protection 
of other groups. 

In Dec. 1948, the United Nations advised the convention 
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 
the resultant legislation then being sent by President Truman 
to the Senate for ratification in the Senate, Senator Percy of 
Illinois led the fight to ratify the Genocide Convention. Hear- 
ings were held in 1950, 1970, 1971, 1977 and 1981. It was 
officially ratified by the American Bar Association in 1976. 
The British Parliament ratified it as the Genocide Act of 1%9. 
Canada then followed suit. 

Act II of the Act states that "In the present convention, 
genocide means any of the following acts committed with 


intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnic, racial 
or religious group, as such: a. killing members of the group; 
b. causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the 
group; c. deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of 
life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole 
or in part; d. imposing measures intended to prevent births 
within the group. 3. forcibly transferring children of the group 
to another group." 

The last provision was designed solely to bring about the 
recovery of any Jewish children adopted by gentile families 
during World War II to save them, sec. 3 being intended to 
force these families to return the children to the Jewish group. 
However the other four provisions of the Act do apply to 
the present writer's experience, as documented in "A Writ 
for Martyrs," which reproduces 120 pages of my FBI file, 
and which establishes by official government documents that 
said acts of genocide were committed against my person. 
The Genocide Convention states unequivocably that intent 
to destroy any part of the group, that is, any single member 
of the group, is the same as the intent to destroy the entire 
group. Thus, sec. d is proven by government documents in 
my case, as are sec. a, b, and c. 

The term "genocide" was coined by a Zionist propagandist 
named Rafael Lemkin, who intended, in his book, "Axis 
Rule in Occupied Europe," that genocide should be used 
solely as a term referring to the conditions of Jews under 
Nazi occupation during the Second World War. Thus it could 
have no application to any other racial group, and theoretically 
would no longer be valid at the conclusion of this war. It 
was a temporal designation for a specific historical situation. 


and was never intended to be applied for anyone else's benefit. 
Zionist collaborators encysted all over the world then conceived 
the idea of a worldwide prohibition against ' ' genocide, ' ' which 
was intended to stifle any criticism of their subversive activi- 
ties, and to enact dictatorial measures to eliminate any future 
criticism. Because no nation could possibly enact a measure 
which stated it was solely to protect Zionists, the wording 
had to be broadened to apply to all people. It now covers 
any group whose future existence is threatened by genocidal 
government measures, the most threatened target today being 
the middle class citizens of the United States, who have as 
yet undertaken no measures in their self-defense. 

As it was ratified by the United States, the Genocide Conven- 
tion states, "Whoever, being a national of the United States 
or otherwise under the jurisdiction of the United States, will- 
fully without justifiable cause, commits within or without the 
territory of the United States in time of peace or in time of 
war, any of the following acts with the intent to destroy by 
means of the commission of that act, or with the intent to 
carry out a plot to destroy, the whole or a substantial part of 
a national ethnic, or racial or religious group, shall be guilty 
of genocide." 

Note that the Act establishes jurisdiction throughout the 
world, "within or without the territory of the United States," 
thus extending the authority of the District of Columbia to 
the entire world. The American Journal of International Law 
notes that substantial questions are raised about implementing 
legislation. However, a complaint charging genocide can be 
charged in any federal court, and those questions of implemen- 
tation can then be addressed. 


In recent years, there have been increasing charges that 
the personal involvement of judges in the cases which they 
are hearing, the classic dilemma of "conflict of interest," 
are being ignored. The Wall Street Journal noted, Aug. 3, 
1988, that "A federal judge refused to disqualify himself in 
an important patent case against Hewlett-Packard even though 
his son is employed by the computer giant. ' ' The suit, involving 
patent rights, had been brought by Apple Computer against 

A case involving much greater stakes surfaced when the 
investment firm of Drexel, Bumham and Lambert requested 
that Judge Milton Pollack remove himself from the trial of 
securities fraud which originated with the SEC (Wall St Journal 
Oct 18, 1988). Drexel alleged that Judge Pollack would be 
unable to rule impartially because his wife. Moselle Pollack, 
stood to gain about $30 million from a leveraged buyout of 
her family firm, Palais Royal, which Drexel was financing. 
They claimed that Judge Pollack might be biased as a result 
of his family interests. Mrs. Pollack was selling her inherited 
interest to Bain & Co., with Drexel placing the securities. 

A feature article in the American Lawyer, the trade publica- 
tion, disclosed that Drexel dreaded an appearance before Judge 
Pollack because of his reputation as overwhelmingly "pro- 
government," as are practically all judges in the United States, 
with the exception of the ill-fated Judge Claiborne. American 
Lawyer quoted descriptions of Judge Pollack as "prosecutors' 
favorite judge," who conducts a ' 'kangaroo court. ' ' The article 
went on to say "he chooses sides early. . . . Pollack almost 
always chooses the government's side; once he does, even- 
handedness all but vanishes . ' ' There were accounts of Pollack' s 


calling in the U.S. attorneys and discussing pending cases 
with them ex parte (which is strictly forbidden by law) and 
' 'even advising them on how to handle the case. ' ' Does anyone 
consider this "impartiality"? The devastating American Law- 
yer critique continued, "Pollack is known as a judge who 
holds grudges. His wife Moselle will gain thirty million dollars 
if Bain Venture Capital of Boston buys Palais Royal from 
Mrs. Pollack, who, under the law of judicial conflicts, is 
considered to be the same person as her husband." 

After Drexel filed a writ of mandamus requesting that Pollack 
disqualify himself, the Securities Exchange Conmiission 
launched a vicious smear attack against Drexel's lawyers, in 
which they strongly defended Judge Pollack. In so many words, 
this government agency stated, "We want this judge because 
he is our judge." Likewise Drexel wanted Pollack off the 
case because of his reputation as the government's judge. 
American Lawyer concluded, "The system will have been 
disgraced by the charade played out in this case. ... in 
which government lawyers have smeared other lawyers, mis- 
stated the facts, taken legal positions (on judicial conflicts) 
. . . fallen all over themselves to hang onto a judge who 
promises to provide anything but the justice these lawyers 
are being paid for." 

Realizing that their ship had been sunk at the dock, Drexel 
gave up any hope of an impartial trial under Pollack, and 
caved in, agreeing to pay some $650 million in fines and 
penalties, which probably had been the goal of the SEC all 
along, to force Drexel into payment without trial, knowing 
that they could not win before Judge Pollack. 

The Wall Street Journal ran another front page story about 


another famous federal judge, Feb. 16, 1989, "hot-tempered 
79 year old David Edelstein" who presided over the federal 
government's landmark case against IBM in the 1970s. IBM's 
lawyers were the aforementioned firm of Cravath, Swaine 
and Moore. The Journal took note of the "enmities among 
the judge, IBM, and Mr. Barr's pugnacious New York law 
firm, Cravath, Swaine and Moore. The enmities are deep. 
In the thirteen year anti-trust case, one of the most bureaucratic 
legal quagmires ever. Judge Edelstein became famous for 
raging against Cravath lawyers. Cravath twice sought to re- 
move the judge from the antitrust case, a drastic step that 
rarely succeeds in any court." In fact, a request that a judge 
remove himself from a case for prejudice is a kamikaze move, 
because prejudiced judges are the norm in our courts, and is 
a suicidal move for both the lawyer and his client. Not only 
does the judge refuse to remove himself, as occurred in this 
case, but he now has even more reason for his deeply rooted 
prejudice. Cravath declared in its brief, "Judge Edelstein's 
mind is bent against IBM. No court has ever had before it 
such a long and consistent record of bias as that of Judge 
Edelstein's conduct." Cravath then backed its brief with two 
cartons of documents detailing its grievances, contending that 
Edelstein, among other things, "routinely abused " IBM wit- 
nesses, helped the government conduct its cross examinations, 
and secretly altered the trial transcript in the earlier antitrust 
case. ' ' Is this bias? Are government judges routinely prejudiced 
in favor of the government and against anyone who dares to 
question the tyrannical acts of government agencies and their 
agents? Is the sky blue? And more importantly, does justice 
exist in the United States? Famed lawyer Gerry Spence replies 


in his latest book, Absolutely not! Early in this work, the 
present writer noted that lawyers and judges routinely conspire 
to obstruct justice by altering transcripts, deleting documents, 
and suborning perjury, as IBM has found, to its dismay. 

The Journal notes that ' 'Judge Edelstein, a wry New Yorker, 
has long been considered an irascible and impatient force in 
the courtroom. Appointed by Harry Truman, he is entering 
his thirty-eighth year on the federal bench." The Journal also 
notes that "Judges normally can only be removed for their 
conduct outside the courtroom." 

Thus Judge Edelstein is one of those judges whom the 
New Republic pointed out March 10, 1952 had by Truman's 
appointment "weakened the federal judiciary and lowered 
its prestige." Yet there he is, some 38 years later, one of 
the Zionist judges whom Truman appointed as part of his 
re-election compact in 1948 to recognize and support the State 
of Israel. The Masonic B'Nai B'Rith nominated these judges, 
and Truman routinely appointed them as a burden which the 
entire nation must bear. Edelstein is merely one of the many 
choleric, acerbic and biased judges serving in New York and 
many other states because of their political and fraternal associ- 
ations. The Zionist connection governs their choice because 
of the overriding Masonic connection. It has long been a 
truism on New York that the Anti-Defamation League of B 'Nai 
B'Rith, the terrorist arm of this organization, nominates and 
passes on ALL CANDIDATES for judgeships in New York 
and all other metropolitan areas of the United States. So feared 
is the ADL that no American politician dares do anything 
which might be interpreted as offensive by its omnipresent 
and ever vigilant agents, who have fastened like leeches onto 


every aspect of American life. The fury exhibited by most 
judges in the United States when any citizen appears before 
them charged with being a "tax protester" or who is affiliated 
with any group suspected of patriotism, is aroused because 
the presence of any such American in his court is a direct 
affront to the Zionist and Masonic affiliations of the judge. 
In most cases, the American is unaware that he has offended 
the judge, or of the violent prejudice which will be shown 
against him. He is even more unaware that if he is a non- 
Mason, he is to be given as short shrift before the court as 
possible. No force in America dares to challenge the ADL 
domination of our process of judicial selection, which is then 
given even more routine approval by the selection committee 
of the ABA, after their assurance that the candidate meets 
with the approval of the ADL. The glittering career of the 
late Roy Cohn, whose meteoric rise was cut short by AIDS, 
contacted from one of his many $500 a night call-boys, was 
based solely on the fact that his father was a prime mover 
in the New York ADL, and was himself appointed a judge. 
With this family sponsorship, Roy Cohn could do no wrong, 
despite his many years of tax evasion, drug use and sexual 
promiscuity, none of which ever tainted the unabashed admira- 
tion which his friend, CIA propagandist William Buckley, 
exhibited for him in the pages of his organ, the National 

Because the secret bias and behind the scenes loyalties 
created by the furtive conspiratorial affiliations of the ADL 
and Freemasons has now poisoned the entire judicial system 
of America, we have become inured to the most despotic 
acts of our judges. Much of the pernicious influence exercised 


by the judiciary can be traced to the career of Oliver Wendell 
Holmes, a scion of the New England banking and Abolitionist 
One World conspirators. Holmes was responsible for the new 
direction in American jurisprudence, the growth of an icono- 
clastic liberal movement which challenged the traditional con- 
cept of judicial impartiality. Holmes' revolutionary doctrine 
was expressed when he wrote, "It appears to me that it has 
not always been sufficiently borne in mind that the same- thing 
may be a consideration or not, as it is dealt with by both 
parties." Note that this is a direct contradiction of the tradi- 
tional concept that "law" is a fixed concept. Holmes is saying 
that there is no genuine basis for deciding whether anything 
in a legal matter is a consideration or not; this opens the 
door for all sorts of deviations, as well as making the way 
clear for the concepts of admiralty law, the law merchant, 
in which individual rights are no longer of concern. The damag- 
ing effect of Holmes' dictum may be seen in the erosion of 
the traditional sanctity of the law of contracts. Presser and 
Zwineldon's definitive work, "Law and American History" 
states that "the classical theory of contract has ended." Other 
authorities write of "the death of contract." But how is this 
possible, if the law merchant has been enshrined in our courts? 
Surely the law of contract is basic to the law merchant. Not 
at all; the law merchant ignores individual rights and responsi- 
bilities in favor of dedicated service to the greater influence 
and the greater power. Any contract can and will be overridden, 
if a party can bring enough money and influence to bear in 
his support. 

Holmes also states, "The life of the law has not been logic; 
it has been experience." This opposes Lord Coke's definition 


of the law as reason, and justifies the constantly changing 
court decisions of our era, in which courts first rule in favor 
of something, and a short time later, deny its own precedent 
by ruling against it. In effect the rule of law has ended, because 
the concept of the law as a fixed force has been superseded 
by the Holmesian doctrine that there are no fixed principles 
or ethics in law; there is only "experience." 

"Experience" has opened the door for the Pollacks and 
Edelsteins to seize control of our courts; for the principles 
of the American Revolution to be superseded by the blood- 
soaked aims of the French Revolution, in which the courts 
become kangaroo courts for a brief stop on the way to the 
guillotine; for Revolutionary Tribunals to try Americans, not 
for any legal offense, but because they have opposed the 
dictatorship of the Committee of Public Safety. Jacques Bain- 
ville has written that to write an exact history of the Third 
Republic of France, it would be necessary to know the official 
minutes of the Masonic assemblies. This necessity also applies 
to the history of such organizations as the League of Nations 
and its presentday successor, the United Nations. M. Leon 
de Poncins published a full review of the Corps of Freemasons 
Congress of the allied and neutral countries which was held 
in Paris, June 28 through 30, 1917, which resulted in the 
League of Nations proposal being inserted en blanc into the 
conditions of peace agreed upon at the Versailles Peace Confer- 

A director of a great New York bank was asked how it 
was possible for high finance to protect Bolshevism, a system 
hostile to that movable property whose existence is necessary 
to the banking industry, and also to those riches which are 


represented by land and buildings, not less a necessity for 
hanks. The banker replied, "Those who are astonished at 
our alliance with the Soviets forget that the nation of Israel 
is the most nationalist of all peoples, for it is the most ancient, 
the most united, and the most exclusive. But its eyes are 
turned to the future rather than to the past, and its kingdom 
is not of this world. First comes this sentence; like the papacy, 
it is ecumenical and spiritual. But then, you will say that 
Marxism is the antithesis of capitalism, which is equally sacred 
to us. It is precisely for this reason that they are direct opposites 
to one another, that this puts into our hands the two poles 
of the planet and allows us to be its axis. We are kings that 
the prophecies may be fulfilled, and we are prophets that we 
may not cease to be kings. They take us for birds of prey, 
but we are carrion birds. Israel is the microcosm and the 
germ of the City of the Future." 

The arrogance of our judges stems from their assurance 
that they represent a higher power than the lawful government 
of the United States. No wonder they sneer at the Constitution 
and revile any citizen who comes before them citing the protec- 
tion of the Constitution. The Masonic arrogance of these judges 
is epitomized by the name of Judge Irving Cooper. Time 
Magazine noted March 30, 1962 that Congressman Manny 
Celler, whose political career reeked with corruption and dou- 
ble dealing, had sent the name of his old friend and ally. 
Judge Irving Cooper, ADL approved, as federal judge for 
the prestigious South Side District of New York. Cooper had 
been bom in London, the son of Max and Ruth Shimansky. 
Celler anticipated an easy confirmation of his friend, and was 
stunned when many witnesses came in to give page after 


page of damning testimony against him. One witness testified 
that when she used the word "we" in her testimony before 
Judge Cooper, he screamed "we! we! we!" about five times, 
meaning that "I had dared to put myself in his class. How 
dare you say we? Then he started to rave. His eyes started 
popping. His face turned purple; he looked like a reincarnation 
of the devil, or something." Many other witnesses testified 
that Judge Cooper excoriated and publicly humiliated lawyers 
and others who appeared before him. "He turned his back 
on us and berated the group.' Many other potential witnesses 
feared to testify about his notorious behaviour, for good reason. 
Despite this overwhelming testimony against him. Cooper 
was unanimously confirmed as a federal judge. Twenty-five 
years later. Who's Who still Usts him as the federal judge 
for the Southern District of New York. 

The fact that a judge could win confirmation after such 
damaging testimony is proof that the Masonic influence over- 
rides all other considerations in naming a judge to the bench. 
The press has carried hundreds of stories about apoplectic, 
cursing, and obscene judges who abuse anyone unfortunate 
enough to come into their court, but nothing is done. There 
is the constant fear engendered in their subjects by these tyran- 
nical judges; there is the myth of "judicial immunity" which 
has no Constitutional basis; and most important of all, there 
is the terrible hidden Masonic power behind the bench. 

The stranglehold which B'Nai B'Rith maintains over our 
courts leads to extreme financial abuses, a continual extending 
of bribes, favors, and undue influence, which the practitioners 
of the Will of Canaan exercise against all who come before 
them: The New York State Chamber of Commerce analyzed 


3500 foreclosure cases, and found that 75% of the receivers 
who were paid fees of over $2500 were "either active political 
workers or personal friends or relatives of judges" Reader's 
Digest, Nov. 1948. 

Of the courts which produce a steady stream of revenue 
for its inimates, none is more notorious than the probate court, 
of which the king is the notorious Surrogate Court of Suffolk, 
New York. The scene of many historic family battles, this 
court probates the wills of the nation's wealthiest families. 
The fees run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. This 
writer attended sessions in this court concerning a will which 
the lawyer prolonged over eight years, merely because he 
wished to maintain the case in his books. At these conferences, 
I was often supposed to be an attorney, and was taken aside 
by attorneys for some of the nation's largest firms, who deli- 
cately hinted they would "appreciate" any help I could offer 
in bringing the case to a conclusion. I could hardly admit 
that we maintained the case so that we would have an excuse 
for daily drives to the beach, a much less sinister reason 
than the determination of most lawyers to squeeze the last 
dollar from their clients. 

When one enters a notorious court such as the Suffolk Pro- 
bate, one can only smile at Plato's naive statement, "Justice 
is the supreme virtue, which harmonizes with all other vir- 
tues." The administration of justice in America warns us 
that the most idealistic system can in a short time become a 
nightmare. Jeremy Bentham denounced "the most grinding 
of all grievances — ^the tyranny of judge-made law." The out- 
cries of the people against legal abuses resounds throughout 
history. Magna Carta xiv promised that "We will not make 


any justiciaries, constables, sheriffs or bailiffs but from those 
who understand the law of the realm and are well disposed 
to observe it." Amos 5:7 criticizes those who abuse the pro- 
cess, "Ye who turn judgments into wormwood." One of 
the underlying causes of the French Revolution was a plethora 
of lawsuits, dragging on for generation after generation, and 
impoverishing everyone but the lawyers. Alas, the people 
exchanged these oppressive coiuts for the summary justice 
of the Revolutionary Tribunals. Charles Dickens was moved 
to write about the terrible ordeals endured by Englishmen 
embroiled in lawsuits for many generations in his famous 
case of Jamdyce v. Jamdyce, which was based on actual 
occurrences in EngUsh courts. Although Dickens' rendition 
of the behaviour of lawyers and judges was written as satire, 
it can be observed in any American court today. 

Lord Campbell complained in his lives of the Chief Justices 
of the eighteenth century, that the bench was occupied by 
"legal monks, utterly ignorant of himian nature and of the 
affairs of men." The decisions of these legal monks show 
not so much ignorance of human nature, as unalterable opposi- 
tion to it, because their decisions are dictated by their secret 
allegiances and their hidden agenda. 

A respected American judge, Judge Learned Hand, was 
never nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, despite 
the general acknowledgement that he was our most distin- 
guished jurist. In his memoir, "Fifty Years of Service" he 
says "I confess when I look at my service it seems to have 
been for the most part trivial ... As a litigant, I should 
dread a lawsuit beyond almost anything else short of sickness 
or death." Speech Aug. 10, 1959, U.S. Court of Appeals. 


Judge Samuel Rosenman, former adviser to President Frank- 
lin D. Roosevelt, told the Bar of the City of N.Y., Oct. 
1964, "Let us face this sad fact; that in many — in far too 
many — ^instances, the benches of our courts in the United 
States are occupied by mediocrities — ^men of small talent, 
undistinguished in performance, technically deficient and in- 
ept." Yet these are the men who continue to serve on the 
bench, because no one can remove them. Chief Justice Arthur 
Vanderbilt of New Jersey said, "In the eight centuries or 
more in which the judicial office has evolved in the Anglo- 
American system of law, three essentials stand out in the 
definition of a true judge; these are impartiality, independence, 
and inununity." 

The 1961 Hardbook for Judges, (American Juridicative Soci- 
ety, Chicago), cites Jud. Canon 3, "It is the duty of all judges 
in the United States to support the federal constitution, and 
that of the state whose laws they administer; in so doing, 
they should fearlessly observe and apply fundamental limita- 
tions and guarantees." This canon contrasts sharply with the 
conduct of judges whose fiiry is aroused by a citizen pleading 
his constitutional rights. 

Jud. Canon 4 states "A judge should not allow his name 
to be used for solicitation and charitable contributions." This 
is the most abused of judicial canons. Not only do judges 
constantly solicit (a synonym for prostitution), but they let it 
be known that a contribution to their favored charity might 
well affect their decision in some future litigation. The most 
obvious perversion of this canon is the practice of judges to 
sentence hardened criminals to "community service," to work 
free in a charity personally chosen by the judge. This is in 


itself both a solicitation and a contribution. A person who is 
judged guilty of a crime is expected to go to prison, not to 
become a social worker. Robert McFarlane, who was found 
guilty of a political offense, was sentenced to 200 hours of 
community service. Oliver North, also a political offender, 
was sentenced to 1500 hours of such service. The idiocy of 
this arrangement was lampooned by Ezra Pound more than 
fifty years ago, in his book, "A Guide to Kulchur," "The 
imbecility of America from 1900 onwards was loss of all 
sense of borderline between public and private affairs." The 
eradication of this line is a crucial goal of the Marxist State. 
An earlier editorial by Pound in his magazine. The Exile 
stated, "The republic, res publica, means, or ought to mean 
'the public convenience': when it does not, it is an evil, to 
be ameliorated or amended out of, or into, decent existence." 
This definition of the republic should strike terror into the 
hearts of all bureaucrats. The thought of doing something 
for the public convenience would indeed amend them out of 
Samuel West's Election Sermon, 1776, notes, 
"But though I would recommend to all Christians, as part 
of the duty that they owe to magistrates, to treat them with 
proper honor and respect, none can reasonably suppose that 
I mean that they ought to be flattered in their vices, or honored 
and caressed while they are seeking to undermine and ruin 
the state; for this would be wickedly betraying our just rights, 
and we should be guilty of our own destruction. We ought 
to persevere with firmness and fortitude in maintaining and 
contending for all that liberty that the Deity has granted us." 
An ancient legal adage says, "Blessed are the troublemak- 


ers." An even more ancient one claims that if there is only 
one lawyer in town, he will starve to death, but let a second 
one arrive, and both will become wealthy. A Spanish proverb 
says that ' 'a peasant between two lawyers is like a fish between 
two cats." 

De Tocqueville states that "In America there are no nobles 
or literary men, and the people are apt to mistrust the wealthy: 
lawyers consequently form the highest political class and the 
most cultivated portion of society. If I were asked where I 
place the American aristocracy, I should reply without hesi- 
tance that it is not among the rich, who are united by no 
common tie, but that it occupies the judicial bench and the 
bar." (Democracy in America.") 

One of the first precepts of an American judge is that he 
will exercise all of his power to harass and disqualify the 
bane of the legal profession, a citizen who refuses to hire a 
lawyer, and who chooses to represent himself in court, as is 
his Constitutional right. These mavericks, appearing as "attor- 
ney pro se," or more recently, as "In Propria Personae" 
cause consternation among lawyers and judges. A person who 
appears as his own lawyer threatens the entire financial opera- 
tion of our legal system, "Let's Make a Deal." A lawyer 
cannot make a deal with a layman in litigation, because it 
would scuttie the system. In some forty years of representing 
myself, I have encountered every reaction from judges, ranging 
from supercilious tolerance to outright hostility. Early on, I 
was standing outside judge's chambers when I heard the judge 
raising his voice for my benefit, "You can be sure of one 
thing," he informed the opposing lawyer, "as long as I'm a 
judge, you will never see a favorable opinion from me for 
anyone who tries to represent himself in my court." 


This judge, like his colleagues on the bench, remained 
true to his resolve. I never obtained equal treatment in his 
court. He seemed determined to teach me a lesson when I 
appeared, and always was disappointed when I came back 
for more. One lawyer actually tried to help me when I was 
still unaware of legal dodges. I had no idea what was going 
on when the judge asked me, ' 'Are you going to file a motion, 
Mr. MuUins?" I didn't know what a motion was, and this 
lawyer nudged me, "Tell him you'll file the motion." I let 
the opportunity pass. This attorney, who was obviously not 
cut out for the conspiratorial world of legal practice, soon 
abandoned it for a political career. Philip Stem quotes the 
edict of a professor at Harvard Law School when a student 
questioned the fairness of legal techniques, "If you believe 
in fairness and justice, you should be attending a divinity 
school." Law professors notify their students that once they 
have taken legal training, they will never be the same. Their 
outlook on everything, from morals to social life, undergoes 
a complete change, as they commit themselves for life to 
legal monkhood and the cult of the black robe. They have 
now joined the mystical world of Babylon, and have put aside 
the decencies of normal life and American citizenship for a 
stranger calling. 

Both Philip Stem and Professor Fred Rodell of Yale Univer- 
sity agree that the person acting as Pro Per has little chance 
of ever having his case actually tried by a jury. Rule VH, 
Sec. 2, U.S. Appellate Court states, "Briefs not signed by 
counsel who are members of the bar of this court and fully 
qualified under the provisions of this mle will not be considered 
by this court." When I filed an appeal with the U.S. Court 
of Appeals, the decision proved that it had not even been 


read by the judges; a law clerk had probably notified them 
that it didn't qualify, and they signed a pro forma denial of 
the appeal. In 1977, Chief Justice Berger issued an order 
that the U.S. Judiciary should not accept cases where the 
plaintiffs had no legal standing under the rules of court. 

The judge has two effective weapons against persons appear- 
ing as attorney pro se; he can award attorney's fees against 
them, which can be ruinous, or he can invoke Rule 1 1 , which 
sets up a number of conditions, that a pleading be "well 
grounded in fact," "warranted by existing law" and other 
factors, which give the judge enormous leeway in invoking 
Rule 1 1 against persons representing themselves. U.S. District 
Judge Richard L. Williams invoked Rule 1 1 against a retired 
professor, J. Carl Pomdexter, assessing him $11 ,202 for bring- 
ing a case against Virginia officials on a tax matter. Poindexter 
termed the sanctions "Soviet-style oppression," particularly 
when government defendants are granted attorneys' fees from 
citizens bringing a civil rights action. He stated, "Rule 11 
violates the most essential of all civil rights — the right to 
enforce one's civil rights through free access to the courts. 
If lawyers are intimidated by this threat, they will not take 
any case from civil rights defendants if there is a chance of 
their being sanctioned." 

The present writer sued a city and county for violation of 
jury selection rules, which was dismissed in federal court 
without argument, but not before the government attorney 
had leaped to his feet three times, shouting for "attorneys 
fees." In this case, they would have amounted to some 
$25,000, a sum which I did not have. The judge refused to 
grant attorneys' fees, because he had not adjudicated the case, 


and ran the risk of a reversal if I appealed, as I would be 
forced to do rather than pay $25,000 which I did not have. 

Charles Ashman's excellent work, "The Finest Judges 
Money Can Buy," cites hundreds of pages of documented 
corraption among judges, beginning with Sir Francis Bacon's 
statement while Lord Chancellor of England, "I usually accept 
bribes from both sides so that tainted money can never influence 
my decision." 

Deuteronomy states that "Thou shalt not respect persons, 
neither take a gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, 
and pervert the words of the righteous." 

OnJune 11, 1973, the California Judicial Qualification Com- 
mission recommended only censure of two Los Angeles judges 
who had issued numerous blank, presigned release forms to 
bondsmen friends. Judge Mitchell Schweitzer, who served 
twenty-six years on the Court of General Sessions with the 
support of both the Democratic and Liberal parties, was de- 
scribed in these words, "Some lawyers regarded Schweitzer's 
court as a circus. The judge shouts and he snorts and he 
huffs and puffs and he cajoles frightened lawyers and their 
clients to cop pleas to save time. But I must admit it's entertain- 

In Congress, fixer Nathan Voloshen used Speaker of the 
House John McCormack's office as his private headquarters 
to fix income tax cases. Dr. Irving Helpert, a Dayton urologist, 
gave him $300,000 to fix a case, and never heard from him 
again. Helpert was convicted and fined. Abe Fortas graduated 
from Yale Law School and became the protege of FDR cabinet 
member Harold Ickes, who appointed Fortas Undersecretary 
of the Interior. Fortas later became the confidant of Lyndon 


B. Johnson, representing him in a Senatorial primary case 
where Johnson had been ordered off the ballot. Fortas saved 
Johnson's political career by winning the case, making possible 
Johnson's later ascendancy to the Presidency. As President, 
Johnson named Fortas to replace Arthur Goldberg on the tradi- 
tional Jewish seat on the Supreme Court. Fortas, who was 
to be named Chief Justice, accepted $15,000 from Troy Post 
to lecture at American University, and then became involved 
with wheeler dealer Louis Wolfson, who paid Fortas $20,000, 
and put him on a life retainer of $20,000 a year. On May 
14, 1%9, Fortas resigned from the Supreme Court. 

Justice William Douglas of the Supreme Court married his 
fourth wife at the age of 66 after his third wife divorced 
him. Congressman Gross prepared articles of impeachment 
against Douglas, who was being paid $12,000 a year from 
the Parvin Foundation, a three million dollar foundation set 
up by Parvin when he sold the mob-connected Flamingo Hotel 
in Las Vegas; Parvin had been named as a co-conspirator 
with Louis Wolfson. Congressman Gerald Ford also called 
for Douglas' impeachment after he wrote an article for the 
Evergreen Review which appeared in an issue of the magazine 
replete with pornographic photos and articles. Unlike the earlier 
case of Sir Francis Bacon, Douglas was never impeached. 
Bacon was impeached after evidence that he had taken some 
12,230 pounds in bribes, with twenty-eight charges against 
him. The judgment was that "The Lord Chancellor hath given 
way to great exactions by his servants, both in respect of 
private seals, and otherwise for selling of injunctions." 

The invoking of Rule 11 by federal judges is intended to 
seal off the courts from redress by private citizens, and to 


allow their secret aristocracy, with its hidden agenda, to con- 
tinue its practices of bribery and other corruption. Lysander 
Spooner wrote in 1952, 

"The legal effect of these constitutional recognitions of 
the rights of individuals to defend their property, liberties 
and lives, against the government, is to legalize resistance 
to all injustice and oppression, of every name and nature 
whatsoever, on the part of government. But for the right of 
resistance, on the part of the people, all governments would 
become tyrannical to a degree of which few people are aware. 
Constitutions are utterly worthless to restrain the tyranny of 
governments, unless it be understood that the people will, 
by force, compel the government to keep within the constitu- 
tional limits. Practically speaking, no government knows any 
limits to its power, except the endurance of the people. . . . 
Tyrants care nothing for discussions that are to end only in 
discussion. Discussions, which do not interfere with the en- 
forcement of their laws, are but idle wind to them. Suffrage 
is equally powerless and unreliable." 

Chapter 5 

The Supreme Court 

"The Germ of dissolution of our federal government is in 
the constitution of the federal judiciary." Thomas Jefferson. 

Whether the case may be made that the federal government 
is in dissolution, or whether it has at last achieved supreme 
power over the citizens of the United States, is a matter which 
has not been resolved. Jefferson warned us, 

"The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That 
body, like gravity, ever-active with noiseless foot and unalarm- 
ing advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what 
it gains, is engulfing insidiously the (state) governments into 
the jaws of that which feeds them." Writings of Thomas 
Jefferson, v. 10: 189. 

Jefferson also stated, 

"It has long . . . been my opinion, and I have never shrunk 
from its expression (although I do not choose to put it into a 
newspaper, nor like Priam in armour offer myself its cham- 
pion) — ^That the germ of dissolution of our federal government 
is in the constitution of the federal judiciary: An irresponsible 



body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like 
gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a 
little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief 
over the field of our jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped 
from the states, and the government of all consolidated into 
one. To this I am opposed, because when all government, 
domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be 
drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render 
powerless the checks provided of one government on another, 
and will become as venal and oppressive as the government 
from which we separated. It will be as in Europe, where 
every man must be either pike or gudgeon, hammer or anvil. 
Our functionaries and theirs are wares from the same workshop, 
made of the same materials and by the same hand. If the 
states look with apathy on this silent descent of their govern- 
ment into the gulf which is to swallow all, we have only to 
weep over the human character formed uncontrollable but 
by a rod of iron, and the blasphemers of man, as incapable 
of self-government, become his true historians." Writings 
V. 15:331. 

Jefferson continued (v. 15, p. 341), "Our government is now 
taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will 
pass to destruction, to wit, by consolidation first, and then 
corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consoli- 
dation will be the federal judiciary; the two other branches 
the corrupted instruments." 

He went on to say, "We already see the power, installed 
for life, ... the foundations are already deeply laid for the 
annihilation of constitutional state rights, and the removal of 
every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of 


which themselves are to make a sovereign part. If ever this 
vast country is brought under a single government, it will 
be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapa- 
ble of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface. 
This will not be borne, and you will have to choose between 
reformation or revolution. If I know the spirit of this country, 
the one or the other is inevitable. Before the canker is become 
inveterate, before its venom has reached so much of the body 
politic as to get beyond control, remedy should be applied." 
Jefferson was not alone among the Founding Fathers to 
warn us of the dangers represented by an unbridled judiciary. 
Now the Supreme Court has come to represent everything 
which they warned us against; excessive power, the destruction 
of the system of governmental checks and balances, and the 
annihilation of the principle of separation of powers. This 
development has come about because of the systematic 
"amending" of the Constitution, which was to guard the 
citizens from excesses of governmental power and its conse- 
quent abuses. To accomplish such amending, it was necessary 
to engage the states in a civil war, or, more properly , a Constitu- 
tional revolution, before this goal could be achieved. The 
subsequent 13th, 14th and 15th amendments effectively re- 
pealed the Constitutional guarantees which had been so pains- 
takingly drawn up by the Founding Fathers. In place of the 
original intent of the Constitution, we were now saddled with 
the ruthless enforcement of the law merchant. The law mer- 
chant respects no individual rights, does not afford trial by 
jury, and renders useless the appellate process. The law mer- 
chant has converted the appellate courts, including the Supreme 
Court itself, into rubber stamps for the admiralty procedures 
and decisions of the inferior courts. 


The legal profession has carefully concealed from the Ameri- 
can people the fact that we no longer have an appellate court 
system, because the treadmill procedure of appeals continue 
to provide billions of dollars in fees. The legal profession 
continues to hold out the carrot on a stick, "We have excellent 
grounds for an appeal. The court has committed reversible 
error in numerous aspects of this case." Of course the court 
has committed reversible error, and every error will be upheld 
by the rubber stamp appellate court. Although American court 
procedure remains a game of Russian roulette for the litigant, 
an attorney knows exactly how much chance an appeal will 
have. If the client has enough money for an appeal, he will 
have an appeal. 

Abraham Lincoln also expressed his concern about the judi- 
ciary, on March 4, 1861, 

' 'If the policy of the government upon vital questions affect- 
ing the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions 
of the Supreme Court. ... the people will have ceased to 
be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned 
their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." 

The Bill of Rights was affixed to the Constitution to assure 
the American people that their newly won freedoms, the result 
of a successful revolution, would not be abrogated by a later 
tyrannical government. For more than a century, the Supreme 
Court has been actively denying those rights. The present 
era of judicial activism began when Oliver Wendell Holmes 
inaugurated the era of "positivism" on the Supreme Court. 
Holmes abrogated the rule of written law by his personal 
view that the judge does not merely read and interpret the 
law — ^he also writes the law. Holmes argued that law is not 
based upon fundamental or universal truths (a denial of the 


definition of law as a 'fixed power'), but rather on the more 
psychological "felt necessities of the times." 

During the 1920s, the Yale Law School continued Holmes' 
legal revolution with the rise of "legal realism." This doctrine 
claimed that the judge is the law. Meanwhile, Roscoe Pound 
was teaching his doctrine of "sociological jurispradence" at 
the Harvard Law School, which demanded "a pragmatic, 
sociological legal science. " In effect, this was merely a restate- 
ment of Karl Marx's theory of dialectical materialism. What 
was imposed upon the Russian people by armed force was 
to be fixed upon the American people by judicial fiat. When 
Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed Felix Frankfurter to the 
Supreme Court, Frankfurter's initial gleeful aside to Justice 
WilliamO. Douglas was "If we can keep Chief Justice Hughes 
on our side, there is no amount of rewriting of the Constitution 
that we cannot do." This was the same Felix Frankfurter, a 
Viennese immigrant and Socialist revolutionary, who was la- 
belled by President Theodore Roosevelt as "the most danger- 
ous man in America." Frankfurter saw his opportunity to 
use the Supreme Court as the vehicle to impose a Socialist 
tyranny upon all American citizens. 

The Wall Street Journal has opened its editorial pages to 
views critical of the Frankfurter legal system. On Feb. 7, 
1989, Prof, of Law Stephen L. Carter warned that "The deci- 
sions of the courts are the law of the land in the sense that 
the parties to them are legally obligated to obey them. They 
are not, however, the fundamental law of the land — not, at 
least, in the sense that the Constitution itself is fundamental." 
In fact, the decisions of the post-Frankfurter court are binding 
upon the parties only through the law merchant, and not be- 


cause of a Constitutional orientation. Carter concludes his 
argument with the admonition that "Obedience to the courts 
is obviously among the most fundamental of our traditions, 
but surely obedience to the Constitution is even more so." 
This flies in the face of the Holmes-Frankfurter brand of judicial 
activism and the imposition of admiralty procedure upon the 
American people. Its motto is "the Supreme Court decisions 
are the law of the land," even though these decisions regularly 
reverse themselves, to achieve the condition of national insta- 
bility which the saboteurs have planned. Legal critic Walt 
Mann tells us that the seal of the Supreme Court is not the 
standard judicial seal of the blindfolded maiden and the scales 
of justice; instead, it is a copy of the Seal of Office of the 
President! Notes appearing in the U.S. Code, 28 USC 44 ad 
and 28 USC 88, appendix 1 , indicate that the present Supreme 
Court is not the true Supreme Court, but an impostor. The 
original Supreme Court still exists in the District of Columbia, 
but its name was changed during Roosevelt's presidency in 
order to have a court which would support his National Recov- 
ery Act, legislation which was copied directly from the corpo- 
rate state of Mussolini by Gerard Swope, the president of 
General Electric, and longtime vassal of Bernard Baruch. 

The original Supreme Court is defined in the Constitution, 
Art HI, and the 1789 U.S. Statutes at Large, the Judiciary 
Act. Since Roosevelt superseded it, U.S. courts have lacked 
all first instance trial prosecution and trial jiuisdiction. Thus 
the U.S. Criminal Code does not contain specifications of 
crimes, but specifications of overt acts, that is, criminal con- 
tempts of violations of previous injunctive orders. The courts 
rely on the injunctive process based on the violation of a 


court order, rather than providing a legal trial under Constitu- 
tional principles where evidence is argued and admitted or 
denied, with a jury making the final decision. Under this 
injunctive process, only the overt act of violation of the injunc- 
tion itself need be proven to obtain a conviction. The "informa- 
tion' ' which has taken the place of indictments for violations 
of laws, has only to claim that a violation of the injunction 
has taken place. The crime itself will never be prosecuted. 

The U.S. Criminal Code itself was originally a civil code, 
because the Criminal Code, Title 18, was included in the 
Civil Judicial Code and the Aliens and Foreigners Control 
Code, Title 8. The 14th amendment was then written in order 
to provide the government authority to treat American citizens 
as aliens and foreigners, as decided by Frost v. RC, 271 US 
583, 596-7, which defined us as mere aliens, and Lehigh 
RR. V. Russia, 21 F.2d 396, which ruled that the law enforce- 
ment powers in America apply only to foreigners, foreign 
relations, and international affairs. 

The doctrine of federal judicial supremacy was fastened 
onto the necks of the American people as an irrevocable yoke 
because it was done insidiously, and under the cover of more 
striking and dramatic events, such as the Civil War. After 
the Second World War, the judicial activists, who had thor- 
oughly cowed the leaders of our two political parties, imposed 
a series of stunning decisions which, in effect, placed the 
American people on notice that they now had no rights remain- 
ing to them. This situation was dramatized by Gov. Orval 
Faubus of Arkansas, in a speech to the Arkansas Legislature, 
Aug. 26, 1958, in which he quoted extensively from the resolu- 
tions passed by the Conference of Chief Justices of the State 


Supreme Courts earlier that month, concluding with their find- 
ing that "The Supreme Court has been usurping the rights 
reserved to the states by the Constitution. . . . It is not merely 
the final arbiter of the law; it is the maker of policy in many 
major social and economic fields." 

The activists' pretensions to judicial supremacy dates from 
the historic case of Marbury v. Madison, 1803. The decision 
was the work of Chief Justice John Marshall, who had been 
appointed to the court by President John Adams, the leader 
of the New England school of separatists. Marshall ruled that 
the judiciary has the power to strike down any law or act of 
Congress which violate the Constitution under Art. IE, sec. 
2 par. 1, or "the supreme law of the land" clause. Art. VI, 
sec. 2. However, Marbury v. Madison, rather than being a 
sweeping review which established the court as the final arbiter 
of government power, was actually a partisan political squabble 
over the spoils of election victory. Congress had passed a 
new Circuit Court bill Feb. 13, 1801 , which authorized sixteen 
additional federal judges. Pres. Adams at once filled them 
with Federalists, who were confirmed by the Senate March 
2, and their appointments signed by President Adams and 
sealed by Secretary of State John Madison on March 3. Mar- 
bury V. Madison arose from a comparable situation, the passing 
on Feb. 27, 1801 of the District of Columbia Organic Act, 
provided for the appointment by the President of justices of 
the peace for Washington and Alexandria within the District. 

On March 2, the President nominated twenty-three justices 
for Washington and nineteen for Alexandria and sealed by 
the secretary before midnight of March 3, the famous "mid- 
night justices of the peace. The conmiissions were delivered 


that same night by Marshall's brother James. However, Wil- 
liam Marbury of Washington did not have his commission 
delivered, which became the subject of litigation in December 
of 1801; the case was finally heard by the Supreme Court in 
Feb. , 1803. John Marshall believed that the commissions were 
valid when the Seal of the United States was affixed, rather 
than when they were delivered. Today, the Supreme Court 
has no file on the case or any of the papers relevant to it. 
The only record is that made by reporter William Cranch. 
The Court ruled that Marbury had a right to the commission 
because of the power of the Court to adjudicate the validity 
of an Act of Congress. However, the Court refused to issue 
a writ of mandamus, thus deciding in favor of Madison (1 
Cranch at p. 70). The Court stated that the Constitution forbade 
the grant of power to issue the writ but that the Court did 
have the power of judicial review. The Court ruled that the 
Constitution was the superior and paramount law, unchange- 
able by ordinary means, and the supreme law of the land. 
Sec. 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 attempted to give the 
Supreme Court power to issue a writ of mandamus in an 
original proceeding against an officer of the United States, 
including the Secretary of State; the Court concluded that 
Art. Ill of the Constitution prohibited the grant of such power 
by Congress to the Supreme Court. 

Thus the original dilemma, that Secretary of State James 
Madison had worked far into the night signing commissions 
of justices of the peace for the Federalist Party, including 
Marbury's commission, had had part of his work undone when 
the incoming Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, seeing 
the stack of signed commissions on the following morning, 


decided that he would not allow them, and threw them into 
the wastebasket. Marbury then sued to obtain the commission 
he had been promised for his dedicated party service. In decid- 
ing the case, Chief Justice Marshall, one of the leaders of 
the Federalist Party, cleverly avoided the main issue before 
the Court, that of partisan politics, and shifted the issue to 
one of governmental powers, by deciding that the final arbiter 
would henceforth be the Supreme Court. 

Thomas Jefferson delivered his opinion on the Marbury v. 
Madison decision, stating, "Nothing in the Constitution has 
given them (the Supreme Court), a right to decide for the 
Executive, more than for the Executive to decide for them. 
The opinion. . . . would make the judiciary a despotic 
branch." Jefferson further warned about judicial supremacy 
in 1819, stating, "The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a 
mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they 
may twist and shape into any form they please." However, 
the court was careful not to flaunt its newly assumed power. 
Between 1803 and 1870, the Court declared as unconstitutional 
only six acts of Congress, three of those being decided in 
1870. From 1871 to 1899, it overruled Congress sixteen times, 
a power which was increasingly used from 1900 to 1936, 
during the period of Holmesian judicial activism. During that 
period, the Court rendered fifty-one decisions against the Con- 

The battle over an American central bank also spawned 
landmark decisions by the Supreme Court. After the European 
Rothschilds had commissioned Alexander Hamilton to set up 
a central bank in the United States, immediately after the 
American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson led the fight against 


its adoption. In McCuUoch v. Madison, 1819, the Supreme 
Court upheld the bank against the states. In Craig v. Missouri, 
1830, the Supreme Court invoked the Constitutional ban on 
state-issued currency to invalidate loan certificates issued by 
a state, a decision which severely affected the growth of state 
banks, and encouraged the demand for a central bank. A 
longtime crusader against the central bank, Roger Taney, was 
rewarded for his opposition by President Andrew Jackson, 
who appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1836. In 1837, 
the Taney Court reversed Craig v. Missouri in the decision 
of Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, and upheld the state law 
authorizing the issuance of bank notes by a state institution. 
Lawrence Tribe comments on this decision, "The demise of 
the central banking system and consequent disruption of the 
nation's finances played a large part in triggering the devastat- 
ing economic depression of 1837." 

Although Tribe is a well-known legal scholar, he seems 
less aware of the facts about monetary history. Henry Clews 
stated, in his book, "Twenty-Eight Years in Wall Street," 
p. 157, "The Panic of 1837 was aggravated by the Bank of 
England when it in one day threw out all the paper connected 
with the United States." As the present writer pointed out 
in "Secrets of the Federal Reserve," the order to refuse any 
American securities, shares or loans came directly from Nathan 
Mayer Rothschild, who thereby deliberately precipitated the 
panic of 1837. The goal was to punish the United States for 
refusing Rothschild's central bank, and to drive down the 
prices of all shares in a financial panic, such shares then 
being available for purchase by the Rothschilds at a much 
lower price. Does Tribe known anything of these details? A 


Harvard law professor since the age of twenty-seven, he is 
described by Time magazine as one of the most powerful 
lawyers in the United States. He has long been in the five 
hundred dollar an hour fee range for consultation, and may 
be relied upon to present an acceptable justification for Estab- 
lishment programs. 

With the advent of Zionist power on the Supreme Court 
in 1916, the head of the World Zionist Organization, Louis 
Brandeis, being appointed to the Court by President Woodrow 
Wilson, the Court moved from its dedication to the enthrone- 
ment of judicial supremacy, to a new program, the supremacy 
of Zionist interests around the globe. Because Supreme Court 
decisions are not binding upon other nations, this program 
first succeeded in placing Zionist interests firmly in control 
of the federal offices in Washington, where they were then 
exported to the rest of the world as "American" interests. 
President Wilson appointed Louis D. Brandeis to the Supreme 
Court June 1, 1916; he served on the Court twenty-two years. 
Another Zionist, Benjamin Cardozo was appointed Feb. 1, 
1917, serving twenty-three years, until 1939; The Jewish seat 
was then given to Felix Frankfiirther by Roosevelt in 1939. 
Arthur Goldberg served on the Court for three years; Abe 
Fortas was appointed Oct. 4, 1968, later resigning after charges 
of involvement with wealthy Zionists who had matters before 
the Court. 

Brandeis' appointment to the Supreme Court has been ex- 
plained as the result of a $50,000 contribution by Bernard 
Baruch to Wilson's re-election campaign, and also as a black- 
mailing effort by Zionist leaders who held Wilson hostage 
for the Peck letters, a number of which purportedly established 


a secret liaison between Wilson and a paramour. Brandeis' 
appointment was affected by both elements. An indefatigable 
social activist, he had aroused strong opposition for years 
because of his controversial work, yet he was finally confirmed 
by the Senate. He was known worldwide for his fanatical 
leadership of the Zionist Organization of America; he fulfilled 
a continuous round of Zionist meetings and policy sessions, 
stating for the record that ' 'Zionist affairs are the only important 
things now," a curious allegiance for a Justice of the Supreme 
Court, who was supposedly "impartial." Wilson later ap- 
pointed Brandeis' mentor, Bernard Baruch, as head of the 
War Industries Board during World War I, and Baruch's part- 
ner, Eugene Meyer, head of the War Finance Administration, 
in charge of Liberty Loans. Baruch later boasted to Congress 
that as economic czar of the United States, he daily exercised 
more power than any other man in the nation. It was Baruch 
who, with Brandeis and Wilson at the Versailles Peace Confer- 
ence, wrote the impossibly punitive reparations assessments 
against Germany, which made a Second World War inevitable. 
A pivotal figure on the Supreme Court during the 1940s 
and 1950s was Justice Hugo Black. Max Lemer's biography 
of Black notes that he joined the Masons before he reached 
the age of twenty-one. As the next step in his political career, 
he then joined the Ku Klux Klan, even though the Klan's 
charter expressly forbade the admitting of Jews, Masons or 
Catholics. Black ran for the Senate with active Klan support, 
and won. Black then supported Roosevelt's court-packing plan 
in the Senate, and was himself appointed to the Court as a 
reward. After he was sworn in, the story was leaked in Wash- 
ington that Black had been an active Ku Klux Klan member 


since 1927. Despite a firestorm of protest from the liberals 
and Communists who made up Roosevelt's entourage, Black 
refused to resign from the Court, and Roosevelt refused to 
request his resignation. A deal was made, and Black became 
known as one of the most liberal members of the Court. He 
worked actively to offset the votes of "the Four Horsemen" 
of the Hughes Court, the dedicated conservatives, Pierce But- 
ler, Willis van Devanter, George Sutherland, and James 
McReynolds. As the "judicial activist" leader of the Court, 
Black led the writing of the decision against prayer in schools 
in 1954 as an abolutist doctrine. In a 1962 prayer case. Black 
claimed that by way of the 14th Amendment and the Bill of 
Rights, restraints upon the states were incorporated into the 
Constitution. This became the basis for the liberal wing of 
the Court in future argument, although other Supreme Court 
decisions refuted Black's claim. Justice Frankfurter ruled in 
Adamson v. Cal., 1947, that "the notion that the Fourteenth 
Amendment was a covert way of imposing upon the states 
all the rules which it seemed important to eighteenth century 
statesmen to write into the Federal Amendments was rejected 
by judges who were themselves witnesses to of the process 
by which the Fourteenth Amendment became part of the Con- 

In Engel et al v. Vitale et al, Steven Engle and other parents 
of the New Hyde Park N. Y. v. Union Free District #8, plain- 
tiflFs objected to a nondenominational prayer from the State 
Board of Regents containing twenty-two words drawn from 
the state constitution, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our 
dependence upon Thee, and we beg thy blessings upon us, 
our parents, our teachers and our country." This innocuous 


prayer had been repeated at the beginning of each school 
day, with the Pledge of Allegiance; there was no compulsion 
of students to join in its recital. The Supreme Court itself 
opened each day's sessions with the prayer, "God Save the 
United States and This Honorable Court"; prayer was also 
used at the opening of both Houses of Congress. However, 
Justice Black claimed that the school prayer served to set up 
a state religion, and thereby violated the establishment clause 
of the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting 
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 
thereof. ' ' Black's argument that this clause forbade all religious 
expression actually perverted it into a prohibition against the 
free exercise of religion. The prayer issue continued to come 
repeatedly before the Supreme Court; in 1984, the Court's 
famous ' 'reindeer rule' ' held that nativity scenes and menorahs 
could be permitted on public property only if they were accom- 
panied by secular symbols such as reindeer, Santa Claus or 
his elves. This decision has been condemned as "tortured 
reasoning"; it is not reasoning at all, but rather, is a conscious 
attempt to inhibit and finally destroy the exercise of religion 
in the United States. 

A succession of socialist activist decisions by the Court 
changed the quality of life for all Americans. The Shelby v. 
Kraemer decision, 433 USI 1984 1948, outlawed restrictive 
real estate contracts, and changed the capital city of the United 
States from a white middle class residential area to a largely 
black, crime-ridden city which is now known as "the crime 
capital of the world." Its mayor, Mayor Barry, is continually 
criticized for his close associations with known drug peddlers, 
some of whom have now been arrested. Barry formerly ran 


a black organization called "Pride" which collected payment 
from Jewish merchants on Seventh St. in Washington for 
assurances that their stores would not be vandalized or set 
on fire. After millions of dollars had vanished into Pride's 
coffers, Mayor Barry had his wife take the rap for the sum 
of $675,000, which had mysteriously vanished. 

If an invading army had tried to destroy our nation's capital 
city, as the British did during the War of 1812, it would 
have met with armed resistance. However, when the Supreme 
Court decision launched a wave of "white flight," and handed 
the city over to blacks, not a protest was heard. Shelby v. 
Kraemer, did not, as was widely but erroneously believed, 
oudaw racial covenants in real estate contracts. It did take 
on the language which was widely used in such contracts, 
such as that quoted in Ringgold v. Denhardt, "That the house 
on said lot now erected shall be used only as a dwelling 
house, and the same shall not be given, sold, rented or sub- 
leased to a negro or person of African or MongoUan descent. ' ' 
Many such racial covenants also excluded Jews or other groups, 
in an effort to continue the ethnic makeup of particular neigh- 
borhoods. The value of the real estate depended in large part 
upon such restrictions. Once those restrictions were aban- 
doned, the value of the real estate would plunge. 

Instead of outlawing such contracts, the Supreme Court 
did not face the issue squarely. To have done so would have 
violated the Constitutional provision against the impairment 
of contracts. The justices of the Supreme Court carried out 
a flanking attack on their objective; while their cowardice 
would not allow them to outlaw such contracts, they ruled 
that the coiuts would no longer enforce such contracts by 


legally upholding them. Their "rule of law" weaseled out 
of a necessary stance by establishing that the provisions of 
such a contract could not be enforced by the courts. 

The famous interview with Philip Elman in the Harvard 
Law Review, vol. 1987, p. 817, revealed that the Department 
of Justice had intervened actively to secure the decision in 
Shelley v. Kraemer, filing a 150 page amicus curiae brief 
for the plaintiffs, which was later published as a book. Elman 
states, "I had friends working in the NAACP, the ACLU, 
the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Commit- 
tee, and other organizations." Elman, as Felix Frankfurter's 
"law clerk for life," and closest confidante, was working 
for the plaintiffs as amicus curiae while his employer. Frank- 
furter, was hearing the case in preparation for handing down 
an ' 'impartial' ' opinion. Elman states that the Solicitor General 
of the United States, Philip Perlman, had requested that he 
prepare the amicus curiae brief, again an improper procedure, 
because the clerk of a Justice cannot intervene on behalf of 
either the plaintiffs or the defense. The brief finally appeared 
with the names of five Jewish lawyers as its authors. Perlman 
was disturbed by this, and demanded of Elman, "Can't you 
find any gentiles to work on this thing?" Thus we find that 
the same organizations which orchestrated the complaint of 
Brown v. Board of Education also masterminded the Shelley 
V. Kraemer decision which destroyed our nation's capital. 
Their presence was illegal, conspiratorial, and constituted ob- 
struction of justice. 

The present writer was living in a pleasant home on Capitol 
Hill when the Supreme Court decision was announced. Within 
months, real estate speculators had begun the practice of bring- 


ing in one black family per block, the famous practice of 
"block-busting." At the sight of the black invasion, white 
owners would immediately sell their homes for as little as 
one-tenth of the amount they had invested in them. Fortunes 
were made overnight, as Washington became a black city. 
One Supreme Court decision changed a sleepy Southern white 
city with a minority black population into one of the largest 
black cities in the world, a crime-ridden, poverty-stricken 
enclave surrounded by well-to-do white suburbs in Maryland 
and Virginia. 

Newspapers carried headlines such as "Fear Becomes Bil- 
lion Dollar Industry ," as sales of locks , alarm systems , security 
programs, and guns — yes, guns, soared. Many women found 
that if they chose to live in the District of Columbia, they 
must become proficient in the use of a handgun, the same 
handguns which Senator Teddy Kennedy and other bleeding 
hearts seek to deny to all Americans who are not criminals. 
As robberies and murders of cab-drivers soared in the District, 
many cab drivers stopped picking up black fares, and refused 
to deliver passengers to high-crime areas. A group of yuppy 
black lawyers recently sued several cab companies, because 
they had repeatedly been passed by when they tried to hail a 
cab. Mayor Barry had akeady forced a measure through City 
Council automatically fining cab drivers $100 for refusing a 
passenger. The Washington Post, in reporting on the yuppy 
lawyers litigation, mentioned that ninety-seven per cent of 
the cab drivers in the District of Columbia were black. The 
black lawyers were suing their racial colleagues! The Post 
also interviewed taxi driver Albert K. Acheampong, who said, 
"I discriminate a lot. I'll pay the $100 fine. I'm not going 


to put my life on the line." It is typical snobbery of black 
leaders such as Mayor Barry, who are surrounded by armed 
bodyguards and chauffeurs, that they wish to fine other blacks 
$100 because they are fearful of being murdered in what the 
press habitually refers to as "the crime capital of the world." 
In Western cities, fake gunfights are staged for tourists; in 
Washington, the gunfights taking place in Washington on Capi- 
tol Hill are real. Nevertheless, Mayor Barry was recently 
quoted in Newsweek as remarking that "The crime rate in 
the District of Columbia, if you don't count the killings, is 
lower than that in other major American cities." 

In the case of Com. of Pa. v. Board of Directors of City 
Trusts of Philadelphia, the Supreme Court ruled, in 353 US 
230, 1957, that Stephen Girard, a patriot of the Revolutionary 
period, who died in 1831, erred in leaving his large fortune 
for "schools for poor white orphan boys." The funds, which 
were used to found Girard College in 1848, could no longer 
be spent for the purposes which Girard had devised, according 
to the Supreme Court. Despite a lengthy record of previous 
decisions which honored testamentary directives, the Court 
ruled that Girard' s will, in the light of current sociological 
requirements, was now found to be discriminatory; his money 
could no longer be spent for the benefit of poor white orphan 

A farmer was sued for raising grain in excess of Department 
of Agriculture regulations and feeding the surplus to his cattle. 
A lower court ruled that some powers are granted to Congress 
by the Constitution, and others are later conferred by amend- 
ment; Congress had originally no power to enact an income 
tax or to prohibit the manufacture and sale of alcoholic bever- 


ages; but no amendment to the Constitution granted to Congress 
the power to regulate agriculture. The Supreme Court over- 
turned this decision, ruling Per Curiam Feb. 24, 1949, "The 
judgment is reversed. Wickard v. Filbum, 317 US 111." 
The Court handed down no written decision, because its ruling 
for an order of reversal had violated both the Ninth and the 
Tenth Amendments. 

Throughout our history, the qualifications for nomination 
to the Supreme Court have remained the same — solid political 
support. During the nineteenth century, nominees were fre- 
quently rejected by the Senate on partisan political grounds. 
In 1930, the Senate rejected an unusually distinguished nomi- 
nee, Judge John J. Parker, because of his conservative views 
on race relations and labor law. A concerted propaganda drive 
by union political leaders persuaded the Senate to refuse him, 
in a preview of the famous Bork Hearings of our era. 

Because of such political impasses as the shocking rejection 
of Judge Bork for the Supreme Court, Prof. Laurence Tribe 
suggested a compromise solution; that the Supreme Court 
should maintain a constant political balance of three liberals, 
three moderates, and three conservatives; when any Justice 
left the Court, he should be replaced by a successor chosen 
from the category to which he belonged. Tribe's suggestion 
was received with derision in Washington, because no one 
today can say for certain who is a liberal and who is a conserva- 
tive, while moderates no longer exist. Judge Bork had been 
rejected by the Senate as too conservative, although during 
most of his life he had been considered extremely liberal; he 
had been married to a Jewish liberal, a socialist, and his 
closest friend for years had been the wellknown leftwing Judge 


Abner Mikva, whose Congressional career had been marked 
by his extreme pro-Communist views. From the time of Bran- 
deis, there had been a traditional Jewish seat on the Supreme 
Court, although no seat was ever reserved for anyone who 
might be considered even remotely anti-Jewish. When Frank- 
furter died, he was replaced by Artie Goldberg; when Goldberg 
was asked to resign to defend Zionist interests at the United 
Nations as the ambassador from the United States, he was 
replaced by Abe Fortas. At that time, no one anticipated that 
Fortas would have to resign because of his connections with 
Las Vegas mob figures and with wheeler dealer Louis Wolfson, 
who later went to prison. Fortas had signed an agreement 
with Wolfson while on the Supreme Court that he would 
receive $25,000 a year from Wolfson' s foundation for life. 
The public outrage over this arrangement forced Fortas to 
resign. His firm, Arnold, Fortas and Porter, had become the 
most powerful Washington lobbyist. While Fortas was serving 
on the Supreme Court, his wife took his place with the firm, 
bringing in many large new accounts. The firm has since 
dropped the Fortas name from its masthead. 

As part of the growing federalization of the legal system, 
the Supreme Court ruled that all state courts must now follow 
Federal rules of evidence, whether they were in conflict with 
state statutes or not. This placed much greater restrictions 
on the crime-fighting power of state and local police, as well 
as state courts. The Justices had reversed traditional police 
procedxires. Henceforth, no evidence could be presented in 
court if anyone in the police department had erred in any 
way, no matter how trivial, in gathering the evidence, even 
if it meant that an obviously guilty and dangerous criminal 


would go free. A landmark reversal in the history of criminal 
justice in the United States, the notorious "exclusionary rule" 
was applied in the court's Mallory decision of 1957. Mallory's 
seven and a half hours of detention before his arraignment 
was held by the Supreme Court to have violated his Constitu- 
tional right to be brought before a magistrate without "undue 

In 1961, the Supreme Court invaded another realm of state 
law by limiting the ability of local police agencies to conduct 
searches in quest of incriminating evidence, a domain previ- 
ously held to be within the domain of state law. In 1963, 
the court's Gideon decision released a convicted criminal, 
Gideon, on the grounds that every indigent such as Gideon 
should have a lawyer provided and paid for by the state. 
This decision, although doing nothing for the great majority 
of law-abiding Americans, who still had to pay for their own 
legal representation, proved to be a great boon for the legal 
profession. Only one task yet remains for the Supreme Court, 
to outlaw any citizen from representing himself in court, or 
to appear without a lawyer, to continue the Supreme Court's 
chosen role as the Santa Claus of the legal profession. 

In 1964, the Supreme Court extended the exclusionary rule 
by barring evidence seized during the search and seizure opera- 
tions involving an automobile. In 1964, the Escobedo decision 
freed a convicted murderer because he had not been allowed 
to see counsel at the station house before he made a full 
confession to the police. In 1966, the Supreme Court decided 
four cases comprising Miranda v. Arizona. The court ruled 
that the police could not question a suspect if he demurred, 
and the service of a lawyer must be energetically pressed on 


him and financed by the state if indigent. A further ruling 
declared that the presence of a uniformed policeman in the 
station house psychologically acted to coerce the defendant 
and violated his Fifth Amendment rights. The implication of 
this Supreme Court ruling was that whenever a criminal was 
being brought into a police station, those policemen present 
must either strip, or absent themselves. 

Not only were these rulings ludicrous; they also reflected 
the dedication of the social activist justices to the wellbeing 
of the criminal. It also reflected their active dislike and distrust 
of the police and for members of the law abiding public. 
One might say that the Supreme Court no longer bothered 
to conceal its commitment to the criminal, and its distaste 
for the bourgeois property owners of society who had been 
caricatured by Karl Marx and other Communists in their writ- 
ings. They ruled that the police must now be handcuffed, 
while criminals were being given carte blanche to carry on 
their profession. Because of these decisions, as well as the 
increasing concern of the Justices for Communists, public 
reaction quickly surfaced in national campaigns to impeach 
the more notorious liberal leaders of the Court, Chief Justice 
Earl Warren and Justice William O. Douglas. Earl Warren 
had not always been known as a liberal. As a young California 
politician, he had a brilliant career until a family problem 
threatened his reputation. His father, according to researches 
by famed classical scholar Dr. Revilo Oliver, had been sexually 
abusing a number of young women who were his tenants in 
a shantytown in California. Several rape charges had been 
filed against him, and Warren realized that he must act quickly. 
He went to talk to his father, who was then found with his 


head bashed in. Dr. Oliver states unequivocally that Warren 
murdered his own father in order to protect his political career. 
He was then elected Atty. Gen. of California, but made no 
effort to find the murderer of his own father. The case was 

As Atty. Gen. of California, Earl Warren showed few liberal 
tendencies. He led the Committee of 100, a nativist California 
group, in a campaign to have all Japanese small businessmen 
and fanners interned after Pearl Harbor. Despite the assurances 
of J. Edgar Hoover and other intelligence officials that these 
merchants had been investigated and presented no threat, War- 
ren and his cohorts insisted that Roosevelt intern the Japanese. 
Their properties were then bought for a few cents on the 
dollar by Warren and the members of his Committee. Land 
which they obtained for a few cents an acre in 1942 is now 
worth millions. The fortunes from this campaign not only 
financed Warren's later career; it also provided the financial 
backing for the successful Presidential campaigns of Richard 
Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Later elected Governor of Califor- 
nia, Warren went to the Republican convention in 1952 with 
a California delegation which had been pledged to the party's 
nominee, Robert Taft. At the convention, Warren was prom- 
ised the post of Chief Justice if he would switch to Eisenhower. 
It was an offer he could not refuse. 

When he arrived in Washington, Warren was told that the 
first case on the Court's docket was a very urgent one. It 
was Brown v. Board of Education, the school desegregation 
case. Hearings on this case had begun on Dec. 13, 1952. 
Chief Justice Fred Vinson soon let it be known that he was 
prepared to uphold the longstanding ruling of Plessy v. Fergu- 


son, which had long ago established the "separate but equal" 
principle for American education. Few Washington insiders 
believed that the arguments in favor of Brown v. Board of 
Education would bring any surprises. It was but one of a 
series of cases which the National Association for the Advance- 
ment of Colored People had routinely been bringing to the 
Court. However, in this case, the NAACP had been given a 
special fund of many millions of dollars, donated by wealthy 
New York Jewish families such as the Spingams, who had 
run the NAACP for many years. These funds enabled the 
NAACP to hke many "experts," more than two hundred 
such witnesses, at a cost of more than ten thousand dollars 
a day. Other funds donated to the NAACP came from such 
leftwing activist groups as the CIO Political Action Committee, 
the majority of whose dues-paying members were white; the 
Anti Defamation League of B'Nai B'Rith; the American Jewish 
Committee and the American Jewish Congress; the American 
Civil Liberties Union, and allied interests. In all, the NAACP 
came to court for Brown v. Board of Education with a war 
chest of ten million dollars. In contrast, the southern states 
who argued against Brown had only a few thousand dollars 
of expense funds to present their case. 

Despite their massive expenditures, the NAACP millions, 
after some months of argument, had made little impression 
on the Justices. The Court had originally allotted two weeks 
for the hearing of Brown v. Board of Education. As it dragged 
on during the 1952-53 term of the Court, it became obvious 
that the NAACP was desperately stalling for time. No one 
could then envision the denouement for which the NAACP 
had been told to wait. A plan had been put into effect which 


was to change the composition of the Court, and thereby to 
effect a favorable decision for Brown. The defending lawyer 
for the states, John W. Davis, a former Presidential candidate, 
sent a note to his associate, Robert Fig, "I have never read 
a drearier lot of testimony than that furnished by the so-called 
educational and psychological experts ... I think it is per- 
fectly clear from interior evidence that the witness Clark drafted 
the appendix which is signed by the worthy social scientists, 
(typical). I can only say that if that sort of guff can move 
any court, God save the state." 

Davis was referring to the well-advertised "psychologist," 
Dr. Kenneth Clark, whose professor at Columbia University, 
Dr. Henry Garrett, was the most respected psychologist in 
America. Garrett stated that Clark had been none too bright 
as a student. Now this student was testifying before the Su- 
preme Court as the originator of the "doll tests." He had 
shown both black and white dolls to a few black children, 
and he claimed that they had picked the white dolls in prefer- 
ence to the black ones. From these "tests," Clark deduced 
that the Negro children were suffering from an inferiority 
complex, because they had picked the white dolls, and that 
this complex had been created in them because they could 
not go to school with white children. No evidence was ever 
presented to the Court which verified Clarks unsupported 
claims. However, later court cases revealed that he had deliber- 
ately falsified his testimony before the Court. He had conducted 
earlier tests in some northern states, where the public schools 
had long been integrated. It was in those integrated states 
that the black children had picked the white dolls! In the 
southern states which were not integrated, the black children 


had picked the black dolls. Nevertheless, Clark succeeded 
in placing his falsified findings before the Supreme Court. 

This was not the most flagrant falsification presented to 
the Court in Brown v. Board of Education. The presence of 
the principal advocate for the plaintiff, the National Association 
for the Advancement of Colored People, never intimated in 
any way that this association was not a national association 
of colored people. It had been founded in 1910 by a small 
group of white people. Present at this meeting were John 
Dewey, who was to revolutionize American education on So- 
cialist lines; Jane Adams, a lifelong Socialist; Mary White 
Ovington, only child of millionaire Theodore Ovington, from 
a wellknown Abolitionist family; he owned Ovington's, the 
most fashionable store on New York's Fifth Avenue. Mary 
White Ovington was the epitome of the wealthy white liberal; 
although she listed herself as a Socialist in Who's Who, she 
resided for many years in a luxurious suite in Brooklyn's 
St. George Hotel. She spent her later years living on the 
fashionable Upper East Side of Manhattan. Also present at 
the founding of the NAACP were Rabbi Emil Hirschberg, 
Rabbi Stephen Wise, Dr. Henry Moskovitz, Lillian Wald, 
and Florence Kelly, who had changed her name from Wes- 
chnewetsky. Only one black was present at the founding of 
the NAACP, William E. B. DuBois, a lifelong Communist 
revolutionary who finally denounced the United States, gave 
up his American citizenship, and went to live in Ghana, Africa. 
For many years, no black was allowed to head the NAACP. 
Mary White Ovington was chairman of the board after its 
founding. Albert Spingam, of a wealthy Jewish family, was 
president from 191 1 to 1940. He was succeeded by his brother, 


Joel Spingam, a wealthy newspaper publisher who lived like 
royalty in a huge mansion. He also founded the publishing 
firm of Harcourt Brace. Joel became treasurer of the NAACP, 
his brother Arthur serving as president from 1940 until his 
death in 1971. The NAACP was the personal preserve of 
the Spingam family from its inception until 1971. Even while 
the NAACP was arguing Brown v. Board of Education before 
the Supreme Court, the Justices never knew that no black 
person had ever served as president of the NAACP. 

Walter White, secretary of the NAACP from 1931 to 1955, 
was described in Current Biography in 1942, "It is only 
through his own insistence on his negro blood (estimated by 
E. A. Hooten at about V64th) that anyone would ever take 
him for a negro. He has fair skin, blue eyes, and blond hair." 

The official report of the Communist Party's 4th national 
convention stated that the Party had ' 'penetrated' ' the NAACP. 
Florence Kelly, or Weschnewetsky, a personal friend of Engels 
and Lenin, was on its board of directors, as was Felix Frank- 
furter. The field secretary, William Pickens, also a Socialist 
Party member, was active in Communist affairs. 

The most interesting name among the founders of the 
NAACP in 1910 was that of Dr. Henry Moskovitz. His wife, 
Belle Moskovitz, was one of the most influential Democratic 
Party leaders in New York. She also had been a secret director 
of the Communist Party for years. "The Red Network" lists 
a Dr. Moshewitz as Communist Party central committee; this 
is believed to be another spelling for the name of Dr. Henry 
Moskowitz. Belle Moskovitz ran Gov. Al Smith's office for 
eight years, in alliance with Robert Moses and Judge Joseph 
Proskauer, the president of the American Jewish Committee. 


Proskauer personally selected all judges in New York state 
for years. Louis Howe, Franklin D. Roosevelt's press aide, 
was envious of Proskauer; he said to him one day, "By God, 
Joe, you've gone too far; there's not a single gentile judge 
left in the state." Proskauer looked solemnly at him. "You 
know, Lou," he said, "I didn't expect to reach this goal for 
another five years." 

Belle Moskovitz, bom Belle Lindner, had married a Charles 
Israels; when he died, she married Dr. Henry Moskovitz. 
Nathan Miller's biography of Roosevelt notes that on p. 200, 
"Moskovitz and Proskauer felt that Roosevelt, as a cripple, 
would be unable to interfere in their direction of the campaign. 
Like Al Smith, they viewed the patrician in politics with 
contempt, regarding Roosevelt as little more than a handsome 
piece of window dressing." When Roosevelt succeeded Al 
Smith as Governor of New York, Smith said to him, "Now 
Franklin, you will want Mrs. Moskovitz, of course, and I 
think the best thing you can do is appoint her the Governor's 
secretary." Belle Moskovitz was a longtime social worker. 
Communist Party worker, labor leader, Jewish leader, head 
of the Council of Jewish Women, and the Conununist who 
inducted atomic spy Julius Rosenberg into the Communist 
Party. It was she who put together the liberal coalition of 
Jews, Conmiunists, Socialists, and labor leaders which became 
Roosevelt's unbeatable political base. As head of the Prog- 
ressive Party, she had nominated Oscar Straus for Governor; 
she was introduced to Al Smith through Abram Elkus, law 
partner of Judge Proskauer, and became Smith's political alter 
ego. She became director of publicity for the Democratic 
National Committee, and was given credit for the political 


careers of Newton Baker, Herbert Lehman, and Al Smith, 
but her greatest achievement was making possible the election 
of FDR to the Presidency. She was denied her moment of 
glory when she fell down the stairs and was killed, a few 
days before Roosevelt's inauguration. Four thousand people 
came to her funeral at Temple Emanu-el in New York. Al 
Smith described her as "his alter ego." 

Neither then nor later did anyone ever challenge Felix Frank- 
furter, a sitting justice during all of the argument on Brown 
V. Board of Education before the Supreme Court, as to a 
possible conflict of interest, because he had been a director 
of the NAACP for eighteen years, and was now hearing a 
case brought before the Supreme Court by the NAACP. 

The ruling which the plaintiffs of Brown v. Board of Educa- 
tion sought to overturn was a well established precedent, Plessy 
V. Ferguson, which laid down a guideline observed since 

"Laws permitting, or even requiring, their (racial) separa- 
tion in places where they are liable to be brought into contact 
do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the 
other, and have been generally, if not universally, received 
as written within the competency of the state legislatures in 
the exercise of their state power." 

Thus the overturning of Plessy v. Ferguson required testi- 
mony and evidence which would justify the nullification of 
the state power to control its education and its schools. No 
such evidence was ever presented before the Supreme Court. 
Instead, a furtive conspiracy between the plaintiffs and a Justice 
of the Supreme Court, involving murder, resulted in the unani- 
mous decision in favor of Brown. This conspiracy is docu- 


mented in the authoritative publication, the Harvard Law Re- 
view, 1987, pp. 817 et. seq. by Felix Frankfurter's longtime 
law clerk and confidante, Philip Elman. In an interview about 
Brown v. Board of Education, Elman stated, 

"There's no question that the grand strategist in all this 
inside the Court was Felix Frankfurter. To use the Yiddish 
word that Frankfurter used at the time, he was the Kochleffel, 
or cooking spoon, which kept things stirred up. Frankfurter 
was in touch with the lawyers who won Brown, Jack Green- 
berg, Thurgood Marshall, WilUam Coleman. It was a victory 
that changed the whole course of race relations in the United 

Elman showed no remorse at the fact that this "victory" 
was won by means of conspiracy, illicit contacts between a 
Justice of the Supreme Court and the attorneys for the plaintiff, 
in which Elman was the main go between. The interviewer 
asked him about the obvious impropriety of this situation, 
"Frankfurter was receiving a government briefing almost daily 
from you, to which Davis (lawyer for the defense) never 
had a chance to reply." ELMAN. "I regarded myself, in 
the literal sense, as amicus curiae." 

Because of his complicity in illegally participating in the 
Brown decision. Frankfurter's later books, essays and articles 
mention neither the case nor his association with the NAACP. 
In an article on the Scottsboro boys, as well as in other civil 
rights articles, he makes no mention of the fact that he was 
legal counsel for the NAACP. His many biographies usually 
omit such reference, as does his Who's Who listing. "Justice 
Felix Frankfurter and Civil Liberties," by Clyde A. Jacobs, 
Univ. Cal. 1961, omits any mention of Frankfurter's position 


with the NAACP, or of Brown, although one would suppose 
this would be central to the material from which the title 
was derived. Philip Kurland's book, "Felix Frankfurter" also 
"neglects" to mention the NAACP or Brown. Helen Shirley 
Thomas book, "Felix Frankfurter" confines the association 
to five words on p. 21, "Felix Frankfurter, legal adviser to 
NAACP." Liva Baker's biography, "Felix Frankfurter," p. 
310, notes that Frankfurter was "legal counsel for the 
NAACP." Baker also makes the startling admission that 
"There was no doubt about where Felix Frankfurter stood; 
he had but one course to take on segregation." 

Thus an "impartial" Justice hearing a case on segregation 
left no doubt about where he stood. And what about the argu- 
ments before the Court? How did they affect the decision? 
Elman leaves us in no doubt about that. In his interview, he 
states that the judges had already made up their mind. "Oral 
argument made no difference in their decision. In Brown, 
nothing that the lawyers said made a difference. Thurgood 
Marshall could have stood up and recited "Mary had a little 
lamb," and the result would have been exactly the same." 

However, the principal evidence impeaching both Frank- 
furter and the Court's decision in favor of Brown is the record 
of Frankfurter's eighteen year association with the NAACP, 
which both he and his biographers have tried to conceal. In 
"The Brandeis-Frankfurter Connection: the Secret Political 
Activities of Two Justices," Oxford 1982, B. A. Murphy 
notes p. 201, "In 1930, Felix Frankfurter organized a crack 
legal staff for the NAACP to litigate against segregation 
throughout society." Although Frankfurter publicly resigned 
all of his numerous political affiliations when he was appointed 


to tiie Supreme Court by FDR in 1939, including the NAACP, 
he continued to direct the legal staff of the NAACP from 
behind the scenes, as he had done for many years. During 
World War II, Frankfurter had one of his proteges, William 
D. Hastie, the dean of Howard Law School in Washington, 
appointed by Secretary of War Henry Stimson, a key member 
of the Brotherhood of Death, as a special assistant on Negro 
problems in the armed services. Frankfurter also had Stimson 
appoint as his two special assistants in the War Department 
two other Frankfurter proteges, Harvey Bundy and John J. 
McCloy. Murphy states that this was done "to provide Frank- 
furter with an indispensable means for influencing War Depart- 
ment poHcy." Why would a Supreme Court Justice need to 
influence War Dept. policy at the height of the Second World 
War? Because Frankfurter, a Viennese inmiigrant who had 
succeeded FDR's mentor, Bella Moscovitz, as commander 
of the secret Harold Ware cell of Soviet agents in the govern- 
ment in Washington, needed to direct our war strategy in 
favor of its principal goal, the rescue of the Soviet Union 
from attack by the German armies. Murphy states that Frank- 
furter served as a constant intermediary between Stimson and 
FDR throughout the war. 

Throughout FDR's long regime, Frankfurter continuously 
placed his proteges in key government positions. Secretary 
of the Interior Ickes notes in his Diary, March 24, 1933 that 
he had appointed Margold as Assistant Secretary of the Interior 
"after advising with Dr. Felix Frankfurter." He explains that 
Margold had been serving as "special counsel for the 

It was necessary for Frankfurter to avoid any mention of 


his eighteen year association with the NAACP during the 
Court's hearing of Brown because he had personally organized, 
selected and trained the lawyers who were arguing the case. 
He had inaugurated the NAACP's campaign of litigation 
against segregation; each of the lawyers appearing before him 
was his personal protege; and another protege, Elman, was 
secretly serving as amicus curiae for Brown. This documented 
evidence proves that Brown was illegally decided through 
improper contact with attorneys, conspiracy to obstruct justice, 
and is invalid. As there is no statute of limitations on conspir- 
acy, the Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 
now stands invalid, returning the situation to the rule of Plessy 
V. Ferguson, maintaining "separate but equal" schools. Every 
racially integrated school in the United States, whether public 
or private, is now operating illegally. 

Elman 's Harvard Law Review interview also recounts the 
exact wording of Frankfurter when Elman met him at Union 
Station after the news of Vinson's heart attack. Elman says 
that Frankfurter stated "happily" and "sarcastically," "I'm 
in mourning. Phil, this is the first solid piece of evidence 
I've ever had that there really is a God." Elman also reveals 
that Frankfurter had code names for each of his fellow justices, 
which demonstrate his utter contempt and hatred for them; 
his private name for Justice Stanley Reed was Chamer, the 
Yiddish word for "fool." 

Elman also expresses distaste for Dr. Kenneth Clark's testi- 
mony in Brown about his doll tests. "He trivialized the basic 
truth and opened himself and the NAACP to ridicule. John 
Davis was the lawyer for South Carolina. And he demolished 
the doll test. He cited an article by Clark, 'Racial Identity 


and Preference in Negro Culture,' 1947, in which Clark stated 
they had given this test not only to black kids in southern 
states, but also to black kids in northern states, and the strange 
result was that the southern kids were significantly less likely 
to reject the white doll than the northern kids." 

Elman also attributes Warren's use of the phrase, "with 
all deliberate speed" to integrate the schools in the Brown 
decision to Frankfurter. He states that it was originally quoted 
by Holmes from Francis Thompson's poem, "The Hound of 
Heaven," and that Frankfurter liked it so much that he quoted 
it in three of his decisions. 

Thus we have a Supreme Court decision which changed 
the educational system throughout the United States, arrived 
at by the murder of one Chief Justice and his replacement 
by Earl Warren, who placed himself totally in Frankfurter's 
hands. We had an amicus curiae for Brown who was Frankfurt- 
er's law clerk, advising a staff of lawyers arguing for Brown 
who had been handpicked and trained by Frankfurter at the 
NAACP "to litigate against segregation." No other case ever 
heard by the Supreme Court so reeks of conspiracy, illegal 
activities, improper contamination of a Supreme Court Justice, 
and absolute nulUfication of the subsequent decision by these 
documented factors. 

The academic argument for Brown and the NAACP was 
provided by a voluminous "scholarly" work, "The American 
Dilemma," by a Swedish Socialist, Gunnar Myrdal. Botfi 
Myrdal and his wife Alva were longtime Rockefeller Fellows. 
She served as a member of the Swedish Parliament, was a 
director of UNESCO, and a member of many United Nations 
organizations. She and her husband had toured the United 
States in 1929 and 1930 as Rockefeller Fellows, where they 


developed a deep-rooted contempt for native American work- 
ers. Gunnar Myrdal spent from 1938 to 1942 working on 
"An American Dilemma"; he was funded by the Carnegie 
Foundation, which was run by the Rockefeller interests as a 
subsidiary of the Rockefeller Foundation. The book, some 
1483 pages, was published in 1944 by Harper Bros. New 
York. Carnegie had been headed for many years by Frederick 
Keppel, a director of Equitable Life and Guaranty Trust, the 
bank which had sought throughout the 1920s to increase Ameri- 
can funding and recognition of the Soviet regime. Carnegie 
had also funded Lord Hailey's "An African Survey" and 
had given millions of dollars to Tuskegee and Hampton Insti- 
tutes. Myrdal had also spent a year in the United States as a 
Fellow of the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Fund. With Keppel 
on the staff of Carnegie at this time were Ralph Bunche, 
named as a Communist Party member; M. F. Ashley Mon- 
tague, a tireless Communist propagandist; Eugene Horowitz; 
Herbert Goldhamer; Melville Herskovitz; Edward Shils; and 
Benjamin Malzberg. 

"An American Dilemma," which was never read by any 
of the Justices, reeked of Myrdal's contempt for native bom 
Southern white citizens. On p. 563, we read, "The low level 
of education and general culture in the white South is another 
important background factor. . . . Another important back- 
ground factor in the causation of lynching and other major 
forms of violence is the isolation, the dullness of every day 
life, and the general boredom of rural and small town life in 
the South." Myrdal then excoriates the people as "narrow- 
minded, intolerant, evangelistic." He writes with disapproval 
of their "evangelistic religion." 

On p. 565, Myrdal writes approvingly of "the growing 


Strength of Southern liberalism." On p. 582, he writes "there 
is a great class of Southern whites who are also poor, unedu- 
cated, coarse and dirty." One can envision the fastidious 
Myrdal recoiling in horror from the ' 'dirty white Southerners. ' ' 
As an elitist and beneficiary of the Rockefeller billions, it 
must have been an ordeal for him to travel for four years in 
the South for his research on "the American Negro problem. " 
The problem is not the Negro at all, but the coarse and dirty 
white Southerners. On p. 597, he writes of "the lower class 
whites in the South," but he never uses such terminology in 
writing of the Negroes. He also followed the Communist Party 
line by including several pages of vehement denunciations 
of police statistics on Negro crime. One wonders what Myrdal 
would make of the front page of the Washington Post, which 
daily recounts the staggering incidence of Negro crime, which 
has made our a nation's capital the crime capital of the world. 

Had the Justices or the attorneys for the Southern school 
systems ever bothered to glance at the 1483 pages of "An 
American Dilemma," they would have been shocked at its 
rabid bias against the South and its white citizens. Yet this 
book was cited as a principal influence on the final decision 
of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff in Brown v. 
Board of Education! This evidence, which was never argued 
before the Court, actually impeached its own goal. Why would 
black children be improved by being forced to attend school 
with "coarse and dirty Southern whites?" Perhaps it was a 
subtle ploy to aid Southern whites by giving them the opportu- 
nity to associate with immaculate, well-spoken and highly 
intelligent and motivated black children. 

The 1952-53 session of the Supreme Court closed with no 


decision announced on Brown v. Board of Education. It was 
then sclieduled to be carried over to the next session. However, 
the anticipated outcome was never in doubt. Justice Reed 
and others in the know stated that they expected Chief Justice 
Vinson to uphold Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling against any racial 
integration of the schools. John W. Davis, lawyer for the 
defending Southern states, announced that there would be a 
6-3 decision against Brown v. Board of Education. The ruling 
was expected shortly after the opening of the fall term. On 
June 5, 1953, the five segregation cases before the Court 
were redocketed for Oct. 12, 1953 re-argument. Washington 
observers expected a short hearing, and that Vinson would 
then issue the 6-3 ruling against Brown. This had already 
been established by internal memoranda of the Court. 

This opinion was never issued; at 3:15 A.M. on Sept. 8, 
1953, Chief Justice Vinson died suddenly of a heart attack 
in his suite at the exclusive Wardman Park Hotel. Only 63 
years old, and enjoying robust health, Vinson had shown no 
sign of any health problems. It was but one more of those 
strange "government heart attacks" which have played such 
an important role in major policy decisions. Despite their 
shock at his sudden death, Washington insiders saw no reason 
to change their expectation that the NAACP would still lose 
the segregation cases, perhaps on a 5-4 ruling instead of the 
anticipated 6-3 . Nevertheless, a few of the protagonists greeted 
the news of Vinson's death as "a day of liberation." Justice 
Frankfurter, on being informed of his longtime colleague's 
death, chortled gleefully, "This is the first indication I've 
ever had that there really is a God." He was referring to the 
Canaanite god, Baal, the agent of Lucifer, who apparently 


had been summoned to dispose of Chief Justice Vinson. Years 
passed before Frankfurter himself was revealed as the secret 
head of the influential- Harold Ware Communist cell in Wash- 
ington. At the death of Bella Moscovitz, Frankfurter had inher- 
ited her leadership of the Communist agents in the Roosevelt 
Administration. At the same time that Frankfurter was serving 
on the Supreme Court, his brother, Otto Frankfurter, was 
serving a long sentence in the Anamosa State Prison of Iowa. 
On Oct. 5, 1953, President Eisenhower announced that 
he had named Earl Warren to replace Justice Vinson as Chief 
Justice. It was immediately noted that Warren, a newcomer 
to Washington, had placed himself in Frankfurter's hands. 
There was still no indication that the new appointment would 
change the expected ruling on Brown. Arguments in the case 
were desultorily resumed, but months went by, with the case 
still in limbo. Washington journalists still expected a brief 
announcement that a decision had been made against Brown. 
On May 17, 1954, at 12:52 P.M., with no prior notice. Chief 
Justice Warren began reading the Court's decision in Brown 
V. Board of Education. He first stated that all of the evidence 
presented by the NAACP had been "inconclusive," which 
seemed to verify the fact that Brown had lost. However, Warren 
COURT, "We conclude that in the field of public education, 
the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Therefore, 
we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated, for 
whom the actions have been brought, are, by reason of the 
segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection 
of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. ... In 
view of our decision that the Constitution prohibits the states 


from maintaining racially segregated schools, it would be un- 
thinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser 
duty on the Federal Government." 

Warren's statement that the Constitution prohibits "racially 
segregated schools" went beyond the scope of the arguments 
of the NAACP; the Constitution actually said nothing on the 
matter. The decision unleashed chaos throughout public educa- 
tion in the United States. The amazing ruling, even more 
amazing because it was unanimous, instead of the long-antici- 
pated 6 to 3 ruling against Brown, was based on no legally 
acceptable evidence. Clark's doll manipulations and Myrdal's 
vicious denunciations of white Southerners were "evidence" 
which would have been laughed out of most courts. Rumors 
immediately began to circulate that Vinson had been ' 'disposed 
of in order to end his opposition to a ruling in favor of 
Brown. His son, Fred Vinson (a classmate of the present 
writer at Washington and Lee University), also died suddenly 
while at the Department of Justice. 

Kenneth's Clark's "evidence," later revealed to have been 
distorted, still threatened the validity of the Supreme Court 
ruling. NAACP lawyer Jack Greenberg then took a desegrega- 
tion case before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for a prear- 
ranged decision, as follows, 

"We reiterate that no inferior federal court may refrain 
from acting as required by the Supreme Court in the (1954) 
Brown decision, even if such a court should conclude that 
the Supreme Court erred as to its facts or to the law." 

This amazing ruling tried to dictate that Brown could never 
be overturned, even if it were proved to be in error, as was 
the case. However, in a later case, Evers v. Jackson Ms. 


Municipal School District, 232 F. Supp. 241, 1964, Fed. 
Judge Sidney Mize noted, "In this case, the evidence as to 
racial differences is of such significance as to reasonably require 
the separation of school children for educational purposes is 
overwhelming, undisputed and unchallenged. In the opinion 
of this court, the facts in this case point up a most serious 
situation, and indeed, cry out for a reappraisal and complete 
review of the findings and conclusions of the U.S. Supreme 
Court in the 1954 Brown decision." 

Washington insiders now concluded that Chief Justice Vin- 
son had indeed been murdered as part of a sinister plot to 
force racially integrated schools on all Americans by the use 
of armed troops. Earl Warren became Governor of California 
through one murder, and Chief Justice of the United States 
through another. 

Justice Felix Frankfurter was never criticized for the fact 
that he had been a director of the NAACP at the time he 
ruled in their favor. Nor did he reveal that he had personally 
selected the attorneys for the NAACP, Jack Greenberg, a 
longtime associate, and Thurgood Marshall. Marshall was 
then named to the Supreme Coiut himself, where he failed 
to disqualify himself in the long procession of racially sensitive 
cases before the Court. Loyal to the end, he always voted 
for his employers, the NAACP. 

In 1987, the Harvard Law Review reported "a stunning 
fact" about the Supreme Court's milestone ruling in Brown 
vs. Board of Education "which declared racially segregated 
public schools to be unconstitutional; Justice Felix Frankfurter 
had secret, improper, and unethical contacts with a lawyer 
for the plaintiff, with a view to engineering a victory for 


that side. He succeeded." Detroit Free Press, Mar. 29, 1987. 
The editorial commented that had it been known, ' 'Frankfurter 
would have been impeached, removed from the bench, and 
ruined." In fact. Frankfurter's association of many years with 
Jack Greenberg and Thurgood Marshall in the NAACP is 
proof that a legal conspiracy was effected, and that Brown 
V. Board of Education is thereby totally invalidated. All persons 
who claim injury as a result of the forcible integration of 
the schools can now bring action against the government, as 
can any school district which has been adversely affected by 
the ruling. 

It now seems evident that a further goal of the Brown v. 
Board of Education decision was to destroy the rapidly growing 
and independent black middle class throughout the United 
States. A black elite, composed primarily of ministers and 
educators, had succeeded in raising the standards of blacks 
in many areas, threatening the traditional plantation system 
by which Communist revolutionaries such as Frankfurter and 
wealthy white liberals as Mary White Ovington used black 
citizens for their own ulterior purposes. Thus blacks have as 
much reason to sue the government for damages resulting 
from the Brown v. Board of Education as whites, if not more 
so. Pleasant black residential neighborhoods are now drug- 
tormented, crime-ridden areas in which no one is safe; neither 
stable family life nor an effective educational system is possi- 
ble. The Brown ruling was recalled in the Washington Post, 
April 22, 1989, in an interview with Charles Lofton. Lofton 
had been principal of the black elite high school, Dunbar 
High School, which produced many black leaders in the Wash- 
ington area. He commented that "I had more influence on 


my students in the segregated environment. . . . They used 
us as role models. I was at Dunbar when integration came 
in and — ^it knocked us out. We had been getting the cream 
of the crop, but with integration, students had to go to schools 
in their zones. I lost some of my finest teachers, because 
there was just not the same demand for subjects such as Latin 
or advanced calculus. Partly as a result of integration, our 
children do not have as positive a sense of self. We have 
lost a whole generation, the generation from sixteen to thirty- 
two, and we're never going to get it back." 

The calculated destruction of the black elite has made possi- 
ble the total government control of the black population. The 
dedicated black teachers and ministers have been pushed aside, 
replaced as role models by drug pushers and political dema- 
gogues. One black educator mourned that "We now realize 
that a terrible crime has been conMnitted. An entire generation 
of black youth has been deliberately tossed onto the scrap 
heap by false leadership which has left the black community 
disorganized and without hope." Black leaders are also con- 
cerned about an apparent campaign to eliminate the entire 
black population in Africa through the deliberate inoculation 
of AIDS, and by famine and starvation. The Dark Continent 
can then be returned to the Rothschilds and to the tender 
ministrations of Global 2000, as a largely uninhabited area 
rich in natural resources, which can be plundered at leisure. 

After Brown, Chief Justice Earl Warren found that his most 
consistent supporter on the liberal Court was Justice William 
O. Douglas. In a later desegregation case, Douglas delivered 
the amazing opinion that "No one has a right to attend a 
segregated public school." Due to his continuous pursuit of 


young women, Douglas soon began to exhibit serious signs 
of mental and physical degeneration. He became increasingly 
paranoid, claiming that listening devices had been planted in 
his offices; he sometimes asked lawyers to step out into the 
hall to carry on conversations. He endured more criticism 
when he married again, in the well-advertised "case of the 
child bride." A New York Times story of Aug. 21, 1988 
cited J. Edgar Hoover's opinion of Justice Douglas, as revealed 
in FBI files, "Of course, Douglas is crazy and is not in too 
good health." During years of senile degeneration, he contin- 
ued to occupy his seat on the Supreme Court. His writings 
were a continuing puzzle to clerks and other officials of the 
Court. In "The Brethren," we are told, p. 243, "Former 
clerks were called regularly for clues to the meaning of Doug- 
las' notes and his frequently incomplete references to old 
cases; his sentences were almost a private code, their meanings 
evident only to him." The book goes to discuss Douglas' 
continuing incontinence, which caused his family to ask him 
to resign. He indignantly replied, "No! There will be no 
one on the Court who cares for blacks, Chicanos, defendants, 
and the environment." Despite their increasing aggravation 
at Douglas' presence, protocol prevented the other Justices 
from filing complaints about him. He had long since lost 
control of his lower body functions, and the continuous noxious 
odors arising from his chair sometimes caused his fellow Jus- 
tices to become physically ill. 

At the time the segregation decision was announced, blacks 
occupied all of the low level service and maintenance jobs 
at the Supreme Court. There was not a single black secretary 
in the entire building. Court personnel were routinely ordered 


to do personal work on their own time for the Justices, such 
as taking oriental rugs to the cleaners, shopping, and going 
across the city on other errands. The Court was exempt from 
civil service laws, and employees could be fired immediately, 
with no appeal. Numerous work hazards existed throughout 
the building; the black service personnel worked on rickety 
scaffolds, sometimes resulting in serious injury. The great 
bronze doors were regularly cleaned and polished with hydro- 
chloric acid, whose use had long been oudawed in American 

After Douglas' death. Justice Thurgood Marshall repre- 
sented the most liberal bias of the Court. A protege of Zionist 
Justice Brandeis, he had been a member of the ACLU for 
many years, studied at the obligatory New York version of 
the Lenin School, the New School for Social Research, and 
served as special counsel for the NAACP from 1937, when 
he was personally approved by Felix Frankfurter, until 1961. 
He delivered a stinging denunciation of the Constitution in a 
recent speech. Rumor is rife in Washington that he suffers 
from Alzheimer's. An article by Dept. of Justice attorney 
Terry Eastland in the National Review, April 21, 1989, "While 
Justice Sleeps," notes that Marshall sleeps through oral argu- 
ments, and spends much of his time in the Court building 
watching television situation comedies; a favorite is "I Love 
Lucy." He lets clerks write his opinions, and told Life Maga- 
zine, anent petitions, 'I ain't giving no break to no drug dealer! 
Disgusting! ' Although the Supreme Court renders 130 opinions 
each year, Marshall is only assigned fifteen. He refuses to 
retire, and vainly hoped that the Democrats would win in 
1988, so that another liberal could be appointed in his stead. 


In "The Brethren," Marshall is described as being overweight, 
drinking too much, eating too much, and thoroughly soured 
on his work. He has had one heart attack, from which he 
has never fully recovered, but still refuses to retire until a 
Democratic President has been elected. 

The history of the Supreme Court reveals a steady retreat 
from its assigned role of protecting the legal rights of all 
American citizens. In 1833, the Court ruled that the Bill of 
Rights provided only protection against federal authority, but 
not against state action. In Barron v. Baltimore, the city was 
sued because it had impaired the value of the plaintiff's prop- 
erty. Barron claimed this was taking his property without 
due compensation, and thereby violated the Fifth Amendment. 
Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the Bill of Rights only secured 
against "apprehended encroachment of the general govern- 
ment — not against those of the local governments. ' ' Marshall's 
ruling has never been reversed, although it was superseded 
by the three Civil War Amendments, the 13th, 14th and 15th. 

On restrictive covenants, the Court dismissed Corrigan v. 
Buckley in 1926, effectively upholding restrictive covenants. 
Twenty-two years later, the Court effectively nullified restric- 
tive covenants by forbidding the state to enforce them. Chief 
Justice Vinson ruled in Shelley v. Kraemer and McGee v. 
Sepes, 1948, with three justices abstaining, "We hold that 
in granting judicial enforcement of the restrictive agreements 
in these cases, the States have denied petitioners the equal 
protection of the laws, and that, therefore, the action of the 
state courts cannot stand." 

In 1989, the Court hesitated somewhat in its heretofore 
upholding of affirmative action cases, by stating that ' 'a person 


cannot be deprived of his legal rights in a proceeding to which 
he is not a party." This seemed to end the era of class actions 
in which rulings affecting large groups of Americans had been 
routinely handed down, even though most of them had never 
been a party to the action. 

In 1945, the Court vainly attempted to stem the rapidly 
growing monopolization of the media by ruling that "The 
First Amendment presupposes that the widest possible dissemi- 
nation of information from diverse and antagonistic sources 
is essential to the welfare of the public." This decision was 
later used as the basis for a 1978 Court decision which pre- 
vented daily newspaper owners from buying radio and televi- 
sion stations in the same cities as their newspapers, and thereby 
establishing a media monopoly. The decision seems to have 
had little effect in preventing media moguls from expanding 
their empires. It was recently predicted that within the next 
decade, four giant corporations will control all of the world's 

The Supreme Court ruled in Totten v. U.S., 92 U.S., that 
"public policy forbids the maintenance of any suit in a court 
of justice, the trial of which would inevitably lead to the 
disclosure of matters which the law itself regards as confiden- 
tial, or respecting which it will not allow the confidence to 
be violated." This would seem to guarantee personal privacy, 
but it has not restrained judges from routinely ordering all 
personal papers and records to be turned over to the opposing 
party in general lawsuits. 

The considerable Masonic direction of the Supreme Court 
throughout its history was documented in 1988 by Paul A. 
Fisher's book, "Behind the Lodge Door." A veteran of the 


OSS and the Counter-intelligence Corps, Fisher used his con- 
siderable talents for intelligence analysis to build an irrefutable 
case for the domination of the Court by Masons. He begins 
with Chief Justice Marshall, who was Grand Master of the 
Virginia Lodges, and documents the fact that the secret oath 
of the Masons has played a major role in Court decisions 
ever since. He notes that FDR's plan to pack the Court origi- 
nated with four Masons, whom FDR subsequently appointed 
to the Court, Black, Byrnes, Minton and Jackson. 

Another recent study shows that nine of sixteen members 
of the Congressional Committee on the Judiciary are Masons, 
showing that die continuing Masonic influence still permeates 
not only the Supreme Court, but the entire Judiciary. This 
influence extends not only to the Justices, but to their law 
clerks as well. In "The Brethren," we are told that the law 
clerks in the office of the Chief Justice exercised great power. 
"The way things worked in the Chief's chambers gave them 
tremendous influence. Warren told them how he wanted the 
cases to come out." So much for "impartiality." Woodward 
and Bernstein also quote Warren's successor. Chief Justice 
Burger, on Warren, "sloppy, politically motivated, interested 
more in results than in legal reasoning, a man without intellec- 
tual honesty." 

Despite the fact that the RICO law, the Racketeer Influenced 
and Corrupt Organizations law enacted by Congress, has been 
perverted by the Department of Justice from its stated purpose 
of fighting organized crime to a weapon of terrorism against 
legitimate business, the Supreme Court recently refused to 
recognize this perversion. More than one thousand RICO suits 
are being filed each year; 93% of them have no connection 


with organized crime. The Wall Street Journal and other publi- 
cations have repeatedly denounced this rape of justice. Never- 
theless, on June 26, 1989, the Supreme Court refused to rein 
in the law. The Court ruled 9-0 to continue civil suits for 
triple damages, although Justice Scalia admitted that the law 
is "so vague it violates the Constitution." 

The Court now faces a challenge in its necessity of ruling 
whether the judiciary can impose direct taxes. U.S. District 
Judge Russell Clark had ordered Kansas City property taxes 
increased by 95% to pay the costs for forced desegregation, 
and ignored the will of the voters by authorizing the school 
district to issue $150 million of capital improvement bonds. 
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge's 
arbitrary action, which clearly flouts the Constitution, and 
which totally abrogates Art. 1, sec. 8 by giving the courts 
power to tax. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision 
in the case by Oct. 1989. 

Judge Clark's action is typical of the social activism in 
which the Supreme Court itself has taken the lead. A Washing- 
ton Post story Dec. 28, 1988 declared "Many in Washington 
view it as judicial activism run wild; seven judges forcing 
this wealthy township, Bedminster, N.J., to build housing 
for the less fortunate, nearly tripling its population. Sen. Gerald 
Cardinale said of the justices, 'They think, like all social 
planners, that their view of society is superior to everyone 
else's. The court is destroying the democratic process.' For 
years, the N.J. Supreme Court has been headed by Chief 
Justice Robert Wilentz, heir to the political power wielded 
by his father, a Democratic wardheeler and B'Nai B'Rith 
activist. David Wilentz had prosecuted Bruno Hauptmann in 


the Lindbergh kidnapping case. As exposed by Anthony Sca- 
duto in his ground-breaking book, "Scapegoat," Wilentz had 
never before tried a criminal case of any kind; he had been 
appointed Attorney General by Gov. Harry Moore as a political 
payoff for switching the support of the B'Nai B'Rith Masonic 
power to Moore's campaign. 

Wilentz determined to convict Hauptmann, despite the lack 
of evidence. He rounded up a group of witnesses who were 
willing to commit perjury, bolstering their incredible testimony 
with crudely manufactured "evidence." Wilentz' principal 
witness was 87 year old Amandus Hochmuth, who testified 
that Hauptmann had driven up to him on the day of the kidnap- 
ping and inquired the way to the Lindbergh residence. Social 
Security records proved that Hochmuth was not only legally 
blind from cataracts, but was also hopelessly senile. Wilentz 
also withheld from the jury the Reliance Property Mgmnt 
paybook which proved that at the time of the kidnapping, 
Hauptmann was working in New York! When J. Edgar Hoover 
was informed of Wilentz' activities, he indignantly ordered 
all FBI agents to withdraw from the case. He refused to have 
the Bureau's work contaminated by such crude perjury; Hoover 
also expected the roof to fall in on Wilentz when his conspiracy 
was exposed. Hoover remarked to his associate, Clyde Tolson, 
"I don't know if Hauptmann will ever go to jail, but I'm 
damned sure Wilentz will." In fact, with the B'Nai B'Rith 
power behind him, Wilentz succeeded in having Hauptmann 
convicted and electrocuted. For years, his widow, Anna Haupt- 
mann, worked to have the frameup exposed, but she was 
jeered at by the entrenched powers of the media and the legal 


Wilentz typified the unbridled arrogance of the judiciary 
who daily wield their power in our courts. The Associated 
Press noted Dec. 29, 1988, that a Ft. Lauderdale judge, J. 
Leonard Fleet, routinely sentences lawyers who displease him 
or who are late coming to court, or even if their mode of 
dress offends him. He orders them to go to a supermarket 
and buy food for the poor. Again, this is social activism 
and has nothing to do with the administration of justice. How- 
ever, it is typical of the rape of justice. 

The Portland Me. Press Herald recently decried the practice 
of retired federal judges drawing full pay, even though they 
no longer hear any cases. It cited former Chief Justice Warren 
Burger, who receives $115,000 a year. The editorial noted 
that twenty per cent of all senior judges draw full pay, even 
though they do no work. However, in view of the omnipresent 
acts of judicial tyranny, it might be better if we retired all 
of them. The Yonkers case, which was headlined daily in 
the press throughout 1988, typified the judicial dictatorship 
which now terrifies our people. Federal Judge Leonard Sand 
personally decided that the city of Yonkers, the fourth largest 
city in New York, was not doing enough to "wipe out racial 
discrimination." He ordered the city to build one thousand 
new units for blacks in residential neighborhoods in which 
substantial racial integration had taken place. After residents 
opposed the order, he imposed $500 a day fines on three 
Yonkers city councilmen and a fine of one million dollars a 
day against the city itself. The judge resided in Chappaqua, 
a wealthy white suburb north of Yonkers. Columnist Pat Bu- 
chanan wrote, "What is happening in Yonkers is an outrage. 
A Harvard educated dictator in black robes, elected by no 


one, is ordering the fourth largest city in New York, against 
the will of its people and elected officials, to spend millions 
of tax dollars building public housing it doesn't want or need, 
in areas Sand alone will determine. If Yonkers refuses, the 
Judge will destroy the city financially, and jail its elected 
officials. Will someone explain to me what exactly George 
III did to our forefathers to compare to that?" 

British troops who tried to enforce a decree as dictatorial 
as Judge Sand's would have been met with armed rebellion. 
The hidden explanation of Judge Sand's action, as the present 
writer explained in "The World Order," is that every public 
official has a secret agenda to aggravate and increase racial 
tensions by every means possible, in order to provoke a raging 
conflict, and provide the excuse for active government repres- 
sion against all groups. The minorities continue to be helpless 
pawns in this obvious but never openly stated program. 

The Supreme Court again maddened the populace with its 
July Fourth approval of the desecration of the flag. One Joey 
Johnson, a New Yorker who echoes the staunchest tenets of 
Leninism, claimed that "the flag is a symbol of oppression, 
international murder and plunder of a sick and dying empire." 
He was then arrested in Texas for publicly burning the flag. 
The Supreme Court, in Texas v. Johnson, ruled 5-4 that burning 
the flag was a free speech exercise which was protected by 
the First Amendment as a political statement. The front page 
of the Washington Post headlined "Court Nullifies Flag Dese- 
cration Law . ' ' Just below it was another feature story , ' ' Soviet- 
U.S. Becoming Partoers." The majority of the Justices ruled 
that conviction for flag-burning was not consistent with the 
First Amendment, Justice Stevens dissented, "The value of 


the flag as a symbol cannot be measured. The court is therefore 
quite wrong." Chief Justice Rehnquist noted, "(The flag) 
has come to be the visible symbol embodying our nation 
. . . Millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical 
reverence regardless of what sort of social, political or philo- 
sophical beliefs they may have." 

Pat Buchanan wrote another stinging column about the flag- 
burning decision. On July 6, 1989, he stated, "For 30 years 
a despotic court has been writing into our Constitution, and 
law, its own arid ideology, its own prejudice, its own view 
of how a rational society should govern itself, casting aside 
as so much trash the deepest sentiments, traditions, beliefs 
of the American people, all of the accumulated wisdom of 
the race. ... A predominantly Christian people has had 
yoked upon it an alien, secularist concept of the good society. 
. . . America today is two countries, with values in conflict. 
Where they celebrate raucous dissent, we tolerate it. Where 
they believe the marketplace of ideas must remain open to 
all sentiments, no matter how pernicious, seditious, or disgust- 
ing, we believe there are limits to the toxicity of the moral 
pollution a democratic Republic can stand. . . . We have 
had enough judge-made law." 

Chapter 6 

The Court as Arena 

According to legend, the "court" originally referred to 
the courtyard of King Solomon's palace, where disputes were 
heard when the weather permitted. In mediaeval times, the 
"court" was the poultry yard, where chickens were allowed 
to run free and peck at worms. 1377 Lengl. P.P.O.B. vx 
466 "Just as capones in a court come to mannes whistlynge." 
Court also referred to the enclosures which surrounded the 
Jewish tabernacle. Later, it became known as the place where 
the sovereign or other high dignitary resided and held state, 
attended by his retinue. 1480 Caxton Descr. Eng. 17, "The 
messengers of Rome came to the grete Arthur's court." 

The court is the arena where civil procedure takes its course. 
The basis of all civil procedure in the United States is the 
relentless application of the ancient legal maxim, "Fry the 
pig in his own fat." This means that the parties in a legal 
dispute are maneuvered by their lawyers and by orders from 
the judge to step into the pan and sizzle until they have been 
reduced to a passel of bones. The rendered fat is then divided 



up between the avaricious lawyers and the participating judicial 
authorities. If you are an American citizen worth some 
$300,000 in personalty, you may decide to enter into litigation 
to recover a debt, damages from an injury, or other payment 
to which you believe you are legally entitled. Until they step 
into the quicksand, most Americans look upon litigation as 
a comparatively simple matter. They engage an attorney for 
a reasonable fee, he presents the facts to a judge, perhaps 
before a jury; the opposing party recites his version of the 
facts, and a decision is rendered, with a judicial order for 
payment. The lawyer will then deduct his fees, and the litigant 
returns home with his collection. 

The usual outcome is a far cry from these developments. 
Instead of collecting what is due him, the citizen with $300,000 
in personalty may find that not only has his net worth vanished, 
but that he now owes his lawyer an additional $50,000, plus 
counterclaims advanced against him by the opposing party 
which have been allowed by the court, and that even now, 
officials are on his way to his home to evict him. Is this 
justice? Of course not. It is the law merchant in action, in 
which all legal realities are transformed into legal fictions. 
At any time during litigation, a plaintiff may be hit with 
ruinous fines, arbitrary jail sentences, and other misfortunes, 
while his original goal of collecting moneys due him now 
recedes into the distance, never to be realized. 

The first ventures of the present writer into our halls of 
justice, some forty years ago, were marked by total ignorance 
of the details of the judicial process. Like most Americans, 
I naively supposed that if you had a grievance, you went to 
court, stated your grievance, and the opposing party stated 


some rebuttal. The impartial judge, having listened carefully 
to both sides, would then deliver a fair verdict. End of case. 

The reality turned out to be quite different, so different 
that I became a courthouse habitue for some four decades, 
not because I was seeking entertainment, but because I kept 
going back to see what new outrage would be perpetrated 
against me. My first judge, whom I was later told had never 
been known to deliver an impartial verdict in his entire career, 
frequently turned off his hearing aid and sat in blissful silence 
while the sweating lawyers (this was before the era of air- 
conditioned courtrooms) strained over every word, hoping 
to make an impression upon His Honor. I also learned that 
there was really no need for the judge to listen to the testimony, 
because, in the great majority of cases, his decision had been 
reached long before the case actually came to trial. Thus he 
had no reason to burden himself with the dreary chore of 
listening to days and hours of contradictory, and often perjured, 

I also learned in short order that lawyers in most instances 
had no intention of seeing my complaints come to trial. Their 
legal maneuvers were designed solely to get rid of me, a 
goal in which the judge heartily concurred. As a person repre- 
senting himself, on Constitutional lines, I presented a threat 
to the economic base of all members of the legal profession. 
Ninety per cent of the cases heard in our courts could be 
presented without any lawyer being present. The attorney pro 
se virus is the AIDS of the legal profession, which could 
decimate its ranks. 

In my initial case, whenever I appeared in court, a matter 
of some inconvenience, as I was then residing in another 


state, the opposing lawyers would first register surprise, and 
then disapproval that I had actually arrived. They would imme- 
diately ask for another postponement. After I left the state, 
they would hurriedly reschedule another hearing, hoping that 
I would not be able to return. This charade went on for several 
years, and was finally dismissed under the statute of limitations. 

The mysteries of civil procedure, which at that time seemed 
to present an impenetrable code, were finally unveiled for 
me by one of the most able law firms in the state. I had 
sued a man who had attempted to kill me (see Chapt. The 
Strange case of the Schizophrenic Driver). Because he had 
been driving illegally, it was necessary to prevent me from 
bringing the case to trial. The firm's members expected to 
make short shrift of me, but because the offender was a promi- 
nent merchant, the firm's senior partner personally took charge 
of the case. He began his campaign with an inquisitorial fifty- 
nine questions, the First Set of Interrogatories, supposing that 
I would either refuse to answer them and throw them aside, 
thus defaulting out of the case, or I would trip myself up in 
my answers to the extent that he could have the case dismissed. 
In most cases. Interrogatories, which are answered under oath, 
are only answered in consultation with one's attorney. A lay- 
man could hardly be expected to answer them without digging 
a deep hole for his case. Refusal to answer means that the 
opposing lawyers appear in court and request dismissal on 
grounds of default. Judges always grant default dismissals 
as a quick method of getting rid of an obnoxious attorney 
pro se. 

Being an indefatigable writer, I answered the Interrogatories 
with some eighty pages of answers, using the opportunity to 


interpolate many events of my career to illustrate the points 
I was making. This led to a further imbroglio in chambers. 
This case lasted for some three years, during which the highly 
paid lawyers tried every trick in their repertoire. The result 
was that I received an advanced course in civil procedure 
which no law school could have given me. 

After forty years, I analyzed the process of civil procedure, 
reducing it to three items which must never be ignored; 1. 
Answer everything. 2. Deny everything. 3. Answer on time. 
Refusal to answer any pre-trial discovery, no matter how intru- 
sive it may be, is seized upon by the opponent as grounds 
for dismissal, which the judge usually grants. Interrogatories, 
Requests for Admission, and Depositions are the three sacred 
cows of pre-trial discovery. Although I never failed to answer 
them, I always filed, upon receiving demands for these proce- 
dures. Motion to Quash Interrogatories, Motion to Deny Depo- 
sition, and Motion to Deny Requests for Admission. This 
forced the opposing attorneys (I always faced at least two, 
sometimes three or four, lawyers at every session) to go before 
the court and request a court order. The judge seemed mystified 
by these motions from me, because pre-trial discovery is the 
bread and butter of the legal profession. In every case, the 
judge issued a court order that I must answer pre-trial discov- 
ery. However, my motions usually postponed the sessions 
for several months, adding to the steadily running meter of 
opposing counsel, while my meter consisted solely of turning 
on my electric typewriter. 

I repeatedly filed objections to pre-trial discovery, pointing 
out, accurately on my part, that it meant that opposing counsel 
simply tries the case himself, without judge or jury being 


present. Counsel conducts lengthy examinations under oath, 
in a procedure which is designed solely to harass the other 
party, put him to great expense, and hopefully, to break him 
down physically to the point that he no longer realizes what 
he is saying. He is then likely to make a statement which 
will destroy his entire case. These are the same principles of 
the Spanish Inquisition which are used by the Internal Revenue 
Service and by other government agencies. You are given 
the third degree until you finally confess, whether you are 
wrong or not. The abuse of this procedure proves that it is a 
flagrant violation of the Constitutional prohibition against bills 
of attainder. The purpose of pre-trial discovery is to place 
you under a court-ordered bill of attainder, so that you must 
"taint" yourself, make some damaging admission, and testify 
against yourself in violation of the Fifth Amendment against 
self-incrimination. Ah, says the legal expert, but you are talk- 
ing about civil procedure; the Fifth Amendment is only con- 
cerned with criminal procedure in which a citizen accused 
of a crime is protected against self-incrimination. However, 
if the Fifth Amendment protects one from testifying against 
oneself in a criminal charge, it is equally Constitutional that 
the same protection is extended to a citizen testifying in a 
civil case. The Fifth Amendment specifies that "nor shall 
be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against 
himself." This amendment extends a specific protection 
against self-incrimination; it does not state that any citizen 
shall be compelled to testify against himself in a civil action, 
although its language in this instance mentions only criminal 
Art. 1 sec. 10 specifically states "No State . . . shall pass 


any Bill of Attainder," yet state judges have repeatedly, over 
a period of forty years, issued orders compelling me to submit 
to inquisitorial pre-trial discovery for the sole purpose of at- 
tainting myself and my complaint, in a flagrant Bill of Attain- 
der. The judges can do this because they are presiding over 
an Admiralty Court, and the law merchant does not prohibit 
bills of attainder. Under Admiralty procedure, an American 
citizen has no Constitutional safeguards, hence the judges 
freely granted Bills of Attainder against me. The Fourth 
Amendment guarantees "The right of the people to be secure 
in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreason- 
able searches and seizures," yet I was repeatedly ordered to 
turn over all of my personal papers, photographs, financial 
records, tax forms for periods of from twenty to thirty-five 
years, to the opposing counsel so that they might turn up 
some damaging material to be used against me in the process 
of self-incrimination. Under the law merchant, the judges 
used admiralty procedure to order me to "stand and deliver," 
the time-honored phrase of the British highway robber, forcing 
me to turn over my property to the bandits. 

The three principles which I developed as "MuUins' law," 
bear some elaboration. The first, "Answer everything," means 
just that. Refusal to answer means a dismissal of your case 
and sanctions, both financial and penitential, will be issued 
against you. However, in representing myself, I found that 
opposing parties almost universally refused to answer my inter- 
rogatories, or marked each question, "Not relevant"; their 
attorney had previously obtained guarantees from the judge 
that, because I was an attorney pro se, no sanctions would 
be ordered against his client. However, this is a flagrant dodge 


which you must never use in representing yourself, because 
sanctions will be ordered against you. If you don't like the 
question, such as "What is the color of your hair?", you 
may answer, "Even my hairdresser doesn't know for sure," 
and expound on this at some length, going into the reasons 
your grandfather left the old country, and why homesteading 
has lost its appeal in recent years. The answer should be 
held to less than 1500 words. 

The second maxim, "Deny everything," is more crucial. 
Few Americans are aware that our court system functions 
on total duplicity. Everything in the judicial process is designed 
to trick the opponent. You may see no harm in answering a 
question with a straightforward answer which apparently does 
not imperil your case, but the attorney will eventually use it 
against you. Admit only your name. 

The third principle, answer on time, is also part of the 
legal quagmire. A day late means that you are out of your 
case. Most Americans suppose that a judge will be lenient, 
and allow a day late in answering. This will never happen if 
you are representing yourself, although judges habitually ex- 
tend all sorts of delays to their fellow attorneys. The least 
error by an attorney pro se will bring the judge down against 
him, dismissing his complaint. Despite the best efforts of 
their secretaries, lawyers frequently fail to answer on time, 
because they are by nature lazy and shiftless. In cities where 
a comfortable Masonic brotherhood creates a bond between 
the judge and the lawyer, such failures may result in a mild 
reprimand, or none at all. Lawyers are also frequently late 
in appearing to argue motions or for court appearances, and 
sometimes fail to appear at all. This too is usually met with 


mild amusement or a forgiving gesture from the judge. In 
lilce instances, attorneys pro se usually have their cases dis- 
missed out of hand. 

The problem of using the designation, attorney pro se, which 
the present writer has used for many years, is that it is defined 
in Black's Law Dictionary as "For Himself," which could 
mean that he is appearing as another person who appears 
"for him self." Black's also defines it as "in person," which 
seems adequate. Purists prefer the appellation "In Propria 
Personae," which according to Black's, is "In one's own 
proper person." In either case, you become the attorney of 
record. And whichever you use, your primary problem is 
not what you call yourself, but the fact that you are appearing 
in an admiralty court which denies you the protection of the 

The legal profession has set up generous protection standards 
for one who wishes to represent himself. The Standards Relat- 
ing to Trial Courts, American Bar Assn Commission on Stan- 
dards of Judicial Administration, 1976, sec. 2.23. Conduct 
of cases where litigant appeared without counsel. When a 
litigant undertakes to represent himself, the court should take 
whatever measures may be reasonable and be necessary to 
insure a fair trial." 

I have never met any judge or attorney who had read that 
particular recommendation. 

On May 27, 1977, Chief Justice Warren Burger addressed 
the American Bar Association, "In the federal courts the right 
of self-representation has been protected by statute since the 
beginnings of our nation. Sec. 35 of the Judiciary Act of 
1789, 1 Stat. 73,92, enacted by the First Congress, and signed 


by President Washington, one day before the Fifth Amendment 
was proposed, provided that in all the courts of the United 
States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes, 
personally, or by the assistance of counsel. The right is cur- 
rently codified in 28 USC Sec. 1654." 

The decisions of the admiralty court frequently fly in the 
face of common sense, as well as law, because of the havoc 
created by illogical judicial pronunciamentos whose real pur- 
pose is part of the program of the hidden government. Thus 
Judge Charles Wohlstetter, chairman of Contel Corp., de- 
scribes the judicial breakup of American Telephone and Tele- 
graph as "Probably the most stupid and damaging decision 
that has ever been made in the history of business in any 
country." It has been suggested that Soviet prestige was con- 
stantly affected by its backward telephone system, while the 
United States had the best telephone system in the world. 
The judicial decision was that we must give up our smoothly 
functioning telephone system because it was a "monopoly," 
and break it up into inefficient smaller units, which would 
hopefully be as inefficient and backward as the Soviet telephone 
system. Many dissatisfied customers believe that objective 
has now been reached. 

The Constitution plainly states. Art. 1, Sc. 10 that "No 
State shall . . . pass . . . Law impairing the Obligation of 
Contracts." Why was it necessary to place this prohibition 
in the Constitution? To ' 'promote the general welfare' ' through 
business stability. However, the liberal Holmesian school now 
claims that contracts are "only words," which can mean what- 
ever one wishes them to mean, and therefore cannot be upheld. 
In 1968, the California Supreme Court ruled in Pacific Gas 


& Electric vs. G. W. Thomas Dray age & Rigging that although 
there was a clear indemnification provision in a contract, words 
didn't settle the matter. Chief Justice Traynor rejected the 
common law notion that parties must be free to negotiate 
among themselves, observing that individuals can use words — 
that is, contracts — ^to allocate risks and rewards, is an old 
view which is "a remnant of a primitive faith in the inherent 
potency and inherent meaning of words. Words, however, 
do not have absolute and constant referents." 

As a lifelong wordsmith, I use words to communicate certain 
facts. In a contract, words define the obligations of the parties. 
One would suppose that this would be sufficient even for an 
admiralty court, but the law merchant has now embarked on 
a wholly new tack, guided by Hohnesian liberalism, that mere 
words do not define the provisions of a contract, because 
they are pathetic remnants of primitivism. Judge Traynor actu- 
ally cited, in support of his opinion, semantic and anthropologi- 
cal evidence that only primitives ascribe binding meaning to 
words. "E.g. 'The elaborate system of taboo and verbal prohi- 
bitions in primitive groups . . . totemistic and protective names 
in mediaeval Turkish and Finno-Ugrian languages; the mis- 
placed verbal scruples of the Presieuses; the Swedish peasant 
custom of curing sick cattle smitten by witchcraft, by making 
them swallow a page torn out of the psalter and put in dough. ' ' 
The Wall Street Journal terms this "moonbeam legal evi- 
dence." Perhaps the next step will be to make a defendant 
chew up and swallow his own confession, which, after all, 
is mere words. The Journal cites this decision as a dangerous 
development in contract law, noting that "The Pennzoil v. 
Texaco case put investors world-wide on notice that anything 


could happen in a Texas courtroom." The problem is not 
limited to Texas. The present writer has for years compared 
American civil procedure to Russian roulette. You go into 
the courtroom, the attorney hands you a loaded pistol after 
spinning the cylinder, and you put it to your head and pull 
the trigger. This is our legal system. 

Lawyers have now come into court to obtain enormous 
awards for such legal discoveries as "Post-Traumatic Stress 
Disorder, which was defined in the American Psychiatric Assn 
Manual in 1980, and which spawned thousands of profitable 
lawsuits. It has been refined to encompass many more specific 
cases of stress — ^the Battered Woman Syndrome, the Rape 
Trauma Syndrome, the Child Abuse Syndrome, the Post Abor- 
tion Syndrome, Oppression Artifact Disorder, which was con- 
jured up for blacks as a new version of legal voodoo, and 
Victimization Disorder. The American Psychiatric Assn was 
lobbied successfully by the homosexual community to remove 
homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 
where it had rested for many years as a profitable basis for 
recruiting clients from the gay community; it is now contained 
in an independent appendix. You may have overlooked the 
fact that you could be a victim of Paraphiliac Coercive Disor- 
der — ^has anyone ever ordered you to do anything? See your 
lawyer. The real gold mine has been found in sexual discrimina- 
tion lawsuits against businesses; if you can't prove sexual 
discrimination, you may have to fall back on a surefire com- 
plaint — sexual harassment. When your boss smiled at you 
this morning, he may actually have been laughing — ^that will 
cost at least $300,000, in the hands of a good lawyer. These 
stimuli to the legal imagination have come about through 


the liberalizing of the law school curricula. Good-bye to Kent's 
Commentaries and the Constitution. Coke and Blackstone have 
been gone these many years. The emphasis of the curricula 
now is on contract law and training in the law merchant. 
More esoteric offerings include "Feminist Legal Thought" 
at the highly touted University of Virginia Law School, which 
graduated Robert and Teddy Kennedy, as well as Race Rela- 
tions Law, and Refugee Law. The University of Georgia Law 
School offers three hours of admiralty law; the law schools 
generally offer extensive courses on Federal estate taxes, trusts, 
and other developments of the Law Merchant State. 

We may be forgetting the fact that the Republic of the 
United States of America was founded by refugees who were 
fleeing just this sort of legal dictatorship in Europe. North 
European individuals who had been bom into the category 
of fit and able citizens were being persecuted and killed by 
the growing numbers of the unfit, who were unable to compete. 
They therefore gathered together in secret conspiracies and 
used their combined power to exterminate their fit competitors. 
That the extermination or expulsion of the fit caused havoc 
in the nation and brought ruin to the economy was less impor- 
tant than the goal of promoting the survival of the unfit. 

Seeking no revenge against their enemies, the fit migrated 
to America, wishing only to escape, and, to some extent, to 
proscribe the unfit from pursuing them to these shores. The 
fit drew up a formula for self-government, which they called 
the Constitution. This remarkable document was not merely 
a prayer, in the legal sense, for protection, but a binding 
resolve in which they contracted to protect themselves and 
their descendants from the ferocity and the ruthlessness of 


the unfit. A system of republican self-government was devised, 
which carefully proscribed the machinations of the unfit, and 
demanded the protection of the fit from this dedicated enemy. 
To ensure that the unfit would never be able to use the powers 
of government against the fit, the Founders drew upon the 
greatest traditions of Western civilization, choosing the most 
admirable provisions of Greek, Roman, and English law. They 
divided the government into three compartments, to prevent 
any department from establishing a dictatorial power. This 
constitutional republic was divided into the legislative, the 
executive and the judiciary. From the outset, the judiciary 
was considered the least powerful and the least involved in 
the processes of government. It existed as a potential referee 
if either the executive or the legislative branches tried to wield 
excessive power. Constitutionally, the judiciary was neither 
expected to make law nor to execute it. This tripartite system 
was designed, like the Titanic, to keep one or more compart- 
ments afloat, even if one was struck by disaster. 

The Founders sought to protect themselves against a recur- 
rence of their unfortunate experiences at the hands of the 
Black Nobility in Europe, which had become the champions 
of the imfit in the lists; they therefore tried to limit excessive 
power in the executive, making the President something of 
a figm-ehead, and relying upon the more representative legisla- 
tive branch to exercise restraint in governing. The result is 
that we see an Imperial Congress conducting political show 
trials without objection from the judiciary , whose powers seem- 
ingly have been usurped. The judiciary does not object because 
it has reserved truly despotic powers for itself. Are you con- 
cerned about the crime, violence and dope in your child's 


school? The judiciary will not let you do anything about it. 
If citizens protest about conditions in their schools, the judi- 
ciary steps in and takes control of the schools. Do you favor 
public religious displays? The judiciary forbids such displays, 
even though you, as an American citizen, have a direct propri- 
etary right in every public area. 

However, the true despotism of the judiciary has been 
achieved by its continuous and furtive destruction of the Consti- 
tution, and replacing it with the dictatorial vehicle of the 
Black Nobility, the admiralty court, which was spawned by 
England's chartering of the Bank of England, its worldwide 
espionage empire, the Secret Intelligence Service, and by its 
enormous profits from the slave and drug trades. Because 
the judges no longer allow the Constitution to play a role in 
their decisions, their reaction to the introduction of Constitu- 
tional arguments in the courts range from derision to anger. 
Some judges allow Constitutional arguments to be introduced, 
knowing that they will not affect the decision. Other judges 
bridle at any citation of the Constitution, as a direct affront 
to the admiralty procedure of their court. The situation remains 
concealed from American citizens, because the media is forbid- 
den to mention Constitutional issues. Instead, we get endless 
sob stories about a three-legged dog in Finland, or a paraplegic 
in New Zealand who has taken up ice skating. Wallowing 
in "compassion" and "caring" is now the substitute for re- 
sponsible concern about the fate of our nation. 

The tragic development of Americans who have been denied 
their Constitution was achieved because the Black Nobility, 
early on, noticed the Achilles Heel of our Constitutional sys- 
tem, the power of judicial review. The "original intent" of 


the Constitution was that no one branch of government could 
wield totalitarian power over the other two branches, or over 
the American people. This original intent was subverted by 
replacing Constitutional law with the law merchant. The Jeffer- 
sonian system of checks and balances enshrined in our Consti- 
tution does prohibit one branch of government from dominating 
the other branches. However, the law merchant allows the 
judiciary to issue imperial edicts that no one, even the Presi- 
dent, is "above the law." The judiciary cleverly avoids men- 
tioning that "the law" to which they are referring is the 
absolute decree of the law merchant, or that the federal agents 
who appear on your doorstep have been sent there in flagrant 
violation of the Constitution, but on direct commission by 
the admiralty court. 

This charade can succeed only as long as you, the citizen, 
remain unaware of what is going on. For those who become 
informed, the door is opened for them to exercise their Consti- 
tutional rights as American citizens. Andrew Melechinsky 
has long been active in the lists with his Constitutional Revival 
Movement in Fairfield, Conn. When government goons filed 
a suit against him, Melechinsky responded by an Answer 
which he filed in the form of an Affidavit in the Enfield Land 
Records, v. 582, p. 1036, sending a copy to his accusers. 
He thus avoided giving the admiralty court jurisdiction by 
appearing and entering a plea. Melechinsky filed "Notice of 
Disclaimer of Unlawful Equity Jurisdiction: "The under- 
signed, Andrew Melechinsky, is not under the jurisdiction 
of the IRS. He has no connection with the IRS. No jury has 
ever found probable cause. No jury has ever declared liability. ' ' 
Melechinsky then cites his person, property, books and records 


which are private, protected and guaranteed under the Fourth 
through the Tenth Amendments. He states, "I demand a court 
of law (as opposed to equity), a neutral judge at law, and a 
probable cause jury to decide whether or not there is cause 
to bring an action against me. . . . Federal personnel in their 
official capacity can be sued for damages by a person damaged 
by an unlawful equity decree. This is a formal notice; govern 
yourselves accordingly." Signed, Andrew Melechinsky; nota- 

In a case where he was assaulted by a deputy, Melechinsky 
filed a Jurisdictional Challenge; the judge then entered a plea 
over his objections. Melechinsky then filed a REPUDIATION 
The judge dismissed it. Another judge (Noren) killed himself 
after having locked Melechinsky up for exercising his right 
to remain silent. If more citizens could follow Melechinsky's 
example, we might see a wave of suicides among the corrupt 
officials of the judiciary. Their powers can only be exercised 
in the realm of darkness. Light will destroy them. 

Andrew Melechinsky has drafted a simple change which 
should be included in every state code: "Whenever there is 
any variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the 
common law in reference to the same matter, the rules of 
the common law shall prevail." 

Any citizen may legitimately object to granting jurisdiction 
over his person to a court, because the American courts have 
become the official endorsers and protectors of every type of 
deviation and perversion. The New York Court of Appeals 
recently ruled four to two that marriage is officially ' 'a fictitious 


legal distinction," thus opening the door to the state sanction 
of homosexual couplings, animal associations and other odd 
combinations. This is the same court which a few years ago 
threw out the conviction of two homosexuals for sexual acts 
in a bookstore, on the grounds that because the acts occurred 
in a bookstore, this was an act of "free speech" which was 
protected by the Constitution! 

Because of the Democratic majority in Congress, the com- 
mittees are dominated by leftwing Democrats, not the least 
of which is the Judiciary Committee. Newsweek reported on 
the bias of this committee by quoting Rep. Chuck Douglas, 
April 10, 1989, "I don't know if you know who Barney 
Frank is, but he is one of the two members there who are 
only interested in members of their own sex. That gives you 
a little feel for the Conrniittee." 

The Congressman's reference to his colleague. Rep. Barney 
Frank, showed some irritation with Frank's personal back- 
ground. Despite Frank's public revelling in stories about his 
homosexual "orientation," he was now in his fifth term in 
Congress, and had won 70% of the vote in the 1988 election 
in Massachusetts' 4th District. The Associated Press on August 
26, 1989, carried revelations from the Washington Times that 
Frank's lover, whom he paid $80 for their first encounter, 
and then $20,000 a year for his "duties," had been operating 
a male prostitution ring from Frank's apartment on Capitol 
Hill. The lover, using the name of "Greg Davis," had been 
charged with oral sodomy, drug charges, and contributing to 
the delinquency of a minor. He was also charged with posses- 
sion of cocaine, the "drug of choice" for our enlightened 


Frank was astounded at the public interest in the revelations. 
As a longtime resident of Sodom-on-the Potomac, a mecca 
for those of his persuasion because of the profusion of young 
sailors and Marines, he saw little merit in the story. He justified 
his conduct by maintaining, during an hourlong press confer- 
ence, that he "has been in a monogamous homosexual relation- 
ship for about two years with a very sensible person and a 
steadying influence." (without issue, of course). 

His fellow Democratic Party member, Speaker Tom Foley, 
who recently replaced Speaker Jim Wright of Texas, leaped 
to Frank's defense by praising Frank's "outstanding service 
to his constitutency and the nation." He prudently refrained 
from explaining that Frank's service may have gone beyond 
the call of duty. 

The extreme leftwing bias of the Judiciary Committee has 
an inevitable effect upon the types of decisions rendered by 
the judges, who take their lead from the political stance of 
the Committee. The citizen also should be aware of the differing 
Constitutional origin of the courts before which they appear. 
Many presentday "courts" are actually administrative law 
courts set up by Congress. These are known as "Article I 
courts" because they were originally territorial courts estab- 
lished by Congress in the territories before they gained state- 
hood. The most typical of these administrative law courts is 
the Tax Court, whose judges, although acting with the powers 
of a federal judge, are not and cannot be federal judges, 
because they are appointed for fifteen year periods, whereas 
federal judges, under Art. HI, sec. 1 of the Constitution, 
hold their offices for life, unless impeached. A legitimate 
court in the United States is an Article III court. An Article 


I territorial court authorized by Congress depends entirely 
upon admiralty procedure for its rulings, which means that 
it functions as a branch of the Bank of England through the 
London Connection (see Secrets of the Federal Reserve, by 
Eustace MuUins). There is also a serious questions as to 
whether Article III judges are now legitimate. Several people 
have caused consternation in judicial ranks by requesting that 
an Article III judge preside at their trial, that is, a judge 
who functions under the Constitution, meaning that he is a 
judge who qualifies under Art. IE, Sec. 1, which requires 
that "the Judges . . . receive a Compensation, which shall 
not be diminished during their continuance in Office. ' ' Because 
all judges today have payments withheld from their salaries 
for social security, insurance, tax charges and other deductions, 
there is no question that these deductions "diminish the Com- 
pensation' ' of the judges while they are in office. Consequently, 
said judges can no longer qualify as judges under the provision 
of Article III of the Constitution. Those who request a true 
Article in judge at their trial are raising a problem which is 
difficult to resolve. 

Because Congress is not granted any power in Article I to 
establish courts of any kind in the United States, the Tax 
Court, as an Article I court, has no jurisdiction over any 
American who is a citizen of a State. To prevent this and 
other questions from being raised before Tax Court, the court 
refuses to allow anyone to practice before it who has ever 
challenged the basic premise of the income tax law. The present 
writer appeared before Tax Court as attorney pro se, and the 
"deficiency" was hastily resolved by a court judgment that 
I had no tax deficiency. At that time, I had not been researching 


the Article I dilemma, but should I have occasion to appear 
before Tax Court again, the question will be raised. 

During my time in Tax Court, I saw that the persons appear- 
ing there were the most obvious victims of a tyrannical and 
insanely greedy federal authority. There was a pathetic elderly 
couple, shabbily dressed, with many grocery bags filled with 
cash register receipts; a mentally retarded youth dressed in 
castoff clothing, who had little concept of what was happening 
to him; and a contractor who had accepted enormous bribes 
in a state paving contract, not realizing that although bribery 
is an omnipresent fact of life and is accepted by the government, 
the government also requires that all bribes, without exception, 
must be reported as income. The Criminal Investigation Divi- 
sion of the IRS now had him on a greased slide to the peniten- 

A territorial court such as the Tax Court, which is illegally 
situated in any State of the United States, illustrates the bold- 
ness of the admiralty court in replacing our Constitutional 
courts throughout the nation. For the past five hundred years, 
Anglo-American jurisprudence has required proof of an intent 
to break the law — the principle of mens rea — ^before a criminal 
conviction can be obtained. As Judge James Buckley pointed 
out on the Washington Court of Appeals, in reversing the 
criminal conviction of President Reagan's aide, Lynn Nofziger, 
on vague charges of "lobbying," prosecutors must prove both 
a criminal act (actus reus) and a guilty mind (mens rea). 
Despite his acquittal, Nofziger' s legal battle cost him one 
and a half million dollars. Just as our Constitutional law has 
been supplanted in its "original intent" by the bold tyranny 
of the admiralty courts, so the necessity of proving mens 


rea has also been tossed aside as excess baggage by the law 
merchant. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson previously 
called the intent requirement "as universal and persistent in 
mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human 
will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual 
to choose between good and evil." 

Political show trials of Republican White House aides in 
Washington, who are routinely convicted by black Democratic 
juries, cannot establish intent, but the victims are hurriedly 
legally keelhauled by admiralty procedure before they or their 
attorneys realize what is happening to them. In most of these 
cases, their attorneys are charging from one to three million 
dollars to defend them; for that kind of money, you have to 
go along with the Establishment. However, these same political 
show trials have exposed aspects of the jury system as totally 
unqualified to make a just decision; in any case, these trials 
never had any such goal. They were conceived to make a 
political point, and "justice" or its rape, was a side issue. 
Dean Griswold of Harvard Law School stated, "Jury trial at 
best, is an apotheosis for the amateur. Why should anyone 
think that twelve persons brought in from the street, selected 
in various ways for their lack of general ability, should have 
any special capacity to decide controversies between persons?' ' 
David Peck calls jury trial "geared to the assimilation of the 
unfamiliar by the inexpert." Prof. Prosser ridicules "the 
twelve housewives, bakers helpers, and unemployed individu- 
als we get today in the United States." In Washington's politi- 
cal show trials. North, Nofziger, Deaver et al, both the judge 
and the jury are expressly selected to obtain a conviction of 
a political opponent. The ballot box has been transferred to 
the jury room. 


The magical number of twelve used for the jury is taken 
from Kabbalistic numerology; twelve is known as a number 
of completeness, as is seven. Of the twenty-two letters of 
the Hebrew alphabet, twelve are definitely connected with 
the twelve signs of the Zodiac. Eleven or thirteen jurors would 
be more practical, as it would lessen the chance of a deadlock. 
However, twelve satisfies the need to identify the judicial 
process with the cult of Babylon, as well as conforming with 
the importance of the number twelve in many aspects of our 
existence; the twelve hour day, twelve months, twelve disciples 
of Jesus, twelve Labors of Hercules, and many other usages. 
Revelation states that God's mark was placed on 12,000 from 
each of the twelve tribes for the number of 144,000, who 
will survive to stand on Mt. Zion with the Lamb. Revelation 
also describes the New Jerusalem as walled with twelve gates, 
on which stand twelve angels; the wall has twelve foundation 
stones with the names of the Twelve Apostles and adorned 
with twelve jewels; the tree of life within the city bears twelve 
kinds of fruit; the dimensions of the city are multiples of 

Bushell's Case, which was tried over three hundred years 
ago in London, was a landmark jury case, in which the jurors 
held that every person has a right to worship according to 
his own conscience. It marks the birth of the modem jury 
system. The importance of the jury in nullifying an arbitrary 
judge has been perverted by the judge's "instructions" to 
the jury. These instructions change the ancient concept of 
the jury as "trial per pais," that is, trial by the country, 
meaning "by the people," as distinguished from our present 
system of the law merchant, which is trial by the government. 
No one should ever be tried by "the government," that is, 


by an arbitrary power, but only by one's peers, those of the 
same origins, goals and ambitions as oneself. As Lysander 
Spooner points out, "An Essay on the Trial by Jury," "The 
object of this trial 'by the country' or by the people, in prefer- 
ence to a trial by the government, is to guard against every 
species of oppression by the government. In order to effect 
this end, it is indispensable that the people, or 'the country,' 
judge of and determine their own liberties against the govern- 
ment; instead of the government's judging of and determining 
its own powers over the people." 

The judge's arbitrarily extended power to "instruct" the 
jury is part of the same law merchant process which was 
used to extend Article I legislative courts based in the District 
of Columbia, and created by Congress' exclusive legislative 
power over the District of Columbia, Art. 1, Sec. 8, CI 17, 
by a secret interpretation of the commerce clause of the Consti- 
tution. These legislative courts had no power to punish, but 
this power was later "assumed" through admiralty procedure. 
The result is that the federal courts throughout the United 
States are extended District of Columbia legislative courts 
which have no legal or judicial power to ' 'punish' ' any Ameri- 
can citizen, or to pronounce punitive sentences upon us. Fur- 
ther, they are illegally seated in the States, because the Consti- 
tution, Art 1 Sec 8 CI 17, limits them to the Seat of 
Government, the District of Columbia. This problem has been 
"resolved" by extending the District of Columbia to encom- 
pass the entire United States! 

The courts have become the preserves of a small section 
of the American legal profession, that ten per cent which 
comprises the members of the American Association of Trial 


Lawyers, which has 63,000 members of the 707,000 licensed 
members of the American legal profession. These trial lawyers, 
in their quest to obtain multi-million dollar fees, have created 
the $300 billion a year tax on American business which Peter 
Huber defines as the harvest of current tort liability, an amount 
greater than our trade deficit; which allows the average worker 
who wins a sex harassment or sex discrimination suit to receive 
an award of $602,000, and even greater awards in wrongful 
termination suits, an average award of $732,000, according 
to the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 3, 1989. After ten years of 
litigation, according to the Washington Post, May 9, 1989, 
of suits brought by the Vietnam Veterans of America, resulted 
in two million dollars in payments to veterans who charged 
they were victims of dioxin poisoning, and in twenty million 
dollars being paid to their lawyers! But that's impossible, 
we might observe. Contingency fees are one-third of the award. 
Two-thirds should go to the victim. As proposed by the lawyer, 
a case taken on contingency fee does allow one third to the 
lawyer, and two-thirds to the victim. However, legal expenses, 
fees for appeals etc., often mean that the lawyer winds up 
with ninety per cent of the award. The victim, instead of 
being awarded 66% of the damages, often winds up with no 
more than five or ten per cent. 

An even more flagrant action of trial lawyers occurs when 
they persuade their clients to be "magnanimous," and to 
lower their expectations. Such an appeal to a client's generosity 
usually occurs after the lawyer is approached by opposing 
counsel, who says, ' 'Look, we haven't got a prayer of winning 
this one. You're going to wipe us out. Go back and tell 
your client he should be satisfied with a moral victory, and 


forget any monetary awards." No lawyer would agree to such 
an outrageous procedure unless some private allowance has 
been made to spur his generosity. A stunning example of 
this appeal of "magnanimity" occiured when the American 
Medical Association faced disaster, after being convicted of 
criminal conspiracy in an effort to maintain its illegal Medical 
Monopoly throughout the United States, by trying to destroy 
the competing skill of chiropractic. On Aug. 27, 1987, after 
eleven years of desperate legal maneuvers, Federal Judge Susan 
Getzendanmier of U.S. District Court found the AM A guilty 
of conspiring to destroy the profession of chiropractic. The 
AM A faced damages of hundreds of millions of dollars, which, 
after conviction, could have been tripled as punitive damages. 
Their lawyers persuaded the chiropractors to accept "a moral 
victory," with the result that the members of this profession 
are still being assessed payments of millions of dollars to 
their lawyers for the lawsuit which they ' 'won' ' ! Magnanimity, 

In Maryland, a new court ruling is a first strike against 
the "litigation lottery," stating that in the future, suits against 
professionals will have to prove "actual malice" to collect 
punitive damages. The ruling has no effect on actual compensa- 
tory damages, but Richard P. Gilbert, chief judge of the Mary- 
land Court of Special Appeals, overturned a $750,000 award 
against an opthalmologist, as a new departure in the field of 
medical malpractice. The court defined "actual malice" as 
' * the performance of an act without legal justification or excuse , 
but with an evil or rancorous motive influenced by hate, the 
purpose being to deliberately or willfully injure the plaintiff." 
This is an accurate description of the FBI thirty-three year 
campaign against the present writer, ("A Writ for Martyrs," 


by Eustace MuUins), which resulted in a fifty million dollar 
judgment against the government. 

U.S. government responsibility in another case surfaced 
in the Shimoda Case (American Journal of International Law. 
V. 59, 1965): An individual sued the Japanese Government 
for damages sustained in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima 
and Nagasaki in a suit filed Dec. 7, 1963. The District Court 
of Tokyo ruled that the United States violated international 
law by dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 
and that the plaintiff had no grounds to recover from the 
Japanese government. Article 19 of the Peace Treaty with 
Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nationals against 
the Allied Powers and other nations arising out of the war 
or out of actions taken because of the existence of the war. 
The Japanese Government also cited its diplomatic protest 
to the United States in a formal note presented through the 
Swiss Government August 10, 1945, in which the attacks 
were ruled "a new offense against the civilization of man- 
kind." It described the aerial bombardment of the cities of 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an illegal act of hostilities and 
the indiscriminate bombing of undefended cities, further citing 
the prohibition against poison gas as outlawing such attacks — 
Art. 23, Hague Regulations Respecting Land Warfare 1899, 
and General Protocol 1925. Recovery by any Japanese citizen 
was unlikely under the principle of fait accompli; it happened. 
Despite the fact that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and 
Nagasaki actually happened, it was a lawful reality which 
after the fact could only be treated as a legal fiction, history 
being essentially fantasy, as contrasted to the real present 
and the unimaginable future. 

Because of the emphasis on the court as a Roman arena 


for political show trials, the court as a place where criminals 
are brought to the bar of justice to atone for their crimes has 
faded into insignificance. On Jan. 5, 1986, the New York 
Times reprinted an editorial from 1983 on the New York 
Criminal Court, headlined "The Crime of the Criminal Court. ' ' 
"Rarely has any public institution been held in such open 
contempt by those who work in it and those who pass through 
it. Judges call it a sham and a fraud. Lawyers say that justice 
is unpredictable. Only one in one hundred cases are tried." 
This ratio does not apply to the number of political offenders 
who are tried, convicted and sentenced. This ratio is one 
hundred of one hundred. The process is mercilessly pilloried 
in a recent book, "RAILROAD: U.S.A. Vs. LYNDON LA- 
ROUCHE ET AL." LaRouche's crime was that he sought the 
presidency of the United States four times as an independent 
political candidate, in a "bipartisan" nation which allows 
only two political parties, each with the same program of 
Marxist oppression and worldwide revolution. LaRouche was 
brought before Chief Judge Albert Bryan Jr. U.S. District 
Court for the Eastern District, whose treatment of political 
offenders earned his court the nickname of "the Rocket 
Docket." The Washington Post headlined on Nov. 20, 1988, 
"LaRouche Trial Expected to be Speedy; Alexandria's Rocket 
Docket Federal Court." LaRouche called the court, "the only 
railroad in the United States which runs on time." At a secret 
meeting in his Alexandria office, in the autumn of 1988, U.S. 
prosecutor Henry Hudson described the Bryan court as "our 
window of opportunity," and "our last chance to get La- 
Rouche." It is gospel that it takes from three to five years to 
get a case through our over-burdened court system, yet La- 


Rouche was indicted Oct. 14, 1988, and pronounced guilty 
Dec. 16, 1988! The case originated with a letter from Henry 
Kissinger to FBI director William Webster (the defendant in 
the present writer's suit against the FBI) Aug. 19, 1982, "sug- 
gesting" it was time to do something about LaRouche. Kis- 
singer controlled the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory 
Board, which gave the LaRouche strike force official White 
House backing . Senator Robert Dole remarked of the "conspir- 
acy" charge which the secret task force brought against La- 
Rouche. "Conspiracy? That's what they do when they can't 
get you on anything else." 

LaRouche responded to the indictment by listing the federal 
and state agencies which had sworn to get him: the FBI; the 
U.S. Secret Service; the IRS; U.S. Attorney for the Eastern 
Dist. of Va.; U.S. Postal Service; BATE; Va. Atty Gen. 
office; State Police of Va.; Va State Corp. Commission; the 
Virginia-Israel Commission. Anyone who has all those agen- 
cies against him couldn't be all bad. William Weld and Henry 
Kissinger had set up a special government task force, The 
General Litigation and Legal Advisory Section of the Criminal 
Division, Justice Dept. to finish off LaRouche. He was quickly 
tried and sentenced. Judge Bryan virtuously noting at his sen- 
tencing, "this idea that this is a politically inspired, politically 
motivated prosecution, that is errant nonsense." 

One could only admire Judge Bryan's ability to say this 
with a straight face. LaRouche has never been anything but 
a political figure; he has never been a tobacconist or a social 
worker. During the proceedings, Jan. 19, 1989, Judge Bryan 
stated that any information asked of jurors by the defense 
would be "badgering." Mr. Webster, defense attorney, re- 


plied, "I would prefer a different term, Your Honor." BRYAN. 
I know. That's my term. It's not yoiu« or the governments." 
The idea that any defense attorney would ' 'badger' ' a prospec- 
tive juror who would later rule on the innocence or guilt of 
his client itself was ridiculous. Judge Bryan had a long record 
of anti-LaRouche activity, having previously participated in 
the shutdown and seizure of LaRouche publications, and later 
denying a motion which appealed a secret ex parte proceeding 
and the fact that the U.S. government (read Kissinger) had 
exercised prior restraint against a publishing company in viola- 
tion of the First Amendment. Bryan denied the motion. 

LaRouche appealed Judge Bryan's sentence in Case No. 
89-5518 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, 
citing numerous violations of constitutional rights, interference 
with the process of jury selection, and many other violations. 
The appeal cited the principle of law, "Difficilem oportet 
aurem habere ad crimina; In a court of law, one must not 
descend to listen to slander." This is a fundamental Principle 
of Legality. The appeals cited LaRouche 's conviction on 
charges of failure to repay loans, "a fact which occurred 
and which no parties in this case try to deny, is not a criminal 
act in itself." The loans were political loans, which legally 
are different from business loans, loans for educational pur- 
poses etc. In any case, the federal agents made it impossible 
for LaRouche to keep track of or repay the loans because 
they seized millions of documents in a raid on his headquarters 
in Leesburg, Va. , Oct. 6, 1986. 

Because of his geographic location, LaRouche was forced 
to appeal to the notorious 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (which 
denied an appeal from the present writer on grounds so incredi- 


ble it was obvious that no member of the court had even 
glanced at the pleadings). LaRouche faced an additional prob- 
lem with the 4th Circuit; Judge Bryan's father, Albert V. 
Bryan Sr. was himself a judge on the 4th Circuit Court from 
1961 until his death in 1984, and the court had maintained a 
record of rarely overturning any rulings of the present Judge 
Bryan. ' 'The Circuit Court is known to be extremely protective 
of Albert Jr. and 'the rocket docket.' " 

Representing oneself in court, as this writer has now done 
for some four decades, is a heady experience. It allows one 
to choose at will from the entire repertoire of legal strategy, 
without fear or favor. Strangely enough, strategy is a word 
rarely used in the legal profession, because its members prefer 
the devious techniques of conspiracy and treachery. I once 
asked a former ' 'richest man in the world' ' who was embroiled 
in a legal battle, "What is your strategy?" He was puzzled 
by the question. Could anyone believe that Napoleon had no 
strategy in his succession of lightning like victories throughout 
Europe? He began to lose when he tempered his military 
genius with political considerations. Waterloo was not far 

Once a litigant has dredged his way through the quagmire 
of pretrial discovery, there are a number of strategies available. 
If a defendant, you file "Motion to Dismiss." If a plaintiff, 
you file a Motion for Summary Judgment. These motions 
are pro forma, and rarely succeed, but they give you another 
turn at bat. Counter-claims are always good, as well as a 
lawsuit filed against opposing counsel. These suits need little 
preparation. One need only look over the file of the case 
and note all the illegal acts which the counsel has perpetrated 


against you. Some of my consultants advise filing suits against 
the judge; it is noteworthy that all persons known to me who 
regularly urge me to do this have themselves never filed a 
suit against a judge. There is no risk of turning him against 
you; he is already against you. The problem is that such a 
suit opens the door for punitive actions of contempt, remanding 
to jail or whatever he may trump up to get you out of his 
courtroom and into confinement. 

Court demeanour is important, although it will not win 
you any friends there; nothing can do that. You should be 
well-spoken, well-dressed, and unflappable. Almost every 
judge I have appeared before has done his best to goad me 
into some outburst, by actions so flagrantly prejudiced that 
most plaintiffs would have to react. Because you are surrounded 
by armed men, any gesture which might be interpreted as 
"violent" would bring an inevitable response. On one occa- 
sion, I wore a large Masonic ring, which I had picked up at 
an auction in a madhouse, and flaunted it before the judge 
at every opportunity. It made not the slightest difference; they 
know who is a Mason and who is not. 

In an address to the American Bar Association in 1940, 
John W. Davis, a distinguished jurist, stated the ten principles 
for court argument: 

1 . Change places in your mind with the court. 

2. State the nature of the case, and a brief history. 

3. State the facts. 

4. State next the applicable rules of law on which you rely. 

5. Always go "for the jugular vein." 

6. Rejoice when the court asks a question. 


7. Read sparingly and only from necessity. 

8. Avoid personalities. 

9. Know your record from cover to cover. 
10. Sit down. 

Lawyers rarely lose an opportunity to create chaos in interna- 
tional affairs — ^the career of the late John Foster Dulles is 
ample witness to that. The Nation noted on Feb. 6, 1989 a 
new development, "revolution by litigation," as evidenced 
by the action of a Washington wheeler dealer, William Rogers, 
of Arnold and Porter (formerly Arnold, Fortas and Porter). 
In ongoing efforts of Washington insiders to unseat Noriega 
in Panama, who had somehow been transformed from a partner 
in government drug operations to a competitor, Rogers gave 
Noriega's political opponent, and apparent President of Pan- 
ama, Eric Delvalle, control of some fifty million dollars of 
Panamaniam assets in the U.S. The Justice Office of Foreign 
Registration notes that Arnold and Porter received $450,517 
in fees for ten weeks of work for Delvalle 's shadow govern- 
ment, and could receive millions more. The Nation noted 
that this could make Rogers the highest paid revolutionary 
in history. 

As part of a supposed campaign against organized crime. 
Congress passed the RICO statute in 1970. The bill was in- 
tended to "wipe out" organized crime by charging it under 
the sweeping provisions of the new Racketeer Influenced and 
Corrupt Organization, or RICO law. In some unexplained 
manner, the enforcement of the statute somehow overlooked 
organized crime altogether. Those charged under the RICO 
statute were legitimate businessmen, who quite often had ne- 


glected to make the right political contributions. In short, 
RICO, instead of punishing the Mafia for its extortion racket, 
went after businessmen who had refused to yield to extortion 
from Congress. Chief Justice William Rehnquist spoke to 
the Brookings Institution April 7, 1989, noting that RICO 
was the basis for nearly one thousand cases a year. "Civil 
RICO is now being used in ways that Congress never intended 
when it enacted the statute. The time has arrived for Congress 
to enact amendments to civil RICO to limit its scope." 

However, the Supreme Court, when a RICO case was re- 
cently appealed there, refused in its ruling to limit RICO in 
any way. Its punitive measures, such as triple damages and 
fines, have been used to put many American businesses into 
bankruptcy. No relief is in sight. 

Another lucrative field before the courts is libel action. 
Yet the Wall Street Journal noted in an op-ed piece, July 
13, 1989, that what most litigants in libel actions wanted 
was not monetary payment, but public vindication. A three 
year study by the University of Iowa, begun in 1982, found 
that only one-fourth of libel litigants were after monetary 
awards. Three-fourths said they would have been satisfied if 
the allegedly false story had been corrected. Two factors inter- 
vened; first, the unbridled arrogance and wealth of the media — 
so sue me; and second, the fact that most libel plaintiffs are 
represented by attorneys on contingency fee. A retraction or 
public apology would net these lawyers nothing. Consequently, 
they refuse to arbitrate, or to offer the offending publication 
a chance to settle by an apology. The Journal conmiented 
on "the influence of lawyers, whose interests may not be 
congruent with those of their clients." This is such a basic 


fact of our legal system that it is amazing that anyone should 
have to mention it. Of course the interests of the lawyer are 
not congruent with those of his client. The American public's 
refusal to acknowledge this inescapable fact of life lies at 
the bottom of most of our problems with the legal profession. 

Chapter 7 

The Department of 

Most Americans believe that they have in Washington a 
superior bulwark of their liberties, not above the Constitution, 
but existing to bring the Constitution to life in prosecuting 
violations of their freedoms. This bulwark is known as the 
Department of Justice. Unfortunately for our comfortable sup- 
position, the Department of Justice exists, and was created, 
not as a bulwark of justice for the citizens of America, but 
as an instrumentality by which political crimes could be com- 
mitted against us. 

Congress created the Department of Justice in 1870, almost 
a century after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 
The century prior to the creation of the Department of Justice 
was a period of unparalleled growth and prosperity for the 
American nation. The century since its creation has been a 
period of steady decline. How did this happen? America inau- 
gurated its existence as the land of opportunity, the land of 



freedom, and the land of justice. Of the three, justice was 
always the most unattainable, but it existed, in however warped 
or inadequate a fashion. After 1 870, the activities of the Depart- 
ment of Justice served to remove the possibility of obtaining 
justice in the courts permanently beyond the reach of most 
Americans. This does not mean that justice could not be had. 
It was always there for the fortunate few, for those who had 
created the Department of Justice and who subsequently bene- 
fited from its creation. 

The Department of Justice, by its very nature, has no perma- 
nent bias or prejudice in its mode of operation. It exists solely 
to serve its creators and directors, the PIPs, or Party in Power, 
which is also known as the Perverts in Power, because of 
their propensity for perverting every aspect of American exis- 
tence. Although all government departments in Washington 
are permanently tainted by political opportunism, the Depart- 
ment of Justice is the most reprehensible, because it is adver- 
tised as the final arbiter of our problems . Of all the departments , 
the Department of Justice is the most flagrant prostitute, boldly 
advertising that she will do anything for her pimps. 

The present writer has advised the Department of Justice 
routinely over the past thirty years of serious criminal acts 
committed and which fall directly within the purlieu of this 
department. Because these letters are sent Registered with 
Return Receipt required, the department has regularly an- 
swered these notifications, and as regularly has refused to 
take any action. Reported violations of civil rights are met 
with the identical Department of Justice response, usually in 
a sneering tone, that I should hire myself a private attorney, 
if I really think that my rights have been violated. Notifications 


of routine theft, using the mails to defraud, and conspiracy 
to defraud, all amply documented, have been met with the 
same response, that I should hire a private lawyer. This is 
the same Department of Justice which recently spent some 
forty million dollars to determine how Col. Oliver North paid 
for a couple of tires! 

When I wrote to Mr. Oliver (Buck) Revell in 1986 (the 
current acting director of the FBI) complaining of continuous 
violations of my copyright on my book, "Secrets of the Federal 
Reserve," I received a response dated May 28, 1986 that 
"the FBI pursues criminal investigations and prosecutions 
of copyright matters generally in the areas of sound recordings, 
motion pictures and audiovisual works). ... the FBI will 
not institute a criminal investigation relative to this matter." 

Few people know that the vast resources of the FBI for 
years have been diverted to protecting the profits of a few 
Hollywood film moguls, who are also among the largest donors 
of political funds to national campaigns. FBI resources are 
confined to stopping unauthorized copies of these moguls' 
films and records. Faced with the refusal of the FBI to act 
in this matter, I went into state court, and later into federal 
court, with several lawsuits against violators of my copyrights. 
In each instance, the judge intervened actively on behalf of 
the defendant, and my complaints were consigned to the waste- 

The overt activity of the Department of Justice on behalf 
of the political powers that be is proof that the five thousand 
lawyers there do work to earn their salaries. When not carrying 
out humiliating errands for party bosses, they may be found 
conspiring with the dread KGB to commit atrocities against 


American citizens, or indulging in their favorite pastime, vol- 
unteering to cany out hatchet jobs against critics of the State 
of Israel. 

From one point of view, the Department of Justice may 
be acting to protect the public. One shudders to think what 
the effect might be if its five thousand lawyers were suddenly 
discharged and unleashed upon an imsuspecting public. The 
consequences would be calamitous, and could bring on the 
total collapse of the nation. A visitor to these hallowed halls 
complained that the marijuana smoke was so thick in one 
office that he couldn't see to read his brief. For some decades, 
the Department of Justice has been the first stop out of law 
school for arrogant young graduates from Harvard, Columbia 
and Yale. Typical was the revelation, at the height of the 
Watergate imbroglio, that one young Department of Justice 
lawyer had become quite popular at parties in Washington 
and New York. In return for supplies of Acapulco gold, he 
was playing the supersecret Watergate tapes at liberal yuppy 
parties, and was the hit of the circuit. The episode was a 
one day source of gossip, and was quickly forgotten. 

Since the advent of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, the 
Department of Justice has been unrelentingly "liberal" in 
its bias. The long parade of Republican White House advisers 
convicted and sent to prison reflects not only the power of 
the Democratic Congress, but the overwhelming prejudice 
of the Department's attorneys. Like the Supreme Court, the 
Department of Justice can be said to have read the election 
returns, but its interpretations of them occurs on a much lower 
and more petty level. The dedication of department officials 
to statism, more aptly known as Marxism, has never been a 


secret in Washington. However, in recent years, there have 
been rumors of two conflicting philosophies of government 
in the Department of Justice. In fact, the most active rivalry 
and longtime opposition of two fanatical sects has now come 
to roost in the halls of Justice. In 1933, with the sudden 
dominance of the Stalinist wing of the Communist Party, 
assuming absolute direction of the Democratic Party, govern- 
ment officials vied with each other in exhibiting their newfound 
loyalty. Large posters of Lenin and Stalin were placed in 
offices and homes of prominent officials; the Internationale 
was routinely sung at weekend parties hosted by these officials, 
and earnest students could be seen poring over the latest edition 
of Stalin's speeches from International Publishers. However, 
these were mere tokens of a fanatical loyalty. These officials 
were not token Communists; they were actively engaged in 
espionage activities in our halls of government. Members of 
the notorious Harold Ware cell, presided over by Felix Frank- 
furter and his ubiquitous proteges, who were known as his 
"Happy Hot Dogs," were named to key roles in the depart- 
ments of government. Longtime government employees, who 
had served ably and well at very low salaries, were now 
shunted to the background, irreversibly tainted as ' 'good Amer- 
icans." Few of these unlucky ones could even boast a foreign 

The Stalinists remained firmly in control of the Democratic 
Party for many decades. Meanwhile, a rival group had been 
headquartered in the United States, the followers of Leon 
Trotsky, who were committed to "world revolution now." 
They bitterly opposed the Stalinists, who echoed Stalin's dic- 
tum of "Socialism in one country," that is, Russia, although 


a purer form of Communism had now been established on 
the banks of the Potomac, perhaps the only genuine Communist 
government which has ever existed anywhere. In 1940, Stalin, 
fearing Trotsky's divisive influence on the brink of world 
war, had him hacked to death in Mexico City. The Trotskyites 
now had a martyr, and a cause worthy of continuing financial 
support by the various Rockefeller tax exempt foundations. 
The Trotskyites finally came to rest under the aegis of the 
League for Industrial Democracy, a shadow name for the 
old Socialist Workers Party, the Trotskyite movement in Amer- 

Firmly committed to the principles of Marxism and Trotsky's 
doctrine of world revolution now, the League for Industrial 
Democracy began to infiltrate conservative American groups. 
After 1948, the LID became the nesting place for the most 
fervent Israeli propagandists in the United States. First advertis- 
ing themselves as ' 'neo-conservatives, ' ' they gradually became 
more militant and virulently anti-Stalinist. In 1980, with the 
election of Ronald Reagan as President, the LID, masquerading 
behind its vocal contacts in the Hoover Institute at Stanford 
University, seized control of the Reagan Administration. 
Reagan unwittingly found himself playing the Hollywood role 
of General Custer, completely surrounded by the Indians at 
the Little Big Horn, while his few remaining genuinely conser- 
vative supporters were chopped down. The Trotskyites now 
had total power in the White House. They wrote virulent 
speeches for Reagan to deliver, denouncing the Moscow re- 
gime as the Evil Empire, and threatening to avenge the death 
of Trotsky by an allout war against the Soviets. 

The realities of international politics forced them to tone 


down these toxins, but they continued to develop "anti-Com- 
munist" regimes in Latin America. After the Goldwater elec- 
tion fiasco, the "neocons," the Trotskyites who now consid- 
ered Tel Aviv as their Kremlin, moved into control of the 
Republican Party by default, as the Eastern control, the tradi- 
tional Wall Street direction of the Republicans, floundered 
under the uncertain leadership of Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller. 

In Nicaragua, the "neocons" found their golden opportu- 
nity. For decades, Nicaragua had been the playground of such 
banking houses as J & W Seligman Co., and Brown Bros, 
(now Brown Bros. Harriman, the family firm of President 
George Bush). The Nicaraguan dictator. Gen. Alberto Somoza, 
invited some Israeli entrepreneurs into his country, in the 
hopes of quick profits. They made millions for him, but abused 
the people so mercilessly that a reaction took place. The Sandi- 
nistas, a Stalinist Communist group, seized power, exiled 
Somoza, whom they subsequently murdered, and seized the 
Israeli enterprises. The Israelis began to finance an opposition 
movement, called the "contras." 

When Reagan came into the White House in 1980, the 
"neocons" sought U.S. financing for the contra movement, 
in the hopes of recapturing the Israeli businesses in Nicaragua. 
However, the Democratic Congress, still firmly committed 
to the support of Stalinist Communism throughout the world, 
refused to allow U.S. support of the contras. An impasse 
developed which has paralyzed the American government for 
almost a decade. The Kissinger "neocons," led by his personal 
proteges, John Poindexter and Oliver North, and supervised 
by Elliott Abrams of the Dept. of State, (son-in-law of the 
Israeli powers. Midge Decter and Norm Podhoretz of Commen- 


taiy , the agitprop publication of the American Jewish Commit- 
tee, sought to finance the contras through tax-exempt dona- 
tions. Congress then forbade contra support by the Boland 

To punish those who supported the contras, Congress sought 
to take over the executive branch of government. The tradi- 
tional system of checks and balances was thrown overboard, 
as Congress appointed "Special Prosecutors" to crucify North 
and other scapegoats of the "neocons." Even trials, the tradi- 
tional purlieu of the executive department, were taken over, 
as Congress staged spectacular televised Moscow show trials 
of its victims, such as North, in the grand tradition of Josef 
Stalin. The American public, totally bemused by the spectacle 
of two wings of the Communist Party battling to the death 
in Washington like insane pit bulls, was never informed by 
the servile press, which was now largely under alien domina- 
tion, about the true nature of the struggle. Meanwhile, the 
economy, the national borders, the environment, the military, 
and other responsibilities of the national government, were 
abandoned, leaving the nation to flounder and then to sink 
into total disarray. 

Another expensive and well publicized Department of Jus- 
tice operation has been its mad pursuit of "Nazi war crimi- 
nals," almost a half century after the event, a campaign whose 
equivalent would be the indictment of Soviet officials of the 
present regime for mass murders committed during the purges 
of the 1930s by Stalin. Although these alleged "crimes" took 
place outside of American jurisdiction, the law merchant prin- 
ciples of our legal system allowed the U.S. government to 
take action against persons who later became American citi- 


zens. Justice set up the Office of Special Investigations, which 
acted as the U.S. office of the KGB, and also worked closely 
with Mossad, Israeli Intelligence, to manufacture "evidence" 
against several elderly American citizens who were claimed 
to have been "guards" in German concentration camps nearly 
fifty years ago. Many millions of dollars was expended by 
OSI to have these elderly victims deported and executed. 
One of the principals of OSI was Nate Lewine, who mysteri- 
ously became the compulsory lawyer of choice for Republican 
White House executives accused of "influence peddling" and 
other offenses. 

Nate Lewine began his lucrative career at the Department 
of Justice as a top operative of the "Get Hoffa" squad at 
the Department (this may have been the cause of John F. 
Kennedy's assassination). He is a former room mate of Philip 
Heymann, President Carter's director of the Criminal Division 
at the Department of Justice, and now at Harvard Law School. 
Walter Sheridan, chief of the "Get Hoffa" squad, was the 
dirty tricks mentor of the operation. This group leaped to 
the defense of Stephen Bryen after he was accused of passing 
vital defense secrets to Mossad. Bryen is now on the staff 
his longtime associate, Asst. Secretary of Defense Richard 
Perle. The vicious assault on John Tower when he was nomi- 
nated as Secretary of Defense was masterminded by the Mossad 
group at Defense; they feared that he might balk at their 
continued espionage on behalf of Israel. The notorious Office 
of Special Investigations had been organized at the behest of 
Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, abetted by Heymann 
and Lewine. It was set up specifically as a dirty tricks unit 
of Mossad and the KGB , operating in deep cover at the Depart- 


ttient of Justice. Lewine's clients usually went to jail after 
paying him millions of dollars. He first defended Congressman 
George Hansen, who was charged with failure to properly 
fill out ethics reporting forms. His real offense was that he 
had gone to Iran to try to free American hostages, thus invading 
the sacred preserves of the Middle East, which had long been 
the property of Mossad and Israeli politicians. Hansen paid 
Lewin one million dollars to be sent to federal prison, where 
his treatment was so brutal that 258 Congressmen petitioned 
the Bureau of Prisons to alleviate his suffering. Millions of 
Americans deluged Reagan with demands that Hansen be pa- 
roled; all of their requests were thrown into the wastebasket 
at the White House by the sneering "neocons" who held 
Reagan captive. 

Michael Deaver, Reagan's closest confidant, was the next 
victim. Lewine charged him three million dollars. Deaver 
was convicted. Americans have shown little reaction to the 
procession of Moscow show trials which have been held in 
Washington since the Watergate episode, "the scandal of the 
century," in which a Democratic office was burglarized by 
Republican henchmen. White Republican White House execu- 
tives have been tried by black Democratic juries, and convicted 
in every instance, the latest being Oliver North. This is not 
racism on the part of the juries, as much as it is the "Moscow 
process," in which Democratic Stalinists are sworn to convict 
Republican Trotskyite neocons, no matter what the charges 
or the evidence against them. This mockery of the judicial 
process is typical of the "law merchant" court system, which 
functions solely on power and money. No legal standards 
need apply. 


The Office of Special Investigations evolved into a small 
conspiratorial group of fanatics who assumed control of all 
Department of Justice operations. This group was known as 
"Nesher," the Hebrew word for "eagle." Its origins may 
be found in a book by John J. Dziak, historian of the Defense 
Intelligence Agency, "Chekisty: A History of the KGB." 
Dziak exposes a worldwide espionage and assassination bureau 
run by the KGB through Dr. Max Eitington, a close personal 
associate of Sigmund Freud. It was Eitington who brought 
the use of psychiatry and drugs into international espionage. 
He also prepared the documents for the 1937 secret trial, 
which resulted in the nine top generals of the Soviet Army 
being executed. These documents were later revealed to have 
been prepared by Hitler's Gestapo. Eitington had cooperated 
fully with Reinhard Heydrich to prepare this "evidence," 
with the same techniques which were later employed by the 
U.S. Department of Justice to use fake evidence from the 
KGB to have American citizens deported and executed by 

Among the many murders arranged by Max Eitington was 
the murder of Trotsky's son, Leon Sedov, in a Paris hospital; 
Rudolf Kleist, a German Trotskyite whose decapitated body 
was found in the Seine; and Walter Krivitsky, a KGB defector 
who was murdered in a Washington hotel only a few feet 
from the halls of Congress. Eitington' s brother ran the foreign 
espionage operations of the KGB, the expenses being paid 
by the income from the Soviet Fur Trust. Max Eitington set 
up the Berlin Psychiatric Institute, whose graduates later came 
to the U.S. to establish branches of the Tavistock Institute 
(the British Army Dept. of Psychological Warfare operation), 


which has systematically brainwashed officials of the major 
U.S. foundations and educational institutions. 

The Eitington group, known as the Killerati, pioneered in 
the use of drugs and psychiatry in espionage coups. Its tech- 
niques became the basis of the British Secret Intelligence Ser- 
vice and its subsidiary, the Central Intelligence Agency. The 
Department of Justice takeover by Nesher, the spawn of this 
unholy group, provided a happy meeting ground for the ostensi- 
bly hostile forces of the KGB and Mossad. Provided with 
unlimited funds by the American taxpayer, they were enabled 
to carry out their sinister worldwide campaigns of systematic 
murder and destruction in every nation of the world. Nesher 
financed hit teams to assassinate Palestinians who were cooper- 
ating with the U.S. government, thereby ensuring the continu- 
ance of chaos, on which Israel feeds, throughout the Middle 
East, and resulted in the taking of U.S. hostages, not as retalia- 
tion against the U.S., but as protection against further assassi- 
nation attempts by Mossad. Nesher ousted Duvalier in Haiti, 
creating widespread chaos and suffering in that nation. Mean- 
while, Nesher' s principle operative in the U.S. government, 
Jonathan Pollard, was busily securing thousands of pages of 
vital U.S. documents for his Israeli employers, in order to 
assure further economic chaos and foreign diplomatic catastro- 
phes for our nation. Pollard operated under the aegis of Under 
Secretary of Defense Fred Ikle, whose Swiss connection is 
now involved in a vast scandal. Dde's two principal aides 
were also prominent in Nesher operations, Richard Perle and 
Stephen Bryen. They set up another front group, JINSA, the 
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, as a cover for 
their furtive operations, working closely with Moscow Procura- 


tor and Soviet Attorney Natalya Kaleznikova, and the master- 
mind of the Irangate affair, David Kimche, the director of 
Mossad, who was Pollard's controller. The Pollard coverup 
was led by Dep. Atty Gen. Arnold Bums and Nate Lewin 
of Nesher. Bums's law firm handled the books for the Lansky 
Syndicate operation through Sterling National Bank. Bums 
set up fifteen illegal tax shelters through Israeli connections, 
which criminally evaded some forty million dollars in taxes. 
An investigation into Bums' operations was stopped by DJ's 
head of the Criminal Division, William Weld, of the Wall 
Street banking family whose control of the Bank of Boston 
funnelled payments to Pollard for his espionage operations. 
The background of the Nesher group was found to originate 
in the Swiss espionage and banking interests, one of whose 
proctors, Tibor Rosenbaum, had financed the Israeli conquest 
of Palestine. Swiss law enforcement was headed by Elizabeth 
Ikle Kopp, cousin of Assistant Secretary of Defense Fred 
Ikle. She was married to Hans Kopp, who headed a billion 
dollar holding company for espionage groups operating world- 
wide, the Shakarchi Trading Co. Shakarchi handles enormous 
sums for CIA, Mossad and other espionage operations. Ten 
million dollars of Iran Contra proceeds from the illegal sale 
of Arms to Iran was first deposited in the Chase Manhattan 
Bank in New York by Arab wheeler dealer Adnan Kashoggi; 
the money was then transferred to credit Suisse, and later 
laundered by Shakarchi executives. This money paid for the 
delivery of 1000 TOW missiles to the CIA, for clandestine 
delivery to Iranian terrorists. As a result of investigations 
into the Iran Contra dealings, both Kopp and his wife are 
now under investigation, while Kashoggi languishes in a Swiss 


prison. The case is expected to uncover interesting corollaries 
between the international drug cartel, international espionage, 
and Israeli intelligence. 

The Department of Justice was formerly headed by Ronald 
Reagan's friend, Edwin Meese III, who publicly denounced 
the American Civil Liberties Union. Meese was hounded from 
office, and forced to hire Nate Lewin as his personal attorney 
to defend him against a host of charges, none of which were 
ever proved. Meese was then replaced by a Republican from 
the Eastern Liberal Establishment, Dick Thomburgh, former 
Governor of Pennsylvania. Thomburgh had formerly been a 
director of the ACLU! He now heads some 77,000 employees 
at the Department of Justice, and has announced his intention 
to dismantle fourteen regional strike forces against organized 
crime. Under Meese, the personnel of the Department of Justice 
had grown by 34%, while its achievements dwindled to the 
point of invisibility . Thomburgh had developed a cozy relation- 
ship with the Merrill Lynch stockbroking firm while Governor 
of Pennsylvania; his largest expenditure was the authorization 
of an $807 million bond issue to improve the rapidly decaying 
Pennsylvania Turnpike. He later became a director of Merrill 
Lynch at a salary of $35,000 a year. Merrill Lynch' s former 
chairman, Donald Regan, was President Reagan's chief of 
staff in the White House. 

The Department of Justice continues to offer a spiritual 
home to personages who could be most generously described 
as "kooks." The Washington Post of March 11, 1989 re- 
counted the strange tale of federal prosecutor Judy Russell, 
who had been widely hailed as "one of the most promising 
young attomeys in the United States." She faked death threats 


against herself, and was diagnosed as schizophrenic, "with 
four distinct personalities." She was found not guilty of ob- 
structing justice "by reason of insanity." 

The FBI continued to offer money to a host of odd personali- 
ties. A wellknown member of Richmond, Virginia's City 
Council, Henry Richardson, had pleaded guilty in February 
1988 to the possession of dangerous drugs and drug parapherna- 
lia. He was fined fifty dollars, and received a contract from 
the FBI to finger other drug users in the city government. 
His attorney, Michael Morchower, reported in an AP release, 
April 29, 1989, that "Richardson may have flimflammed the 
FBI out of six thousand dollars . . . Mr. Richardson sent 
the FBI on a wild goose chase that with information that 
had no value." 

Richardson later admitted his heroin addiction, and was 
being dunned for ten thousand dollars for his "cure" in a 
local institution. 

Attorney General Dick Thomburgh, who had been chosen 
for this cabinet post by President George Bush, promises to 
take the Department of Justice on a new, and even more 
liberal, tack. When we remember that George Bush cam- 
paigned actively against the ACLU (his opponent, Michael 
Dukkakis, boasted that he had long been a member of the 
ACLU) throughout his presidential campaign, it becomes more 
puzzling that as soon as he ascended to the White House, 
Bush immediately chose for his most sensitive Cabinet Post 
a director of the ACLU. 

Thomburgh then announced his most crucial appointment, 
the selection of his Deputy Attorney General. He named Robert 
Fiske Jr., a choice which caused cries of rage to emanate 


from most Republican conservatives. Fiske had long been 
notorious as the liberal agent of the American Bar Association 
from 1984 to 1987. As the dominant member of the ABA 
"screening committee," Fiske had passed on to the most 
vociferous liberal activist organizations the names of prospec- 
tive judicial nominees during his years of "screening." These 
activists then dug up the entire history of each nominee, care- 
fully scrutinizing it for any sign of pro-Americanism. Those 
who had failed to make ritual obeisance to the nation's most 
powerful behind the scenes liberal forces had their names 
tossed into the wastebasket. Only those with tried and true 
liberal records were given the ABA's recommendation for 
nomination. The result was that the nation's judicial system 
became loaded with judges whose personal history embraced 
drugs, sexual "liberation," and who openly espoused the 
most violent principles of virulent leftwing organizations. 

The ABA screening process was not as important during 
the administration of Democratic Presidents. Jimmy Carter 
was notorious for the liberal activists, some three hundred 
judges, whom he stacked in the nation's courts. However, 
during Republican Administrations, the ABA screening pro- 
cess was crucial to the Stalinist Democrats as the means to 
subvert and stall Republican programs. Judges who were sus- 
pected of being "conservative" encountered a phalanx of 
opposition in the ABA screening conrniittee. 

In 1985, Fiske was forced to admit that he had indeed 
sent the names of Reagan's prospective nominees for conserva- 
tive judicial posts to such wellknown liberal activists as the 
Alliance for Justice Judicial Selection Project, to determine 
if the nominees had any provable record of "bias" towards 


women or minorities. The result was that Reagan's nominees 
encountered months of stalling, open animosity, and in many 
cases, denial of their nomination for judgeships. When Thorn- 
burgh nominated Fiske as his Deputy Attorney General, it 
was seen by Washington insiders as a payoff to a saboteur 
for his career as a notorious wrecker, destroying Reagan's 
chances of nominating a more conservative judicial bench. 
Fiske, whose mother was a Seymour, of a prominent Wall 
Street family, had become a partner in the prestigious Wall 
Street firm of Davis Polk and Wardwell. One of Washington's 
most respected legal observers, Paul Kamenar of the Washing- 
ton Legal Foundation, described Fiske as "basically a liberal 
type milieu. Wall Street lawyer, country club type Republi- 

Although the previous Attorney General, Edwin Meese HI, 
had left office under a cloud, having become involved in the 
notorious Wedtech scandal with the State of Israel, he may 
be vindicated when one looks at the record of his successor, 
Dick Thomburgh. A Yale graduate and longtime personal 
friend of President George Bush, Thomburgh is also a protege 
of Don Regan, President Reagan's former White House Chief 
of Staff and head of the giant stockbroking firm, Merrill Lynch. 
Thomburgh not only became a dkector of Merrill Lynch; he 
also is a director of the giant scandal ridden drag store chain. 
Rite Aid Corporation. The scion of the Rite Aid family, Martin 
Grass, was arrested in Room 158 at Cleveland's Sheraton 
Airport Hotel. Prosecutors had seized him as he was in the 
act of handing a $33,000 check to Melvin Wilcyznski, a voting 
member of the state pharmacy board. In return, Mr. Wilczysnki 
had signed an undated letter of resignation from the pharmacy 


board. The entire incident was videotaped by prosecutors, 
who had also recorded four prior telephone conversations be- 
tween Grass, former executive vice president of Rite Aid, 
who had been recently named president of the firm, and Wilc- 
zynski. The news of the arrest caused Rite Aid stock to tumble 
$1,875 per share, down to $34.75. Rite Aid is the nation's 
largest drug store chain, with 2270 stores and 28,000 employ- 
ees. It owns 65 auto parts stores, ADAP, and a 40 store 
chain of retail bookstores, Encore. It also owns a dry cleaning 
chain, Begley Corp., of which Martin Grass is director. 

Rite Aid's overweening interest in the Ohio State Board 
of Pharmacy was due to its acquisition of 162 Gray Drug 
Fair stores in 1987. Rite Aid has 349 stores in Ohio. Members 
of the State Board of Pharmacy had fined Rite Aid fifty thou- 
sand dollars on January 1989, for allowing nonpharmacy em- 
ployees access to prescription drugs. The board had previously 
refused to allow Rite Aid a grace period to correct the many 
drug security problems which were endemic in its stores. 
The Wall Street Journal account of the affair, an extensive 
one, stated that Martin Grass had planned to submit Mr. Wilc- 
zynski's resignation to Governor Richard J. Celeste, who, 
as Grass told Wilczynski, had agreed to appoint pharmacists 
chosen by Rite Aid to fill future vacancies on the state pharmacy 
board. Prosecutors alleged that Rite Aid was attempting to 
stop the pharmacy board from proceeding with enforcement 
actions against it. Investigators had learned that the Grass 
plan, to which Celeste was claimed to be a party, was to 
replace three members of the pharmacy board with Rite Aid 
supporters, and to oust the board's executive director. Ninety 
of the Gray Drug Fair stores acquired by Rite Aid had been 


raided in a two day period and charged with not having proper 
security alarm systems, as well as other violations. 

In New York state. Rite Aid had become involved in another 
imbroglio when the firm's vice president for governmental 
affairs and trade relations threatened to boycott the New York 
State Employees Prescription Plan, when new rates were pro- 
posed in 1986. The Federal Trade Commission then charged 
Rite Aid with illegally forcing an increased reimbursement 
rate on prescriptions, a move which subsequently cost New 
York State an added seven million dollars in charges. 

A wellknown Wall Street drug chain analyst noted that 
"Marty wanted to show his father that he could handle anything 
which came up during his presidency. At this rate, he will 
never be named president of the Federation of Jewish Philan- 
thropies (a position carrying great personal prestige in the 
community) . ' ' The analyst was referring to the record of Marty 
Grass's father, Alex Grass, a Miami lawyer who had married 
into the hierarchy of Rite Aid stores. He married Lois Lehrman 
(the Lehrman family are the chief stockholders in Rite Aid). 
Grass later became chief operating officer of the giant drug 
firm, leading to his zooming to a prominent role in community 
philanthropies. He is currently listed as chairman of the United 
Jewish Appeal, the Israel Endowment Fund, the Jewish Federa- 
tion, the Jewish Agency for Israel, and the Israel Center for 
Social and Economic Studies. He is the brother-in-law of 
the wellknown neoconservative, Lewis Lehrman, who led in 
the purchase of the Republican Party by wealthy neoconserva- 
tives in 1980. While he was still president of Rite Aid stores, 
Lehrman ran for Governor of New York, breaking all spending 
records in his campaign, which was unsuccessful. Although 


his campaign of loyalists assured him that ' 'A Jewish candidate 
can't lose in New York," he insisted on spending seven million 
dollars for TV ads, while his successful opponent, Cuomo, 
spent only one and a half million. Cuomo 's campaign workers 
had also assured him that he could not lose, telling him that 
"A Roman Catholic Italian can't lose in New York." When 
the votes were counted, they were right. 

Lehrman then promoted himself as an arch conservative, 
endowing his own "rightwing thinktank," which he modestly 
named "the Lewis Lehrman Institute." Lehrman is also a 
chief financial backer of such wellknown "conservative" 
groups as the Heritage Foundation, which is led by a British 
Fabian Socialist, and the American Enterprise Institute, both 
of which are Rockefeller sponsored agitprop operations mas- 
querading as "rightwing political groups." 

Lehrman had ah-eady won some recognition (principally 
through his favorite magazine, the National Review), as the 
ideological genius behind President Reagan's famous "supply 
side revolution." Lehrman was also an ardent advocate of 
the "goldbug" principles of the French economist, Jacques 
Rueff. Lehrman then became the mentor of a former liberal, 
David Stockman, who had switched sides when the Republi- 
cans gained the ascendancy. When Stockman and his cohort. 
Jack Kemp (now Bush's cabinet choice as head of the giant 
Health Education and Welfare boondoggle in Washington) 
published a controversial report early in the Reagan administra- 
tion warning of "an approaching economic Dunkirk," it was 
common knowledge in Washington that they had merely pla- 
giarized an earlier Lehrman Report reaching the same con- 


In 1977, Lewis Lehrman placed three million dollars of 
his rapidly burgeoning personal fortune into the Lehrman Insti- 
tute, which he installed in a luxurious Manhattan townhouse. 
When Lehrman announced his intention of running for the 
Governorship of New York, the Lehrman family stock in 
Rite Aid was worth $92 million, of which Lewis Lehrman 's 
share was $60 million. During his campaign, the stock in- 
creased in value by ten points, reaching a high of 40 on the 
exchange. Wall Street analysts apparently believed that the 
Rite Aid firm would benefit financially by having its principal 
stockholder in the Governor's seat. In fact, Lehrman spent 
some ten million during his campaign, while his stock holdings 
m Rite Aid increased by $15 million, meaning that he had 
realized a tidy increase of $5 million in his personal fortune 
by seeking public office. This was a unique twist to the usual 
pattern of events in the United States political domain, whereby 
poor farmboys dedicate themselves to a life of public service 
and wind up with fifty million dollars worth of corporate 
stock, as did the late Lyndon Baines Johnson. 

Lewis Lehrman had long been one of a very small group 
of gods in William Buckley's pantheon, routinely eulogized 
in the pages of the CIA agitprop sheet, the National Review; 
Lehrman's companions in this strange pantheon were Sir James 
Goldsmith, a relative and partner of the Rothschilds of Europe; 
Bill Casey, director of the CIA; Jeane Kirkpatrick, known 
as "Miss Israel" of the Washington set; and Milton Friedman, 
the tireless spokesman of the Rothschilds' Viennese School 
of Economics. These gods were known collectively as the 
"neocons," intellectual slang for "neoconservatives," who 
were well represented on the board of directors of the Trotskyite 
priesthood in the United States, the Rockefeller financed 


League for Industrial Democracy, the old Socialist Workers 
Party (Valhalla of the martyred Leon Trotsky, a victim of 
Stalin's insatiable urge to kill). The Rockefeller fascination 
with Trotsky dated back to the heady days of 1917, when 
old John D. himself saw Trotsky off to spark the Bolshevik 
Revolution in Russia. John D. charitably stuffed ten thousand 
dollars into Trotsky's pocket as he embarked on his career 
of world revolution, a startling departure from Rockefeller's 
standard gift of one dime to those of whom he approved. 

Despite Lehrman's image as a loser, which was compounded 
by his aura of great wealth, and his habit of buying those 
whom he wished to impress, the pages of the National Review 
sparkled with tributes to Lehrman's great deeds in peddling 
aspirin to the public. William Buckley also has a daily newspa- 
per column, in which he rolled out his big guns to support 
Lehrman's candidacy (Oct. 26, 1982), praising Lehrman as 
"a briUiant public servant' ' who was also ' 'prominent in Jewish 
affairs." Lehrman later discovered that hardly anyone in New 
York read Buckley's outpourings, which may explain why 
he lost. 

Frustrated in his drive for the governorship of New York, 
which would bring the coveted White House into view, as 
witness the strange career of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 
Lehrman threw his money and influence behind the political 
career of Jack Kemp, who proved as difficult to sell to the 
American public as Lehrman himself. National Review de- 
scribed Kemp as "the political fugleman of the Lew Lehrman 
economic school." Despite Lehrman's influential backing. 
Jack Kemps' quest for the Presidency, along with Lehrman's 
other political ambitions, sank without a trace. 

Lehrman's fortune originated with his grandfather, an itiner- 


ant peddler whose principal stock, as his grandson was fond 
of recalling, consisted of shoelaces and sugar. The grandfather 
finally accumulated enough cash to open a small grocery store, 
which, as so often happens in our climate of creating wealth, 
became a large wholesale grocery chain. When the accoun- 
tants' reports showed that the profits from drugs far exceeded 
the much smaller retiuns on meat and potatoes, the elder 
Lehrman went into the retail drug business. After the millions 
had piled up, his grandson. Lew, was able to marry a Protes- 
tant, Louise Stillman, a member of New York's most presti- 
gious banking family, and the historic bankers (National City 
Bank, now Citibank) of Rockefeller's billions of income from 
Standard Oil, the world's most successful monopoly. Two 
of the Stillman daughters had married into the Rockefeller 
family, which brought Lew Lehrman into the family's golden 
aura. As a student at Harvard, Lew Lehrman was awarded a 
Carnegie teaching fellowship and a Woodrow Wilson fellow- 
ship. It has long been a truism in the more august Ivy League 
establishments that great family wealth should not be consid- 
ered a deterrent to a student receiving fellowships, even though 
the donors may have originally intended them for needy schol- 

Alex Grass, the Miami lawyer who married Lew's sister, 
was also prospering with Rite Aid. The political campaign 
which increased Lew's fortune by some twenty per cent had 
a corresponding effect on Alex and his wife Lois' holdings. 
However, Alex Grass became oppressed by growing envy 
and dislike of his more famous brother-in-law, a situation 
which was deftly profiled by writer Michael Kramer in New 
York Magazine. Grass promptly filed a $24 million defamation 


suit against New York, of which nothing has been heard in 
recent years. Kramer noted in New York's issue of April 5, 
1982, from lengthy discussions with Rite Aid executives, that 
"Alex has always been jealous of Lew." There had been 
considerable infighting within the firm for years, as Alex and 
Lew each battled to support his claims that he and he alone 
had been responsible for the phenomenal growth of Rite Aid 
and its burgeoning profits. No mean publicist himself, Alex 
Grass had chosen to promote himself through inmiersion in 
Jewish affairs, finally achieving the most desired position in 
Jewish philanthropy, when he was named national chairman 
of the United Jewish Appeal. Lehrman continued to devote 
himself to "public affairs," hiring Robert F. Kennedy's dy- 
namic speechwriter, Adam Walinsky, to draft his pronunci- 
amentoes. The rivaky between the relatives finally subsided 
when Lehrman withdrew from active participation in the firm, 
and Alex was able to name his son as president. Insiders 
believe that it was the Grasses' frantic determination to "show 
up" Lew which led to Marty's involvement in the Ohio bribery 
scandal. As previously noted, the deep involvement of the 
new Attorney General with the scandals of Rite Aid raises 
serious questions as to the motives of President Bush's drive 
for a "kindler and gentler America," but not necessarily a 
more honest one. 

In addition to Thomburgh, other directors of the Rite Aid 
firm are Richard Kogan, president of the drug firm Schering 
Plough, a three billion dollar operation. Kogan also has the 
requisite London connection, being a director of one of En- 
gland's Big Five banks. National Westminster, which provided 
the most recent choice to head the Bank of England. Kogan' s 


fellow directors at Schering Plough include William A. 
Schreyer, chainnan of Merrill Lynch; Harold McGraw, chair- 
man of the business pubUshing giant, McGraw Hill; Virginia 
Dwyer, director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 
Eaton Corp., Georgia Power, and the Southern Company, 
which has been much in the news recently; and James Wood, 
chairman of A&P Co. 

Federal agencies have shown no curiosity as to whether 
Kogan's position as head of one of the nation's largest drug 
manufacturers poses a conflict of interest with his position 
as director of the nation's largest retail drug operation. Other 
directors of Rite Aid are Leonard Stem, Philip Neivert, Henry 
Taub and Gerald Tsai Jr. Formerly known as the Boy Wonder 
of Wall Street, Tsai is now chairman of the holding company, 
Primerica, which owns the Wall Street investment firm. Smith 
Barney Co., and Continental Life, as well as Fingerhut, a 
textile firm grossing $800 million a year. Directors of Primerica 
include Washington's most famous wheeler dealer, Joseph 
Califano Jr. , known as the highest priced lawyer-lobbyist in 
Washington, and former Secretary of Health, Education and 
Welfare, the world's largest boondoggle. Charles Hugel is 
also director of Primerica; he is chairman of Combustion Engi- 
neering Co., one of the nation's most fervent proponents of 
"trade with Soviet Russia" and USTEC, the secretive "busi- 
nessman's organization' ' which is desperately trying to salvage 
the collapsing economy of the Soviet Union, all expenses to 
be paid by the American taxpayer, and to rescue the Leninist- 
Marxist philosophy of government from well-deserved obliv- 
ion. Califano serves with Hugel on the board of Combustion 
Engineering. Hugel is also chairman of RJR Nabisco, director 


of Pitney Bowes, and director of the Eaton Corp. , the creation 
of the late Cyrus Eaton, a protege of John D. Rockefeller 
who became famous for his connections to the Soviet KGB 
through his sponsorship of the mysterious "Pugwash Confer- 
ences," and who was advertised for years in the American 
press as "the nation's most pro-Communist financier." 

The final director of the present Rite Aid Corp. to attract 
our attention is Henry Taub, chairman of the giant Automatic 
Data Processing Corp. ($1.38 billion a year). The firm's fi- 
nances are handled by Manufacturers Hanover Bank in New 
York, the Rothschild Bank, according to littleknown Congres- 
sional hearings. Its directors include Alan Greenspan, a director 
of J. P. Morgan Co., who is now in charge of the nation's 
monetary system as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board 
of Governors; Joseph Califano, previously mentioned; Lau- 
rence Tisch, the tycoon who swallowed the CBS media giant; 
and Frederick Malek, known as one of the pillars of the fallen 
Nixon Administration. 

Although Rite Aid's officers and directors have many historic 
connections with the fate of the embattled Middle East country , 
Israel, none are more prominent than Henry Taub. He is a 
director of American Technion, which provides funds for Isra- 
el's burgeoning science industry; the Bank Leumi Trust, which 
financed the takeover of Palestine from the Arabs through 
Tibor Rosenbaum of Switzerland and points west, and other 
Jewish agencies. A former director of Rite Aid, and protege 
of the Lehrman political drive, is Maxwell Rabb, the grey 
eminence of the Eisenhower Administration, who for many 
years has represented "American" interests as the United 
States Ambassador to Italy. Another prominent Washington 


wheeler dealer who interlocks with Rite Aid is H. Guyford 
Stever, director of Schering-Plough, who has held many impor- 
tant government posts in such agencies as NASA, the National 
Science Foundation, president of Carnegie-Mellon University, 
chairman of the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Joint Committee for Science 
and Technology, board of governors of the Israel Science 
Foundation, and director of the giant defense contractor, TRW 
Corp. Stever is a member of the exclusive Cosmos Club of 
Washington, and the famed Bohemian Club of California, 
where the elite meet to plan their personal goals for the great 
American future. 

The sinister combination of banking and legal interests ex- 
posed in these connections has been itemized in great detail 
in this writer's book, "THE WORLD ORDER." Confirmation 
of its conclusions are to be found in the dramatic show trials 
held in Washington in recent years, in which persons suspected 
of "conservativism" were deliberately pilloried by the devo- 
tees of One World, the historic liberal political movement. 
To protect themselves in the courts, these special interests 
have gone to great lengths to ensure that the cases would be 
heard by judges who were proven to be sympathetic to their 
hidden goals. The instrumentality has been an agency of which 
few Americans have ever heard, the American Bar Associa- 
tion's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. This rela- 
tively unknown group, elected by no one, has exercised a 
virtual veto power over judicial nominees for many years, 
confining its approval to those prospective judges with an 
extensive record of service to its largely unpronounced but 
wellknown and well understood goals. An editorial in the 
Wall Street Journal of March 22, 1989 noted that "Politics 


disguised as objective evaluation characterized the ABA's 
quasi-official role in judicial selection during the Reagan 
years." The Washington Legal Foundation, a public interest 
group, is now suing the ABA, because the Standing Committee 
refused to give this conservative foundation information on 
nominees which it had willingly shared with leftwing groups. 
The standing conunittee has maintained its principles of closed 
deliberations and secretive voting, much like its preceptor, 
the secretive Federal Board Reserve Board of Governors. The 
WLF lawsuit was based on the ABA's well established record 
of sending information on prospective judicial nominees to 
the NAACP, People for the American Way, the ACLU, and 
other prominent liberal operations, while steadfastly denying 
this information to conservative groups such as the WLF. 
The ABA process ensured the nomination of liberal activist 
judges which now plague the American bench, and which 
represent the rape of justice for most Americans who do not 
fall into that category. The Washington Legal Foundation 
maintained that "the investigations have been conducted and 
are continuing to be conducted in such a way as to penalize 
or discredit candidates who hold or profess conservative princi- 
ples or ideology, and to delay or prevent their nomination 
by the President." 

In response, the ABA maintains that it only investigates 
"the judicial temperament" of nominees, but fails to explain 
why it only sends the names of prospective judicial candidates 
to leftwing organizations. ABA committee member Stewart 
Dunnings has testified that they wanted to confine judicial 
selection to candidates who had an affirmative action commit- 
ment. Susan Liss, director of the People for the American 


Way, revealed that it was routine for the ABA to give the 
names of potential candidates to the Alliance for Justice, an 
umbrella group of civil rights organizations such as the NAACP 
and ACLU. This practice allowed these groups to mount an 
offensive against prospective candidates long before their 
names had reached the President, or before conservative groups 
could defend them. Sen. Orrin Hatch described this process 
as follows: "It exercises a virtual veto over our judicial nomi- 
nees." Sen. Gordon Humphrey also has forcefully objected 
to the sinister behind the scenes operation of the ABA, stating 
to the Senate Judiciary Committee that ' 'the system is a mould- 
ering, corrupt, malodorous old relic which should be given 
a quick burial for the sake of public health." Sen. Humphrey 
then wrote a letter to President Bush complaining that during 
Robert Fiske's tenure as chairman of the ABA Standing Com- 
mittee, "there is evidence that committee evaluations were 
tainted with ideological bias against conservative nominees 
selected by President Reagan. ' ' He stated that Fiske had leaked 
the names of prospective nominees to activist liberal groups 
which could target them for reprisal even before their names 
had been announced to the public. Despite these protests, 
Atty. Gen. Thomburgh announced on June 2, 1989 that his 
choice of Fiske as his Deputy Atty. Gen. still stood, and 
that he intended to continue to send the names of prospective 
judicial nominees to the ABA Standing Conmiittee. Thom- 
burgh claimed that the committee had promised to change 
its liberal bias, whereupon the committee members promptly 
retorted that they had not changed and had no intention of 
changing their methods of approving judicial candidates. They 
continued to deny that religious or philosophical stands of 


candidates afifected their conditions of approval, despite the 
fact that the Wall Street Journal editorial page gave consider- 
able space to the protest of Arthur Schwab on April 11, 1989, 
that the ABA had blocked his judicial appointment for religious 
and political reasons, mainly because he was a practicing 
Christian. He submitted a 20 page recitation of his complaint 
concerning a three year "investigation" of his candidacy by 
the ABA. His nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals 
in Pennsylvania was withdrawn by President Reagan, because 
he could not win approval by the ABA. The committee member 
assigned to question him, Jerome Shestack, is known as one 
of the most liberal of the 15 man Standing Committee. He 
pointedly asked Schwab why his children went to a Christian 
school, even though the ABA claims they do not take religious 
affiliation into account in approving prospective nominees. 
Shestack was also a director of the far-left Lawyers Committee 
for Civil Rights Under Law, and served on a Joe Biden for 
President Committee, even while the ABA was masterminding 
the Biden Judiciary Committee assault on Robert Bork. 

The determination of the World Order to prevent the selec- 
tion of any judicial appointee who was not committed to their 
sinister international program has not only been a rape of 
justice; it has been the handmaiden of the rape of the entire 
American people. The consequences of this campaign are 
now raging in Washington, in what is being called "a feeding 
frenzy," as conservatives take their revenge for the outrages 
committed against their candidates during the past thirty years 
by the ABA Standing Conunittee on the Federal Judiciary. 
The liberal conspiracy against conservative candidates reached 
its apogee in the Moscow show hearings on the candidacy 


of Judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court, followed by 
the widely leaked ABA report on his nominal successor, Judge 
Douglas Ginsberg, who was said to have smoked a marijuana 
cigarette some years earlier. The greatly over-extended Bork 
Hearings caused a breakdown of Americans' confidence in 
the processes of government, which was reflected in the 500 
point drop in the stock market in the October 1987 Crash. 
This was followed by the prosecution of Congressman George 
Hansen on charges of "ethics violations," charges which were 
based on the fact that he had not entered some items on the 
proper line, iat a time when most Congressmen admitted they 
did not know how to properly fill out the newly required 
forms. Hansen, a Republican, and a Mormon from a Western 
State, Idaho, was pilloried because he had long been an outspo- 
ken critic of brutal abuses by agents of the Internal Revenue 
Service against American citizens, and because he had inter- 
fered in the politics of the Middle East. Because Hansen had 
flown to Iran to try to secure the release of American hostages, 
and thereby imperilled a billion dollar operation of the Chase 
Manhattan Bank, he was chosen for crucifixion. None other 
than Nate Lewin, of the Department of Justice infamous Office 
of Special Investigations was hired to defend Hansen. Lewin 
charged Hansen a million dollars to defend him; Hansen was 
duly convicted on orders of Mossad for having dared to barge 
into the sewer of Middle Eastern political conspiracy, where 
he was not wanted. He served every day of his sentence, in 
the most brutal of the federal prisons, at Petersburg, Va., 
despite pleas from 258 Congressmen that he be released on 
parole. He was judged "too dangerous" to the minions of 


the World Order to be allowed early parole, despite the fact 
that the court records showed he had not profited from the 
alleged "violations." 

The brutal treatment meted out to Congressman Hansen 
alerted some Congressmen to the fact that they had to fight 
back or be destroyed. They now went after the most notorious 
of the wheeler dealers in Washington, the Democratic Speaker 
of the House, James Wright. Wright was one of the most 
dedicated leftwingers in Congress, and had upheld the Stalinist 
war against the Trotskyite Republican effort to aid the Contra 
movement in Nicaragua. A list of 69 ethical violations was 
drawn up against Wright, although the Wall Street Journal 
stated that the original list had numbered 116, but had been 
cut almost in half by those who wished to protect Wright 
from the consequences of his own actions. At the height of 
the investigation, Wright was further compromised by a family 
matter. His personal protege, John Mack, whose brother had 
married Wright's daughter, was found to have received ex- 
tremely favorable treatment after conunitting one of the Wash- 
ington area's most shocking crimes. In 1973, Mack had lured 
a twenty year old girl into the back room of a discount store 
where he was employed. He seized a hammer and smashed 
in her skull with repeated blows, exposing her brain in five 
areas. He then stabbed her five times in the breast near her 
heart, leaving part of her heart exposed, and then slashed 
her repeatedly across the throat. He then carried the body of 
his victim, Pamela Small, to her car, and drove her to a 
remote area, where he left her for dead. Amazingly enough, 
she revived some eight hours later, and drove to an Exxon 


station, where she persuaded the attendant to get her to a 
hospital. She then underwent seven hours of surgery; her left 
lung had collapsed and her heart required extensive repair. 
Mack was subsequently arrested, and powerful influences 
swung into effect to defend him. He was merely charged 
with "malicious wounding," and received a 15 year sentence. 
Instead of being sent to state prison, he served his time in 
the county jail, where he worked as a cook. Congressman 
Wright had written to the judge, offering Mack a job even 
before he was sentenced. With this opportunity awaiting him. 
Mack was released after 27 months. Wright obtained a job 
for him in the Congressional mail room at $9000 a year (the 
present writer earned a mere $1500 a year as a deck attendant 
at the Library of Congress, but had no Congressional patron). 
As Wright's influence grew, so did that of his protege. John 
Mack became the executive director of the Democratic Steering 
and Policy Committee, and was described by reporters as 
the most influential Congressional staff administrator on Capi- 
tol Hill. However, Mack's victim continued to live and work 
in the Washington area. Several years ago in 1987, Wright's 
office summoned the leading newspapermen in Washington, 
the Capitol Hill reporters for the Washington Post, the New 
York Times, and the Wall Street Journal, for a consultation 
on the Mack affair. The goal was to prevent an approaching 
firestorm about the Small assault. These reporters, including 
the CBS representative, agreed that it was "an old story," 
and that it had no foreseeable interest. The reporters now 
admit that "they blew it." What seems more likely is that 
they had the opportunity to curry favor with the most powerful 
politician on Capitol Hill, Jim Wright, who was third in line 


for the presidency of the United States, and that they did it 
the Washington way. 

When the story broke in the Washington Post on May 4, 
1989, the usual efforts at ' 'damage control' ' were taken. Wright 
issued a statement to the press that he was not "told the 
details of the crime," apparently giving the impression that 
he thought Mack had been charged with jaywalking. Wright's 
statement praised Mack as "an exemplary and truly inspiring 
person . . . outstanding . . . remarkable capacity for intellec- 
tual growth. ' ' Other Democratic leaders joined Wright in effu- 
sive praise for Mack's accomplishments. His wife was serving 
as executive assistant to Congressman Mavroules, a leading 
Democrat. In fact, Mack had exhibited the highest qualities 
for political activity, an instinct for the jugular, blood lust, 
and capacity for direct action such as cold blooded attempted 
murder. This writer has repeatedly lectured on the element 
of criminality in those who seek political office; Mack now 
verified the strongest statements on the matter. In the face 
of the Democratic chorus of praise for this remarkable human 
being, stories of other acts committed by Mack surfaced. 
The Democratic phalanx of defenders was shaken by the defec- 
tion of several radical feminists, who were alarmed by the 
fact that Mack had never apologized for his acts, or sought 
to make any restitution to his victim — she had taken care of 
her own hospital expenses. Congress woman Pat Schroeder 
and other women on Capitol Hill expressed their unease at 
having to deal with Mack in their political lives, and because 
Mack's defense of his actions had been that he had been 
under "stress" (Washington traffic is indeed very stressful), 
Schroeder publicly showed concern that he might again be 


overtaken by "stress" while she was in his office discussing 
Democratic Party policies of which he was the final arbiter. 
In the face of these protests, Wright suggested to Mack that 
he had better resign, a decision which was motivated by the 
fact that Wright was now battling for his own political survival. 
Mack's departure did little to help him, and Wright finally 
announced his own resignation. The Associated Press noted 
that he received a standing ovation from his colleagues in 
the House. 

Another leading Democratic liberal. Congressman Tony Co- 
elho, then announced that he was resigning as Democratic 
Party whip, and leaving politics. He found it difficult to explain 
his association with the junk bond king, Michael Milken, 
who earned $500 million last year, and who apparently tried 
to share the wealth by cutting Coelho in on a deal or two. 
The Post revealed that Congressman Tommy Robinson had 
a 22 year old model on his staff, who was being paid $60,000 
a year. He owed her father $100,000, (Jerry Jones, a wealthy 
oilman who owns the Dallas Cowboys). 

The Republican National Committee, in commenting on 
Coelho's inmiinent departure, responded to Coelho's spirited 
defense of John Mack, who happened to be his business part- 
ner, that it was the second time that Coelho had come to the 
defense of a man convicted of an attack on a woman. This 
was followed by an apology from the Committee, after being 
informed that the first time Coelho had defended a man con- 
victed of an attack, it had been on a boy, not on a woman. 
Such are the pitfalls of describing the public sewers of Wash- 

Although the press delicately refrained from dwelling upon 
the details of Coelho's intervention on behalf of a convicted 


felon, the New Republic, in its issue of June 12, 1989, noted 
that the Congressman had not only intervened on behalf of 
his business partner and personal political confidante, John 
Paul Mack, but also on behalf of David Weichert. Weichert 
was the son of John Weichert, a 1982 Coelho campaign con- 
tributor who had donated several thousand dollars to the cause 
of Coelho. He now asked Coelho to intervene on behalf of 
his son, who was about to be sentenced for the crime of 
first degree murder. This crime was brutal enough to be com- 
pared to the Mack assault. Weichert had kidnapped, tortured 
and killed a retarded youth because he feared the youth might 
testify against him in a burglary case. Weichert choked the 
youth, then stabbed him, beat him furiously with a baseball 
bat, and forced him to dig his own grave. According to the 
account of his accomplice, he threw the youth into the grave 
while he was still alive, seized the shovel and threw in the 
earth, burying his victim alive. Coelho immediately went to 
bat for the murderer, contacting the judge, and giving him 
to understand that as an influential Washington politician, 
he had a deep concern over this case. The judge apologetically 
informed Coelho that he could do very little about the sentence, 
as conviction for this crime now carried a mandatory sentence 
of life in prison. 

In the wake of Wright's resignation, columnist R. Enmiett 
Tyrell Jr. noted that one of Wright's aides had been imprisoned 
for tax evasion, while Wright's press aide and righthand man 
in dealing with the media, George Man:, had written a titillating 
work in 1982, titled "The Sex Book Digest: A Peek Between 
the Covers of 113 of the most Erotic, Exotic and Edifying 
Sex Books." 

The Democratic Party had maintained control of the House 


of Representatives with the coalition welded by Franklin De- 
lano Roosevelt in the early 1930s with the able assistance of 
Bella Moscowitz, a leading New York Communist organizer. 
This was a consensus of Communists, blacks, the Mafia, and 
various other special interest groups, which exercised iron 
control over the corrupt political machines of the nation's 
largest cities. Although this weird coalition could control the 
House, it could not deliver a Presidential majority, resulting 
in a Republican Administration held at bay by an activist 
and fanatical Communist and Zionist Democratic alUance. 
Paralyzed by this impasse, the nation sank into deeper disarray, 
its assets being stripped by a horde of eager aliens, while 
the infrastructure built at such cost and effort by previous 
generations rotted into oblivion, seemingly beyond repair. 

Alarmed Democratic leaders, with the blood of Robert Bork, 
John Tower and other Presidential appointees on their hands, 
now shrieked that the "feeding frenzy" must end, that the 
departure of Wright, Mack and Coelho should have satisfied 
those who mourned the ritual slaughter of George Hansen, 
Robert Bork and John Tower at the hands of a fanatical Stalinist 
Democratic Congressional hit team. However, Republican 
leaders noted that they still had long lists of other Democratic 
stalwarts with even longer lists of ethical and financial viola- 
tions. Despite the rape of justice, the struggle goes on. 

Chapter 8 

Durance Vile 

Our present custom of confining criminals in expensive 
prisons is a costly relic of humanist thought. It can be traced 
back to the Renaissance period in Italy. In the classical worid 
of Greece and Rome, society protected itself by killing or 
exiling criminals, or persons who presented a clear and present 
danger to society. The purpose was to remove a threat to 
the common weal. With the rebirth of humanist influence on 
society, a Phoenix-like revival of a cult which had been feared 
and hated by society since the blood thirsty rites of Baal 
and Ashtoreth, some five thousand years earlier (see THE 
CURSE OF CANAAN by Eustace MuUins), came the "com- 
passionate" pretext of preserving and coddling the criminal 
element. The thought of maintaining such a threat in perpetuity 
would have seemed the height of insanity to classical thinkers, 
who evolved the cultural basis of our civilization. During 
the Middle Ages, wielders of power built huge castles, for- 
tresses where they could defend themselves against their ene- 
mies. Deep within the bowels of these castles, dungeons were 



built for the incarceration of enemies whose sudden death 
might have unleashed dangerous forces; claimants to power 
or religious martyrs who , for various reasons , might be allowed 
to live for many years, but whose imprisonment itself consti- 
tuted a living death. 

With the growing infiltration of the Black Nobility into 
the European monarchy, the aristocracy was persuaded that 
the imprisonment of criminals could serve as a deterrent and 
a warning to others who posed a threat to society. The most 
famous prisons resulting from this concept were the Tower 
of London, and the Bastille in Paris. The Tower of London 
became the home of many prominent political offenders, in- 
cluding Sir Edward Coke. In France, the Bastille held a curious 
mix of hardened criminals and political offenders. The libera- 
tion of a total of seven prisoners in the Bastille on July 14, 
1789, which is now the French national holiday corresponding 
to our Fourth of July, resulted in the freeing of four professional 
forgers, one libertine who had been imprisoned at the insistence 
of his exasperated family, and two limatics. One of the lunatics 
was then carried through the streets by a cheering crowd. 
He believed that he was Julius Caesar, and that Rome had 
once again become the center of the world. The only casualty 
of the liberation was the warden, who was dragged out into 
the street and torn to pieces by the mob. Four days earlier, 
the warden had insisted upon the release of the Bastille's 
most famous prisoner, the Marquis de Sade, who had continu- 
ously floated notes from the window to the street below de- 
manding that he be freed. "Bastille Day" not only celebrates 
the triumph of lunacy and sadism, but also the triumph of 
the Masonic conspiracy over the French monarchy. Some 


sixty years earlier, the rise of the House of Hanover in London 
had installed Freemasonry in England under the royal patron- 

Early nineteenth century reformers such as Jeremy Bentham, 
the protege of the East India Company, and William Godwin, 
whose daughter wrote "Frankenstein," invented the intellec- 
tual foundation of a fantasy structure which was called a ' 'cor- 
rectional" system. The term "prison" was deemed too calum- 
niating; henceforth, "prisoners" would be known as "victims 
of society" who must be "corrected" and imbued with "cor- 
rect" social attitudes. Instead of society being protected from 
criminals, it was now the criminals who were to be cosseted 
and cared for while they prepared for the day of their revenge 
upon society. The heirs to the Cult of Baal, the humanists, 
claimed that "bad environment" created the criminal class. 
The removal of the criminal from this unfortunate situation, 
to a prison where he could be cared for, would "correct" 
his criminal tendencies. The humanists then developed a new 
social science, penology, which like all the misconceptions 
spawned by this new wave, psychology, civics, and social 
welfare, gradually merged to form a huge modem combine 
or trust, nurtured by the tax-exempt humanist foundations. 
Penology began with the praise- worthy efforts of a few consci- 
entious persons to alleviate the harsh conditions of prisoners 
in the early 1800s. Remember that life was harsh for most 
Americans at that time, and it was unlikely that prisons would 
be maintained with better living conditions than those enjoyed 
by the average pioneer. Conditions were slowly improved, 
but by the turn of the century, prisons had become part of 
the overall bureaucracy, which meant that they were part of 


the spoils system, graft, and political influence. Like insane 
asylums and other government institutions, prisons were turned 
into gold mines of graft for those fortunate enough to wield 
political power, most of the funds appropriated for the feeding 
and care of prisoners being pocketed by those who had mastered 
the democratic process. Faced with the difficulties of influenc- 
ing the bureaucracy, the humanists began to develop new 
methodologies in their campaign for prison reform. Their first 
discovery was that no human being should ever be incarcerated. 
This was hardly a revolutionary thought — ^it had been the 
precept of the founders of classical civilization. The humanists 
began to implement their goal of emptying the prisons by 
formulas for work release, early parole, and family furloughs 
for prisoners. The problem was that these techniques resulted 
in a dramatic increase in crime, and caused the prisons to 
become more overcrowded than ever. The humanists also 
developed programs of intensive psychotherapy for those pris- 
oners who were not yet eligible for the release program. The 
released prisoners, most of whom were recidivists, or habitual 
criminal psychopaths, committed horrendous crimes, which 
caused public outrage, and the demand that more millions 
be spent for police protection, and for the building of more 
prisons. Faced with the prospect of vast increases in their 
funding, the bureaucrats of the crime industry realized that 
the humanist procedures were indeed evidence of the gratifying 
results of the new science of penology. Burdened with the 
task of spending more millions than they had ever envisioned, 
the prison bureaucracy became enthusiastic converts to the 
obvious advantages of social activist penology. 
The "science" of penology came into its own after World 


War n, when a horde of rapacious humanists, who had been 
indoctrinated by the professional social scientists of the Tavi- 
stock Institute and its numerous American satellites, obtained 
lucrative employment throughout the prison system. The Tavi- 
stock Institute had been set up after the First World War, as 
a branch of the British Army Department of Psychological 
Warfare, to study the methods of controlling shell-shocked 
soldiers. Their purpose was to use these unfortunate victims 
of the war as guinea pigs, testing them to see how much 
strain was necessary before the average human would break 
under stress. The technique of Conmiunist brainwashing was 
one of the more successful offshoot of these studies. It spawned 
a host of refinements, such as "motivational technology" 
and "stress management," which educational and government 
leaders, and business executives, are now required to undergo 
at one of the Tavistock Institute spinoffs throughout the United 
States. The purpose of these brainwashing techniques is to 
trick the subject into admitting some sexual misconduct, a 
hidden fear, or other weakness exposing an Achilles heel by 
which he can then be "manipulated" for the rest of his career. 
The goal is people control. It originated in the Jesuitical tech- 
niques of the Inquisition during the Middle Ages, and is now 
the basis for the entire operation of the United States govern- 
ment, especially those departments engaged in "intelligence" 
work, such as the CIA, the IRS, and other conspiratorial 

The purpose of the Jesuitical confession is always control. 
For this reason, the American judicial system insists not only 
upon confession, but, upon conviction, an expression of re- 
morse. Many Americans who have been convicted of some 


political offense in our courts self-righteously refuse to express 
remorse, which justifies the gleeful judge in giving them a 
much harsher sentence than he could have pronounced if they 
had grovelled and spouted emotional recriminations. This was 
graphically demonstrated at the end of the political show trials 
called the Watergate trials. Republican political offenders were 
sentenced to long terms by a Democratically controlled court, 
the longest sentence being handed down to Nixon's former 
aide, G. Gordon Liddy, because he refused to recant. This 
religious error resulted in his spending many years in prison, 
which he might have avoided by the required cringing and 
apostasy. Even so, the process was more humane than that 
of the Middle Ages, where the prisoner was tortured until 
he recanted, and was then burned. 

The purpose of our criminal justice system is not to remove 
the criminal from society, but to find the lever by which he 
can be manipulated by the conspirators. His "handler" does 
not care whether it is sex, drugs, an irrational fear, or whatever 
weakness; the goal of the Tavistock method is to find that 
lever. Another key point in manipulating the subject is to 
convince him that everything that is being done to him is 
being done "for his own good." He cannot make any progress 
until he relieves his mind through the technique of "confes- 
sion. ' ' The appalling cynicism of these manipulators is beyond 
most moral individuals' capacity of understanding. They can- 
not comprehend the Satanic origin of these techniques, unless 
they are famiUar with the five-thousand-year-old Cult of Baal 
and the worldwide Canaanite conspiracy. 

Even after conviction and sentencing, the prisoner is still 
expected to offer continuous acts of contrition, which will 


result in an early release through parole or furlough. The 
result is that many prisoners "find Christ" the moment the 
prison doors clang shut behind them, the most notorious being 
one of the Watergate victims, Charles Colson, who was so 
successful in charming his way out of prison that he opted 
for prison religious work, rather than returning to his lucrative 
law practice. 

Although the prison parole system remains firmly grounded 
in bribery and political influence, the members of the parole 
boards still place great stock in Jesuitical expressions of contri- 
tion from those who seek release. Such expressions also offer 
a convenient screen for the hidden reasons behind the sudden 
parole of a notorious criminal. 

Because penology is based upon humanism, the modem 
version of the Cult of Baal, prisoners who have been accused 
of anti-humanist activities, such as religious belief, patriotism, 
or belief in the Constitution, are never granted parole. They 
always serve out their entire sentences. Such offenders include 
those Americans suspected of anti-Communism, tax resisters 
(who are often referred to by the servile media as tax "pro- 
testers' ' — it has never been a crime in the United States to protest 
against any tax imposition), and members of the white ethnic 
minority who have been indicted for "racism." In our legal 
terminology, a racist is anyone who publicly refers to white 
racial ethnicity. It is obligatory for blacks, Jews and Hispanics 
to constantly parade their racial loyalties, and to beat or kill 
anyone who criticizes them, actions which find instant approval 
in the media and in our courts. Should one of these activists 
accuse a white citizen of "racism," the white citizen is 
promptly arrested and convicted. The Department of Justice 


has publicized for years its policy that only whites can be 
charged and convicted of the crime of "racism." The present 
writer has letters from high ranking officials of the Department 
of Justice that the white citizens of the United States have 
no civil rights and cannot claim any redress for violations of 
civil rights. The Department of Justice apparently bases its 
stance upon the 14th Amendment that special rights and privi- 
leges were conferred upon blacks and other minorities, while 
apparently stripping white citizens of these same rights and 
privileges. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "privilege" 
as "the grant of a right," and also as "a grant of immunity" 
which the Department of Justice interprets as being conferred 
upon racial minorities by the 14th Amendment (passed under 
martial law, therefore invalid), but which is denied members 
of white ethnic groups in this nation. 

During the 1950s, the akeady outmoded and discredited 
nineteenth century humanistic claims of penology were ex- 
panded into increasingly vaporous and unrealistic programs. 
Prison guards were forced to endure extensive ' 'human rights" 
and "sensitivity" sessions by the Tavistock manipulators as 
part of a nationwide brainwashing diktat. Guards were told 
that they must address prisoners as "Sir"; they must never 
raise their voices to them, no matter what the provocation, 
and they must deliver printed menus to the cells before the 
prisoners were marched to the mess halls. A new California 
prison has developed an even more costly program, in which 
the meals are delivered by hotcarts to each cell! States domi- 
nated by the more humanistic conspiracies, notably in Massa- 
chusetts and Maryland, eagerly adopted the most extreme 
"advances" of the new penology. The Massachusetts program 


was so exhaustive that it caused a taxpayer revolt. It also 
cost its Governor, Michael Dukakis, the 1988 presidential 
election. A notorious murderer, Willie Horton, had been re- 
leased on one of the numerous furlough programs of the new 
penology; he promptiy killed again. The liberal colleges of 
Massachusetts had previously indoctrinated a horde of practi- 
tioners of humanistic penology, the most notorious being Dr. 
Norma Gluckstem. A leading radical at the University of 
Massachusetts during the 1960s, Gluckstem initiated a program 
at the university which gave students academic credit for spend- 
ing time in jail cells with extremely dangerous prisoners. The 
University of Massachusetts also promoted one of the most 
pernicious doctrines of Maoist Communism, that professors 
and business leaders should spend six months of each year 
in working at some form of manual labor. 

It was hardly surprising that Dr. Gluckstem would be ap- 
pointed head of the nation's most troublesome prison, the 
notorious Patuxent Institute in Maryland. Patuxent originated 
after some Maryland politicians went on a paid junket to 
Denmark. After the obligatory visits to brothels and pornogra- 
phy shops, the politicians realized that they had to justify 
their pleasant vacation at the taxpayers expense. They decided 
to ' 'study' ' some innovative prison techniques at a new institu- 
tion outside of Copenhagen, which treated dangerous offenders 
by psychiatric techniques. The politicians were immediately 
convinced that this program offered them considerable political 
benefits in a caring and compassionate nation. They retumed 
to Maryland as converts to the "new wave" of prison treat- 
ment. The result was that in 1955, the state of Maryland 
established what has now become the nation's most criticized 


and talked about prison. Salem A. Sarh, a scholar at the 
National Institute of Mental Health, who has studied the rela- 
tionship of law and psychiatry for thirty years, notes that 
"it was the heyday of the mental health movement. The feeling 
was that to just lock people up was not effective. You had 
to treat them." 

The "treatment" consisted of interviews of the prisoners 
by well-paid mental health experts, who asked them, "Do 
you think you are dangerous? Do you think you would ever 
rape again?" These interviews allowed those prisoners who 
were professional criminals to play the favorite indoor sport 
of our prisons, "Schmoozing" or conning the liberals. The 
prisoners immediately embraced the Tavistock and Jesuitical 
techniques of confessing what the interviewer wanted to hear. 
"I'm in jail because I couldn't control my greed," because 
of "my insensitivity," or "my self-destructive tendencies." 
"The only person I have ever really harmed is myself." Such 
"Stroking" convinced the penologists that the criminal had 
experienced a genuine reform; he was now a model prisoner 
who was ready to be returned to society. One of the prisoners 
who was thus returned to society was Robert Angell, who 
had murdered two policemen in cold blood during the commis- 
sion of other crimes. It was disclosed in November of 1988 
that this triple murderer had left Patuxent eleven times on 
unsupervised furloughs. He had killed a teenager in 1975, 
choosing him at random, and then murdering him, and he 
killed two policemen in Potomac a year later during a bank 
robbery. Dr. Gluckstem justified her decision to release Angell 
by her conviction that Angell was "a completely different 
person," who "deeply regrets" murdering three people. The 


Gluckstem program of sending the most dangerous criminals 
from Patuxent inaugurated a reign of terror and fear among 
residents of the area. Some people sold their homes and moved 
away, certain that they would never be safe while Patuxent 
remained a fertile breeding ground for crime. One prisoner, 
while on an unsupervised furlough, raped and killed an 1 1- 
year-old boy. Another prisoner, Charles Wantland, was pa- 
roled after serving five years of a thirty year sentence; he 
raped and killed a twelve-year-old boy in Clinton, Maryland. 
A few weeks later, convicted rapist James Stavarakis, whose 
earlier parole had been revoked, fled while on work release 
from Patuxent and allegedly raped another woman. Patuxent 
records proved that its inmates served substantially shorter 
sentences for violent crimes than inmates at other Maryland 
institutions. Fernando F. Stewart was paroled by Patuxent in 
1981, seven years after he had been convicted of the murder 
of a county police officer, and sentenced to life in prison. 
When questioned about Stewart's release. Dr. Gluckstem re- 
plied, "People can change." The Gluckstem program of daily 
work release, unsupervised furloughs, and early parole was 
compounded by intensive psychotherapy and peer counselling 
sessions. These programs were made to order for hardened 
criminals, many of whom had spent years in their cells boning 
up on psychological studies and psychiatric treatises on the 
criminal mind. They eagerly embraced the Jesuitical techniques 
of confession and recrimination as the golden keys which 
would unlock the doors of the prison. Because the Gluckstem 
method was tailor-made for the most ruthless classes of crimi- 
nals, the murderers and the rapists, its benefits were never 
offered to the political prisoners, the protesters and constitu- 


tionalists, who were forced to serve out their entire sentences. 

The Patuxent board was composed of Dr. Gluckstem, other 
Patuxent administrators, and law professors. Coming under 
fire for her policies, Dr. Gluckstem protested, "This place 
had a mission, whether you believe in that mission or not. I 
sort of was the caretaker of a historic institution. And when 
you see it being wiped out, there's a certain sadness." She 
was referring to the rising tide of public outrage at her methods 
of managing Patuxent Institute. Russell E. Hamill, vice chair- 
man of the Montgomery Criminal Justice Commission, said, 
"Public safety is too important to be left to psychiatry." He 
derided Patuxent as "nothing but a psychiatric sandbox." 
State Senate President Mike Miller Jr. said, "Dr. Gluckstem 
was a disaster." Refusing to express any concern for the 
victims of her pampered inmates. Dr. Gluckstem vanished 
from the scene. The Washington Post later found her in the 
liberal encampment of Telluride, Colorado, operating a bed 
and breakfast inn! 

After the unsupervised furlough and work release programs 
at Patuxent were ended in Dec, 1988, Jerald A. Vaughn, 
former director of the International Assn. of Police Chiefs, 
wrote an op ed piece for the Washington Post, Dec. 13, 1988, 
in which he pointed out, "The Willie Horton and Robert 
Angell cases are not all that unique . . . Last year alone, 
more than 200,000 weekend or multiday furloughs were 
granted to prisoners in our federal and state institutions. About 
.5% commit a violent act while on furlough, nearly 1,000 
violent crimes each year. Prisoners only serve 45% of their 
total sentence, on average. Prison furloughs in their current 
form undermine the integrity of our criminal justice system 


and make a mockery of meaningful sanctions against criminal 
behaviour. Government does have a moral obligation to protect 
the public from criminals adjudicated guilty of heinous 

Increasing public apprehension about criminals walking the 
streets after being sent to prison was reflected in the presidential 
campaign of 1988, in which George Bush, a pleasant but 
uninspiring candidate, faced a long uphill struggle to overcome 
the vast lead amassed by the Democratic candidate, Michael 
Dukakis. Dukakis had the media, the entire academic conrniu- 
nity, the bureaucracy, the unions, and the minorities, allied 
in the rebirth of the old Roosevelt coalition which had been 
put together by Communist leader Bella Moskovitz in 1932. 
This phalanx of political power seemed destined to crush the 
Bush appeal. A Bush adviser, Lee Atwater, finally became 
aware of the most widespread emotion in America, fear. He 
advised the public of the Massachusetts penological machine 
which had unleashed a horde of vicious criminals on the nation, 
the most notorious being one Willie Horton. The people re- 
sponded by marching to the polls, and voting against the 
criminal psychology program of Dukakis and his Massachu- 
setts leftwing demagogues. 

Nevertheless, penology continues to be a growth industry 
in the United States, with a number of private firms entering 
the field. The Corrections Corp. of America is the industry 
leader; its directors interlock with gambling interests and the 
Bronfman liquor empire. RCA operates the Weaversville 
prison unit in Pennsylvania; The Eckerd Foundation operates 
the Okeechobee prison in Florida. The prison bureaucracy 
has also developed its own version of the Soviet slave labor 


camps, called UNICOR. It produces 192 different products 
in our federal prisons, paying the inmates an average of sixty 
cents an hour. UNICOR states that it is a government corpora- 
tion, wholly owned, despite the fact that on Dec. 6, 1945, 
Congress passed 31 USCA 866, "No corporation shall be 
created, organized, or acquired by the federal government. 
No wholly owned government corporation shall continue after 
June 30, 1948. The private corporate authority of every such 
corporation shall take the necessary steps to institute dissolution 
or liquidation proceedings before that date." UNICOR bureau- 
crats are now demanding that the government double its prison 
capacity to fulfill its burgeoning slave labor contracts. The 
federal government is now kidnapping many persons and hold- 
ing them for years in prisons. 

UNICOR also has many contracts with government depart- 
ments. At the Lexington Federal Prison, HUD, the Department 
of Housing and Development, contracted with Federal Prison 
Industries, UNICOR, to process some 60,000 credit applica- 
tions for mortgages. Prisoners operating 35 computer terminals 
processed forms containing credit card numbers and other 
vital bank and credit information from the 60,000 applicants. 
One prisoner, Beverly Hirsch, was horrified to find that such 
personal information was being made available to prisoners, 
who could pass the numbers along to accomplices outside 
the prison. She talked to a reporter from the Lexington Herald- 
Leader; the result was that she was immediately placed in 
solitary confinement. Her security status was changed to a 
derogatory one, and she was soon transferred to California, 
far from her children and her recently- widowed mother. Prison- 
ers who run afoul of the penology bureaucracy receive the 


full treatment; loss of rights, "diesel therapy," that is, repeated 
transfer further and further away from their loved ones, often 
with months passing in which relatives do not know where 
they are; and "loss of rights while in transit." The U.S. 
Marshals Service uses more than 800 county jails as "stop- 
overs" for the victims of "diesel therapy." As a "snitch" 
on prison corruption, Beverly Hirsch will remain "in transit" 
for many months. 

Another wellknown prisoner, Rudy Stanko, has also been 
the victim of "diesel therapy," for blowing the whistle on 
UNICOR's slave labor practices in our federal prisons. Stanko 
has been the victim of "diesel therapy" eighteen times, some- 
times being moved from one prison to another three or four 
times in a period of two or three weeks. In less than two 
years of imprisonment he has been in solitary confinement 
472 days. The story of this "criminal" illustrates the depths 
to which our criminal justice system has sunk. Stanko was 
one of the fastest-growing meatpackers in the United States. 
A rival meatpacking group tried to force him out of business; 
when that failed, they offered to buy him out. He refused. 
He was then subjected to public pillorying by several national 
television programs, where ex-employees, who had been 
bribed by his competitors, claimed he had sold spoiled meat 
to school luncheon programs. He was then indicted and con- 
victed on the perjured testimony; his rivals took over his plant 
for ten cents on the dollar. Stanko wrote a book about his 
experience, "THE SCORE," for which the present writer 
wrote foreword. He identified his persecutors as a Zionist 
cartel, which enraged the manipulators of the secret govern- 
ment. Stanko was sentenced to a long prison term. There 


would be no psychotherapeutic coddling for him. His captors 
were told to give him the full treatment; continuous "diesel 
therapy," solitary confinement, and brutal mistreatment 
which, after some months, has caused the deaths of many 
political prisoners. Never having committed any crime, Stanko 
is at a great disadvantage in our prison system, which is run 
by and for criminals. To this day, not one ounce of "tainted 
meat' ' has ever been identified with his meatpacking operation. 
It was a classic example of bribed witnesses, professional 
perjurers, and dedicated opposition obtaining their goals. 

Federal Prison Industries is listed at 320 1st st. HOLC 
Bg, Washington D.C. 20534. In the Reader's Guide, prison 
labor is listed under "convict labor." UNICOR, as well as 
the privatization of "corrections" industries, is but one of 
numerous spinoffs from our crime problem. We have had 
enormous growth in police forces, as well as other parts of 
the bureaucracy. However, the greatest single beneficiary of 
the growing crime problem is the insurance industry. It has 
long been a truism that the insurance industry is almost totally 
dependent upon a consistently high rate of crime; otherwise, 
burglary, liability, and other profitable insurance lines would 
shrivel up. The media cooperates by dramatizing the daily 
perils of life in the United States, particularly in our larger 
cities. On Feb. 16, 1989, the Atlanta Journal headlined, 
CREASE. Law enforcement officials blamed most of it on 
escalating drug use and prisoners released too soon." 

On Jan. 27, 1989, the Washington Post headlined, "A 
Crime Wave Rattles Even Hardened New Yorkers. Fear Stalks 

DURANCE Vtt-E 329 

Subways." The story noted that there were 1840 homicides 
in New York City in 1988, a figure greater than that in most 
major countries of the world. Fear stalks the city so routinely 
that reporters are hard put to find more cliches to describe 
the situation. The Daily News headlined, "A City Under 
Siege, ' ' ' 'Three Long Island women, all of whom had obtained 
protective court orders, were shot and killed in a nine day 
period by their estranged husbands, who then committed sui- 
cide." The women were actually killed by government psy- 
chiatrists, who, under their new designation of "socially 
cured" had routinely diagnosed homicidal lunatics as present- 
ing no further threat to society, even though these men had 
declared their intention of murdering their wives as soon as 
they were released. The story continues, "A pregnant doctor 
was raped and killed at Bellevue Hospital, and police arrested 
and charged a vagrant secretly living on the 22nd floor. . . . 
massive publicity focussed on the trial of Joel Steinberg, the 
Greenwich Village lawyer accused in the beating death of 
his illegally adopted daughter. Two other small children died 
in the custody of parents whose cases were botched by the 
city's welfare agencies." 

More than fifty women have been murdered in recent years 
after their criminally insane husbands were treated and diag- 
nosed as "cured" by government staff psychiatrists. Hundreds 
of children have been killed after welfare agencies and suppos- 
edly well trained social workers demanded that judges order 
them returned to brutal family situations, where they were 
beaten and tortured until they died. The women who notified 
authorities that their husbands intended to kill them were also 
routinely judged by social workers and psychiatrists to be 


suffering fh)m delusions, and, most serious of all, they were 
guilty of "paranoia." Paranoia is one of the most serious 
charges a psychiatrist can make against you. It means that 
you suspect someone may try to harm you, an obvious delusion 
in this perfect world. In the New York Times magazine, Mar. 
19, 1989, W. H. Wash, editor of Psychology Today, offers 
an authoritative definition of paranoia, as "an elaborate and 
rigid system of delusional beliefs," complicated by "an elabo- 
rate and rigid belief-system." He states that a paranoid streak 
characterized such populist politicians as Huey Long, with 
their grand conspiracy theories. He informs us that a paranoid 
person has a rigid and judgmental thought process. (Rigid) 
is a favorite word of liberal psychoanalysts; it means that 
they must find a client who will hold still while they pick 
his pockets. He also tells us that the paranoid person character- 
istically exhibits grandiosity and hostility, and that paranoid 
delusions originate in one's self-dislike. 

Since Max Eitington, the colleague of Sigmund Freud, intro- 
duced psychiatry as a key element in the world Communist 
conspiracy, those who oppose Communism have always been 
diagnosed as suffering from delusions and paranoia. The great- 
est paranoid personality of all time, of course, was Adolf 
Hitler, who nearly toppled the Communist empire, proving 
that Eitington and his fellow KGB agents were correct in 
fearing the paranoid enemy. In the United States, any citizen 
who reports the Communist activities of government employ- 
ees finds himself facing a quick ride to the insane asylum. 
When a senior State Department official, Felix Bloch, was 
recently photographed handing over a briefcase to a KGB 
agent, only a paranoid suffering from anti-Conununist delu- 


sions would claim that he was doing anything more dangerous 
than exchanging family pictures of a vacation on the beach. 
We mention paranoia in such detail because of the psychiatric 
insistence that it is always delusional, and that it originates 
in "self-hatred," a mental problem which exists only in the 
world of psychiatry. The fifty women who were slain by 
their lunatic husbands after repeated boasts that they intended 
to do just that, were one and all dismissed by psychiatric 
experts as suffering from paranoia. Apparently it is a fatal 
illness, because they died of it. 

The crime problem forces American citizens to live in a 
constant state of warfare. The Washington Post headlined 
Jan. 29, 1989 that "Fear Leads D.C. Cab Drivers to Defy 
Law." Mayor Barry's scandal-ridden District of Columbia 
government had passed a law fining any cab driver $100 if 
he passed by or refused a "dangerous" fare. For "dangerous," 
read "black." The fact that D.C. Cab drivers now number 
97% black, and that they know what they are doing when 
they refuse a fare, did not prevent the Barry regime from 
labelling them as criminals. On Jan. 18, 1989, the murder 
of a 73 year old cab driver in one of the city's most crime- 
ridden areas, at 3rd and Underwood NW, in the shadow of 
the nation's capitol building, forced the drivers to become 
more choosy in accepting their fares. 

In recent months, worldwide TV news coverage, particularly 
in Europe, which sends many tourists to Washington, has 
caused the city to win the title, "crime capital of the world." 
No other city comes close to Washington's capture of the 
label, "the murder capital of the U.S." With 372 murders 
in 1988, and 120 more in the first few months of 1989, Mayor 


Barry moved quickly to staunch the flow of blood. He an- 
nounced that 25 police would be detailed to arrest jaywalkers! 
An estimated 10,000 jaywalking tickets will be issued by 
the alert Barry police force this year. Meanwhile, Sen. Mark 
Hatfield witnessed a shootout in the street near his office, 
but didn't bother to report it. He says it is so commonplace 
that there is no point in filling out a police report, which 
will promptly be buried. Barry will do nothing about the 
city's murder rampage, but jaywalkers have been placed on 

Because of academic inability to see cause and result, no 
one has analyzed the capture of the title "crime capital of 
the world" as the inevitable result of a previous crime, the 
illegal decision of the Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer 
in 1948. Because the decision was arrived at through the 
efforts of Justice Frankfurter's law clerk as amicus curiae, 
and his close connections with the organizations which had 
brought the suit, the American Jewish Congress and the Ameri- 
can Jewish Committee, the decision must be stricken from 
the record as invalid. The Court ruling which brought about 
the white flight from Washington, and the resulting crime 
wave, must be corrected. 

Although the Federal Prison Bureau has a good thing going 
with its convict slave labor program, there is no congruent 
resultant reduction in the crime wave. Time noted May 12, 
1986 that the going rate for prison work in New York State 
prisons was from 320 to 650 an hour. The paperwork for 
the Dept. of Motor Vehicles was being handled by the women's 
prison, the Bayview Correctional Facility. Time noted Aug. 
29, 1988 that an inmate at California's Lompoc prison had 


authored an article for the San Francisco Chronicle, "The 
Gulag Mentality" which exposed the slave labor operation. 
Indignant prison officials immediately ordered a dose of ' 'diesel 
therapy" for him. Martin was shipped to San Diego, and 
then to Phoenix. He sued for restraint of freedom of speech, 
but the judge refused to lift the orders of transfer, noting 
that it was "for the good of the correctional system." 

A recent study by the Rand Corp. shows that each criminal 
costs society $430,000 a year in loot. It costs $25,000 a 
year to keep him in prison, indicating that society saves 
$405,000 a year for each criminal kept in prison. It now 
costs $16 billion a year for the states to house inmates; about 
$1 billion per year goes for their health care. AIDS has pre- 
sented a new and even more expensive medical dilemma for 
prison authorities, as has the rapidly aging prison population. 
In 1987, there were 40,000 federal prisoners, a total of 533 ,000 
prisoners held in all U.S. prison facilities. There are constant 
calls for the building of thousands of additional cells. Construc- 
tion costs for federal prisons run from fifty to one hundred 
thousand dollars per cell, depending on how many Congres- 
sional relatives are contracted for the job. Offenders average 
187 crimes each, or one every couple of days, although some 
energetic offenders exceed this number. To fulfill the demands 
of corrections officials would cost $130 billion in new prison 
construction, with annual budgets for prison operation rocket- 
ing to from $36 biUion to $60 billion per year. Although 
this is still a reasonable figure as compared to the $249 billion 
a year we spend for defense, without defending anything, it 
would probably result in the United States becoming even 
more of a police state than it is at present, with the real 


crackdown wielded, not against criminals, but against "politi- 
cal dissidents." 

The direction in which government officials are likely to 
move was graphically demonstrated in the strange case of 
Congressman George Hansen. Hansen had violated the secret 
code of Washington, that no one interferes in Middle East 
politics without the permission of Henry Kissinger. Hansen 
tried to have some American hostages freed, and promptly 
became the only Congressman ever tried under the new "eth- 
ics' ' laws, which required Congressmen to report their financial 
dealings. He incurred one million dollars in legal fees, lost 
his home and all his possessions, and was locked up for six 
months in Petersburg, Va. which is considered the most brutal 
of the federal prisons. In contrast. Speaker of the House Jim 
Wright, accused of 116 ethics violations, which were later 
shaved to 69, was allowed to depart Sodom on the Potomac 
with not even a wrist slap. After serving his sentence, Hansen 
was then arrested for speaking at a religious gathering in 
Omaha, and flown back to Washington with his hands cruelly 
handcuffed behind his back. He was then held under a false 
name so that persons interested in his fate could not locate 
him. The Washington Post wryly commented, June 6, 1987, 
"If you believe the Justice Department, American streets are 
safer these days because George Hansen is back in prison." 
The Post pointed out that Hansen "was punished well in 
excess of his offense." In fact, he had never committed any 
offense, excepting his unauthorized hegira to Teheran. His 
brutal treatment was protested by 239 Congressmen in a peti- 
tion to President Reagan, and by 300,000 telephone and tele- 
gram pleas on his behalf. All were tossed into wastebaskets 
by the arrogant Kissinger-controlled Reagan officials. 


The dedication of the Department of Justice, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons 
to strictly political law enforcement makes it inevitable that 
these agencies must and will be disbanded, the sooner, the 
better. We cannot suffer the Department of Justice to continue 
as the private operation of the fanatical Zionist agents, Nesher; 
we cannot allow the FBI to continue to serve the Perverts in 
Power as a private political police, and we cannot allow the 
crime wave to continue unabated while the Federal Bureau 
of Prisons serves as a convenient place to stash critics of 
our criminals in government. 

Chapter 9 

The Case of the 
Strange Director 

On April 25, 1973, the present writer filed at the U.S. 
District Court in Washington, D.C. a three million dollar 
lawsuit for damages against the Estate of J. Edgar Hoover, 
the late director of the FBI. Within hours after the report of 
this lawsuit went out over the national wire services, L. Patrick 
Gray HI, Acting Director for the FBI, who had aspired to 
become Hoover's successor in power, hastily withdrew his 
name as a candidate. Already under fire for having burned 
stacks of documents from FBI files, Gray feared that he would 
be summoned to testify during the MuUins suit. He decamped 
from the Washington scene. 

I had initially filed the suit in Superior Coiut in Washington, 
D.C, but the Court informed me that they had a limit of 
fifty thousand dollars on damage suits. I had to file a Praecipe 
dismissing my own case, and refile it in the U.S. District 
Court. Although I was suing the private estate of a U.S. 



citizen, the case was defended by Harold H. Titus, the famed 
U.S. prosecutor of the Watergate trials. Presiding over my 
suit was Judge Sirica, also of Watergate fame. I protested 
the involvement of the Department of Justice, filing a Memo- 
randum to Cease and Desist, on the grounds that one party 
should not hire the counsel for the opposing party. I was 
paying for my prosecution of this action as the plaintiff and 
as attorney of record, but the Estate of J. Edgar Hoover, 
which consisted of the person of Hoover's consort, Clyde 
Tolson, was defended by the Department of Justice, the world's 
largest law firm, employing five thousand lawyers, and with 
72,000 employees to back up the lawyers. The problem was 
that as a taxpayer, I was paying taxes to support the operations 
of the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice 
was supplying the lawyer for my opponent. 

The five thousand lawyers at the Department of Justice 
have a long history of incompetence when handling cases, be- 
cause they are generally dominated by a small band of traitors 
known as "Nesher," the Hebrew word for "eagle." When 
Nesher called for the prosecution of some American for an 
alleged offense against the intemational Zionist movement, 
the Department of Justice was marvelously efficient, totally 
relentless, and avid in the pursuit of a conviction. However, 
on other cases, they have a long record of bungling, muffs and 
general ineptitude. This is shown by the files of my case; 
Counsellor Titus filed a Memorandum to the Court, noting that 
on November 6, 1973, defendant's counsel discovered that a 
motion to dismiss had never been filed, although one was 
prepared for filing on July 26, 1973! Counsel then requested 
that the motion to dismiss be considered timely filed. 




V. Civil Action 

No. 779-73 




On November 6, 1973, defendant's counsel principally as- 
signed to defend this action checked the Clerk's Office docket 
entries, as well as the Court file, to ascertain whether the 
Court had taken any action with respect to the defendant's 
motion to dismiss. Upon checking the official records, it ap- 
pears that a motion to dismiss had never been officially filed, 
although one was prepared for filing on July 26, 1973. Defen- 
dant's counsel believed the motion was filed in the regular 
course of business on that date, and no further action was 
taken by counsel pending a response and/or a disposition by 
the Court. Attached is a copy of defendant's motion which 
has been a part of defendant's file since July 26, 1973. 

Defendant respectfully requests that the attached copy of 
the motion to dismiss be considered timely filed. 

United States Attorney 


Titus then retired from the Department of Justice, on grounds 
of nausea. Other members of the five thousand Department 
of Justice lawyers arrayed against me continued their defense 
of the case. The result was, that without any court argument 
or any court appearance of the defendant, U.S. District Judge 
Joseph Waddy dismissed the case on Dec. 10, 1973. There 
had been no adjudication, no hearing of any evidence in the 
case, and no consideration of my Constitutional rights. The 
decision was rendered according to the law merchant as an 
equity decision by a United States Judge, on behalf of the 
United States, as Judge Waddy mentions in his dismissal, 
"the opposition filed by the United States." I had not brought 
suit against the United States; as a citizen of the United States 
I would be suing myself. The prejudice shown by Judge Waddy 
against me was not because he was black and I was white, 
although this may have played a role. The prejudice was 
based on the grounds that I was a middle of the road American 
citizen, and Judge Waddy had gone on record that he favored 
liberal or leftwing activists. When a number of rioters had 
been taken off the streets of Washington to protect American 
citizens and their lives and property. Judge Waddy had awarded 
them enormous sums of money as gifts from the government 
of the United States, for the inconvenience they claimed to 
have suffered by being detained. Judge Waddy did not wish 
to hear the evidence of the harassment and surveillance I 
and members of my family had suffered at the hands of govern- 
ment agents for some thirty-three years, harassment which 
was documented by official government reports, and which 
would have been submitted to the court, had I been allowed 
to present any evidence in this case. Prejudice prevented me 


from prosecuting this claim for damages, although damages 
were freely bestowed by this same judge on rioters who pre- 
sented a clear and present danger to the people of the United 

The stage was set for the actions which precipitated this 
lawsuit, when Congress created the "Department of Justice" 
on June 22, 1870, providing for a national justice system 
and a federal Attorney General. In 1908, in answer to inaudible 
demands from the American people for a team of "national 
investigators," Congress included in the Simdry Civil Appro- 
priations Bill for 1909 the funds to estabUsh a "Bureau of 
Investigation." The force behind this "demand" was a small 
band of Jacobins, or Masonic Canaanites, who wished to 
establish a national political police based upon European mod- 
els. These political police were intended to implement pro- 
grams designed and enacted by insidious international conspir- 
ators to enslave and rob the people of the United States. 
These political police were intended to punish opponents of 
these sinister programs. 

The then Attorney General, Charles Joseph Bonaparte, a 
member of the family of Napoleon, warned Congress during 
the deliberations and testimony on this appropriation that it 
presented a very real danger of setting up "agents provoca- 
teurs' ' in the investigative branch of the Department of Justice. 
Bonaparte showed remarkable foresight in 1908. The Bureau 
of Investigation (renamed the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
in 1935) became a nest of agents provocateurs under the leader- 
ship of J. Edgar Hoover, whose philosophy of ' 'fighting crime" 
was to ignore it, as political goals were all that mattered. 
His agents soon realized that they were expected to find some- 


thing to investigate on the political realm, and if there was 
nothing in this vein, it was their mission to create it, to plan 
it, finance it and instigate it. The FBI became the B.A.P., 
the Bureau of Agents Provocateurs. 

In March, 1909, the new Bureau of Investigation began 
its operations under Bonaparte's successor as Attorney Gen- 
eral, George Wickersham, a wealthy Wall Street lawyer and 
law partner of President William Howard Taft. The Bureau 
was still a modest operation, with only a few agents, when 
a young deck attendant from the Library of Congress joined 
it in 1917, apparently to dodge the draft. J. Edgar Hoover 
had worked on the decks at the Library of Congress for some 
years, attending the Georgetown Law School at night. After 
he had completed his studies, and qualified for the bar, he 
had the requisite qualifications to become an agent for the 
Biureau. In this position, he was also classified as a "vital 
government employee," and was removed from the lists of 
young men who were being drafted into the armed forces of 
the United States. 

At the conclusion of the First World War, J. Edgar Hoover 
became a flunky in the national anti-Communist crusade in- 
spired by Attorney General Harry Daugherty, and implemented 
by the Chief of the Bureau of Investigation, William J. Bums, 
who served as Director from 1917 until 1924. Bums was 
the most able and the most famous detective in the United 
States. He came from a family which had long been distin- 
guished in the profession of law enforcement. His father had 
been Police Commissioner of a scandal ridden city, Columbus, 
Ohio, where he finally sent many prominent officials to prison. 
William Bums himself, at the age of twenty-four, had exposed 


the election frauds of 1883. He made his national reputation 
by cleaning up graft in San Francisco, where he sent many 
corrupt officials to jail. He solved the Times building bombing 
in 1910, an act of terrorism which killed twenty people. It 
was Bums' brilliant detective work which sent the McNamara 
brothers to prison for this act of wanton terrorism. Bums 
then joined the U.S. Secret Service, where he uncovered a 
national counterfeiting ring which had been operating unmo- 
lested for some twenty-five years. In New York City, Bums 
made headlines again when he solved the murder of the notori- 
ous gambler, Herman Rosenthal, which culminated in a police 
lieutenant and four gunmen being sent to the electric chair. 
As the conclusion of the First World War, Bums was enlisted 
by Attomey General Daugherty to lead the battle against revo- 
lution in the United States. The Conununists, exulting in their 
heady victory over the Czar in Russia, and the bloody massacre 
of his entire family, saw the United States as ripe for a Bolshe- 
vik takeover. Their goal was to break down the orderly pro- 
cesses of government on every level, and to take advantage 
of the resulting confusion and demoralization of the people 
by instigating a national Bolshevik takeover. On June 2, 1919, 
during this battle, the home of Attomey General Mitchell 
Palmer, at 2132 R St NW in Washington D.C., a peaceful 
neighborhood of government officials, was blown up. Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt, who lived across 
the street, found bits of the bomber's body on his doorstep. 
This bombing was intended as an act of retaliation for the 
famous "Palmer raids," in which hundreds of wildeyed Com- 
munist revolutionaries, most of whom were illegal aliens, 
had been arrested. Congress, even as today, was pronounced 


in its sympathy for the revolutionaries. In a concerted counter- 
attack against the campaign of the Attorney General, the House 
Rules Conunittee summoned Palmer to a formal hearing, where 
hostile members of Congress denounced him for his actions 
against the revolutionaries. They demanded that the "rights" 
of the aliens be protected. Those who believe that Congress 
is only concerned with the problems of Communists saw the 
demonstrable proof of their beliefs in the Moscow show trial 
which Congress recently staged featuring Oliver North. How- 
ever, they have no knowledge of the fact that Congress has 
been relentless in defense of Bolshevism since 1920. 

As a junior assistant to Director Bums, J. Edgar Hoover 
participated in the Palmer raids. This activity enabled him 
to pose for the rest of his life as a militant anti-Communist. 
In fact. Hoover proved to be the Trojan horse in Bums's 
Bureau of Investigation. He had become the well-known ' 'pro- 
tege" of a prominent liberal in a Wall Street plot to destroy 
not only the anti-Communist campaign, but President Hard- 
ing's entire administration. This campaign culminated in the 
strange death of President Harding, the ' 'suicide' ' of prominent 
figures in his administration, and conviction of others, includ- 
ing Attorney General Harry Daugherty, on various charges, 
sending tiiem to prison. It was a classic demonstration of a 
Democratic Congress impeaching a Republican Administration 
and trying its officials on Congressional charges. Thomas Jef- 
ferson's principle of checks and balances, the three departments 
of government having equal power, was thrown into the waste- 
basket. Again and again we have seen this same technique, 
which resulted in the removal of a Republican president, Rich- 
ard Nixon, from office, and the imprisonment of his principal 


advisers, and the conviction and imprisonment of most of 
Ronald Reagan's closest advisers. All of these convictions 
were obtained by the spectacle of typical Moscow "show 
trials" which were made world famous by the blood-thirsty 
dictator, Josef Stalin in Moscow in 1938. Congress learned 
the technique well. 

After Daugherty had been charged, he was replaced by a 
wellknown liberal, Harlan Stone, who also happened to be 
the mentor of J. Edgar Hoover. The two had been the subject 
of ribald discussion for some months by the omnipresent Wash- 
ington gossips. As an astute detective. Bums was aware that 
Stone might be subject to blackmail, but he resolved to ignore 
the situation. He was stunned when Stone, as his first official 
act as Attorney General, notified him that the entire anti-Com- 
munist campaign of the government was now abolished. Stone 
disbanded the GID, the General Intelligence Division, which 
had been the backbone of the national drive against the Commu- 
nist revolutionaries. When Bums requested that he be given 
several weeks to wind up the work of the GID, Stone called 
him into his office. This was the provocation he had been 
writing for. He informed Bums that he was fired as Director 
of the Bureau, as of that moment. The audacity of this action, 
in summarily discharging the nation's most able detective, 
was typical of the arrogance of the leftwing bureaucrat. 

Stone replaced Bums with J. Edgar Hoover. At one stroke, 
a dewey-eyed young man of twenty-four, wistful and demure, 
had become one of the most powerful bureaucrats in Washing- 
ton, a position he was to hold for the rest of his life. Bums 
went to some of his powerful friends in Washington, complain- 
ing that Hoover had come in "by the back door" but he 


discovered that as a former officeholder, he no longer had 
any clout. He never again worked for the government, founding 
his own very successful private detective agency, which en- 
dures to this day. 

With Bums out of the way, Stone proceeded to enlist the 
entire Department of Justice in a massive frontal attack against 
members of the Harding Administration. This campaign was 
not only intended to punish the Harding officials for their 
prosecution of the national anti-Communist campaign; it also 
had a deeper and perhaps more vital purpose in staging a 
massive coverup of a number of billion dollar swindles which 
had been perpetrated as "national emergencies" during the 
First World War. The principal benefactor of this coverup 
was the Standard Oil interests; Rockefeller had double billed 
the military forces for billions of dollars in oil and other 
vital military supplies throughout the war. An investigation 
of U.S. Food Administrator Herbert Hoover was also under 
way, to trace the black market activities of his officials in 
sugar and other foodstuffs. The second in charge of his adminis- 
tration of the Food Administration had been Lewis Lichtenstein 
Strauss, who then became a partner of the Wall Street banking 
house of Kuhn, Loeb Co., the American representative of 
the Rothschild interests. Hoover himself had been a Rothschild 
agent for years, serving as a director of Rio Tinto Zinc, one 
of the three firms on which the Rothschild fortunes were based. 
There were also impending inquiries into the disposition of 
funds raised by the Belgian Relief Commission, which Hoover 
had headed for several years, and whose improprieties later 
became the subject of a number of books, among them "The 
Strange Life and Career of Herbert Hoover. ' ' An investigation 


was scheduled of the activities of Eugene Meyer, a partner 
of Bernard Baruch, and head of the War Finance Corporation, 
whose administration had printed billions of dollars worth of 
Liberty Bonds in duplicate, one duplicate being sold to the 
public and the other as asset to the Meyer fortune, which 
later enabled him to purchase the Washington Post, today 
the most influential political newspaper in the United States. 
There were also calls for investigating the activities of Bernard 
Baruch, who had served as head of the War Industries Board, 
and whose stock speculations in U.S. Steel and other munitions 
firms had made him one of the wealthiest men in the United 

All of these investigations vanished into oblivion, as the 
nation's press indulged in an unequalled orgy of media hype 
about a "real scandal," the Teapot Dome oil operations. To- 
day, many Americans exhibit a kneejerk reaction when asked 
about Teapot Dome, but they show no reaction to inquiries 
about the Rockefeller scandals, the Hoover scandals, the Meyer 
scandals, or the Baruch scandals. These were all shoved under 
the rug, while the attention of the nation was focussed for 
the next eight years on the "Teapot Dome" scandal. During 
all of this hype, the real story was completely submerged. 
Two competitors of the Rockefeller oil interests, Harry Sinclair 
and Edward L. Doheny, had been persuaded by Washington 
bureaucrats to engage in an act of "public service." They 
were asked, as a patriotic effort, to pump out a national oil 
reservoir at Teapot Dome, because geologists had warned 
that the oil was slowly sinking into a sandy substratum, and 
would soon be lost forever. Although Sinclair and Doheny 
were sceptical that they could afford such a gesture of public 
service, they were finally persuaded to proceed. They formed 


the Mammoth Oil Corporation, and leased Teapot Dome from 
the Secretary of the Interior, Albert Fall, whose name, as a 
result of this episode, entered the language as a "fall guy," 
or patsy, also inspiring the colloquial phrase, "to take a fall." 

On the advice of his departmental oil experts. Fall routinely 
approved the lease. At the time. Fall owned the largest ranch 
in the United States, Tres Rios in New Mexico, some 750,000 
acres, an area 55 miles long and 24 miles wide. Acting on 
secret instructions from Washington, New Mexico tax officials 
suddenly doubled the taxes on his ranch, an amount he was 
unable to pay. Faced with the loss of his holdings, Fall re- 
quested Sinclair for a temporary loan to pay the taxes, which 
Sinclair agreed to do. The Rockefellers then sent one of their 
more unsavory henchmen, John Leo Stack, on a secret mission 
to the nation's most unsavory newspaper publisher, Frederic 
Bonfils, owner of the Denver Post. Bonfils had become a 
newspaper publisher by a circuitous route. He had operated 
a lottery in Kansas City, where the ticket purchasers learned 
that there would be no winning ticket. Bonfils hurriedly left 
town ahead of a lynch mob. With his profits, Bonfils arrived 
in Denver, where he found that the local newspaper, the Post, 
could be had for cash. He bought it as an ideal investment 
for a new and even more profitable operation than his fake 
lottery. The Post became his personal vehicle for a lucrative 
blackmail operation. He would make up a dummy front page 
involving some local luminary in a scandal (the scandals were 
always real, even though the page was a fake), and send it 
to the victim, noting that a suitable donation, usually five or 
ten thousand dollars, would "stop the presses." The victim 
always paid up. 

Stack brought Bonfils an even more attractive offer. He 


promised Bonfils a cash payment of $200,000 to print the 
story of Teapot Dome. The account, as a Rockefeller operation, 
presented it as a terrible national scandal, the looting of the 
nation's oil reserves by unscrapulous profiteers. Other editors 
had already turned down Stack, despite the lucrative offer, 
because the story was obviously phony, and could result in 
expensive libel suits. Bonfils accepted the bribe without a 
second thought, and broke the story of the "scandal." Once 
he had printed it, other editors were wilUng to take their 
chances. At any rate, Sinclair and Doheney had no opportunity 
to sue anybody, because they were soon victims of the entire 
legal staff of the Department of Justice. 

Bonfils later complained that Stack had withheld $40,000 
of the bribe money; Stack claimed that this was his commission 
for acting as a bagman for the Rockefellers. Bonfils finally 
dropped his complaint, perhaps on the commitment from the 
Rockefellers to bring him even more lucrative deals in the 
future. The Dictionary of National Biography provides further 
insight into the swindles perpetrated by Bonfils and his long- 
time partner, Harry Tammen. They are memorialized by the 
historian F. L. Mott, in his "American Journalism; A History 
of Newspapers in the U.S. through 250 Years," as ' 'paternalis- 
tic pirates of journalism." Frederic Bonfils was the grandson 
of Salvatore Buonfiglio, a Corsican immigrant who married 
into the patrician New England family of Alden, direct 
descendants of John Alden. His grandson changed the spelling 
to the more French "Bonfils," and became an insurance agent 
in the Midwest. He made a small fortune in the Oklahoma 
land boom, and with this stake, he launched his own business 
venture, the Little Lxjuisiana Lottery in Kansas City. The 


purchasers of tickets were outraged to find that the lottery 
paid no prizes . William Rockhill Nelson , founder of the Kansas 
City Star, ran a series of articles exposing Bonfils. The result 
was that Bonfils was arrested. Judicious payments to law en- 
forcement officials enabled him to escape with most of his 

Bonfils then went to Denver, where he teamed up with 
Harry Tammen, a bartender at the Windsor Hotel. Tammen 
had a profitable sideline, selling fake scalps of Sitting Bull 
and Geronimo to Eastern tenderfeet who wandered into the 
bar. He also ran dog and pony shows, which he later built 
into the renowned Sells-Floto Circus. The Sells family was 
at that time the most famous name in the circus business; 
the fact that none of the family was connected with Tammen's 
operation deterred him not at all. Under threat of lawsuits, 
he finally made an agreement with a distant relative of the 
Sells family to use the name. 

After his success with the lottery, Bonfils was looking for 
something more profitable than Tammen's swindles. Tammen 
informed him that he could buy the Evening Post in Denver 
for $12,500. Bonfils bought it, taking Tammen in as his part- 
ner. They changed the name to the Denver Post, and began 
a free wheeling blackmail operation, which brought them a 
handsome return. Strangely enough, none of their victims 
ever attacked them, although they were both shot and seriously 
wounded in the Post's office. The disgruntled gunman was a 
lawyer whom they had hired to sue Governor Charles Thomas 
over a pardon which Thomas had failed to grant, presumably 
after having accepted the required investment customary in 
these matters. 


The Dictionary of National Biography notes that "the jour- 
nalistic operations of the pair became a national issue as the 
result of the Post's part in the Teapot Dome scandal." The 
DNB relates that after accepting Stack's bribe, Bonfils sought 
even greater rewards, by approaching Harry Sinclair with a 
proposition that the Denver Post would drop any further devel- 
opments in the story. Sinclair paid Bonfils $250,000, with 
the promise of $750,000 more if the Post refrained from any 
further Teapot Dome articles. Bonfils was not without his 
detractors among his fellow editors, some of whom saw fit 
to lay the full details of this arrangement before the convention 
of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. The ASNE 
carefully considered the evidence, which was overwhelming; 
they then declined to act, claiming that the bribe had been 
paid just before the national code of ethics had been installed 
by the association! 

The Teapot Dome story is still enshrined in our history 
books as "the greatest scandal in history," although it has 
become routine for contemporary journalists to award that 
title to another Moscow show trial, the Watergate scandals. 
A Democratic Congress luxuriated in the opportunity to drag 
former Republican officials in for the next eight years, and 
to hammer away at their "terrible crimes," while the real 
villains. Rockefeller, Hoover, Meyer and Baruch, snickered 
in the background. Fall was not sent to prison until 1931, 
some seven years after the event. He was convicted of having 
accepted a bribe from Edward L. Doheny, although, in a 
later trial, Doheny was acquitted of having given him the 
bribe! Fall lost both his ranch and his reputation. He died, a 
broken man, in 1944. 


The Great Depression, which followed these Moscow show 
trials in Washington, was the logical outcome of the deliberate 
manipulation of the national government, both the Congress 
and the federal agencies, by the sinister international specula- 
tors. These political show trials provided the ideal smoke 
screen behind which the manipulators could execute their long- 
time program of systematically looting and destroying the 
nation. During these Golden Years of the conspirators, J. 
Edgar Hoover flourished in Washington. He was the only 
bureaucrat who could provide a corps of political police for 
any purpose, providing that the customer had sufficient money 
and political clout. Hoover had come into office as the personal 
protege of a dedicated liberal activist who had singlehandedly 
eliminated the government's counterattack against Commu- 
nists in America. Hoover always remained loyal to his mentor. 
He found an able accomplice in his strange desires when he 
hired an up and coming young Washingtonian, Clyde Tolson, 
as his assistant. Like Hoover, Tolson had also been the protege 
of a powerful Washington official, former Secretary of War 
Newton D. Baker. As the "confidential secretary" to Baker, 
Tolson's duties had never been obvious but the association 
was a satisfying one. After Baker's departure from Washing- 
ton, Tolson followed Hoover' s advice and went to night school, 
obtaining his law degree as Hoover had done. Like Hoover, 
Tolson was also a dedicated Mason, active in the Washington 
lodge. In his entire career. Hoover accepted only one business 
directorship, as director of the influential and wealthy Masonic 
insurance company, Acacia Mutual Insurance. 

Hoover's rise to power in the Bureau of Investigation was 
preceded by his becoming much more active in Masonic en- 


deavours. On Nov. 9, 1920, he was raised to the Sublime 
Degree of Master Mason in Federal Lodge No. 1. In April 
of 1921 , he attained various degrees in the Royal Arch Masons. 
In July of 1921, he joined Washington Commandery No. 1. 
He was then named Assistant Director of the Bureau of Investi- 
gation, August 22, 1921. On March 1, 1922, J. Edgar Hoover 
joined the Almas Shrine Temple, and a few weeks later, he 
was given a commission as Captain in U.S. Army Intelligence. 

In "The Royal Masonic Encyclopaedia," Kenneth Macken- 
zie defines the Acacia as "the symbolic plant of Freemasonry. 
The Acacia, known as Jebbeck in Egypt, flourishes in the 
Levantine countries. It was the sacred wood of the Jews, 
called Shittah. "The acacia was used to indicate the place 
where dead bodies had been interred among the Jews." 

William Sullivan later stated in his revealing book about 
the FBI, "The Bureau," 

"But for reasons that were never entirely clear, Tolson 
rose quickly, and was soon working at the Director's side." 
Sullivan also commented that Tolson's sole duty at the FBI 
seemed to be to agree with whatever Hoover proposed. If 
Sullivan had intended in later writings to make the reasons 
for Tolson's rise to power in the FBI, "more clear," he 
was not to have the opportunity. He was shot in a "hunting 

While steadily building important political alliances in 
Washington, J. Edgar Hoover cultivated close relationships 
with the nation's leading gangsters. He ignored ordinary crimi- 
nals, while consorting with the family heads of the national 
crime syndicate. In a revealing work, Secret File," Henry 
Messick states, (p. 197), 


"Reinfeld had headed the Reinfeld Syndicate during the 
great days of the Big Seven, in partnership with the Bronfman 
brothers in Canada, and Longie Zwillman, 'the Al Capone 
of New Jersey. ' Much of the liquor brought to the East Coast 
was transported there by the Reinfeld Syndicate." On p. 277, 
Messick says, "The Reinfeld Syndicate was divided into two 
parts; the Canadian end was headed by the four Bronfman 
brothers, Samuel, Abe, Harry and Allen. They began as owners 
of a small hotel and ended as the richest men in Canada and 
head of Distillers-Seagram. It was the Bronfmans' duty to 
buy Canadian booze and ship it around the East Coast to the 
Rum Rows of Boston and New York." 

What was J. Edgar Hoover's part in all this? He began to 
receive substantial donations from the mobsters, and set up 
a private holding operation, the J. Edgar Hoover Foundation, 
as conduit for the moneys. He detailed his personal publicity 
agent at the FBI, Louis Nichols, (who later named his son 
after J. Edgar) to head the foundation. Nichols became the 
confidential assistant to the notorious Lew Rosenstiel, a boot- 
legger who became head of the Schenley Corporation. In 
this capacity, Lou Nichols was installed in Washington as 
the highly paid lobbyists for the ex-bootleggers who were 
now respectable liquor distillers, thanks to FDR's successful 
"repeal" program. Nichols used his Capitol Hill contacts, 
which he had developed during his years as J. Edgar Hoover's 
righthand man at the FBI, to save the liquor moguls many 
millions of dollars in taxes. He acquired large estates in Vir- 
ginia and New Jersey, as the result of his loyalty to the liquor 
kings. In 1958, Nichols was successful in lobbying an excise 
tax bill through Congress which saved Schenley Corporation 


fifty million dollars in taxes. He sponsored the Forand Bill, 
which extended the storage period for whiskey from eight to 
twenty years. As soon as this bill was passed, the value of 
Schenley stock increased sixty-seven per cent in value. 

Drew Pearson, the Washington scandalmonger who had 
become one of the incorporators of the J. Edgar Hoover Foun- 
dation, recorded many items in his diaries which he never 
published in his daily columns. He made an observation dated 
July 18, 1949, about a Syndicate operator. Bill Helis, who 
had purchased the Tanforan racetrack from Joe Reinfeld, the 
head of the Syndicate. "Now I understand why Bill Helis 
contributed three thousand dollars to the J. Edgar Hoover 
Foundation. He was a front for Reinfeld." 

On June 17, 1948, Pearson made an entry as follows: "Tru- 
man (President), complained about J. Edgar Hoover collecting 
gossip; he was particularly sore about a FBI report on David 
Niles about a love affair. ' ' The ' 'love affair' ' concerned Niles' 
perverted activities; he was a notorious homosexual, an alco- 
holic, and a Conmiunist agent. One of Niles' sisters worked 
at KGB headquarters in Moscow; another of his sisters worked 
in the headquarters of the Israeli Intelligence Agency, Mossad, 
in Tel Aviv. Niles boasted that he had all bases covered. 

To punish J. Edgar Hoover for having kept Niles under 
surveillance, Truman demanded that he furnish two FBI agents 
to accompany Niles each evening on his homosexual forays 
around Washington. While Niles lured a burly truck driver 
into an alley, the agents had to crouch behind garbage cans, 
remaining concealed until Niles had completed his work. If 
the truck driver threatened to rob him or beat him up, the 
FBI agents then rushed forward to protect him. 


Unbeknownst to Traman, his closest crony, Gen. Harry 
Vaughn, was actually J. Edgar Hoover's personal agent in 
the White House. Not only did Gen. Vaughn report personally 
to Hoover each day on what was being said and done in the 
White House; he also lobbied to advance Hoover's power, 
working with great fervor to persuade Truman to place the 
OSS, and later the CIA, under Hoover's control. Despite 
his great influence with the President, Vaughn was unable 
to persuade Truman to grant Hoover these concessions. In 
return for this valuable assistance. Hoover funnelled expensive 
gifts to Gen. Vaughn from his wealthy contacts in the Syndi- 

On Nov. 23, 1949, Pearson noted in his Diary that he 
had a phone call from J. Edgar Hoover demanding that he 
kill a story about a White House employee or go to jail. "I 
told Edgar he was nuts; Hoover said Steve Early made him 
do it." 

With Clyde Tolson at his side, J. Edgar Hoover had long 
been a regular visitor to the more lavish Syndicate vacation 
spas. The couple were a winter regular at the notorious Florida 
headquarters of the Syndicate, J. Meyer Schine's Roney Plaza 
Hotel in Miami. On the West Coast, they were wined and 
dined at the Del Mar racetrack because of its Syndicate connec- 
tions. In return for these favors, J. Edgar Hoover held national 
press conferences each year, during which he routinely denied 
that there was such an entity as a national crime syndicate. 
In response to an inquiry from Assistant Attorney General 
Theron Caudle (who later attained national fame as "mink 
coat Caudle' ' for his role in a payoff scheme), J. Edgar Hoover 
wrote Caudle a personal memorandum, dated Oct. 13, 1948, 


"Please be advised that a search of the records of this Bureau 
fails to reflect that Zwillman has ever been the subject of an 
investigation conducted by the FBI." As that time, Zwillman 
was reputed to be the No. 2 man in the national crime syndicate! 

In the fall of 1958, according to Victor Navasky in his 
book, "Kennedy Justice," fifty-two numbered copies of an 
FBI report on the Mafia, apparently prepared without J. Edgar 
Hoover's knowledge or consent, were distributed to the twenty- 
five top officials in the government who were directly con- 
cerned with law enforcement. This was the first time that 
the FBI had officially recognized the existence of a national 
crime syndicate. When he learned of the report, the day after 
it had been distributed, J. Edgar Hoover was furious. He 
immediately had each copy of the report recalled and destroyed. 
He denounced the report as ' 'baloney. ' ' It was never mentioned 

In the mid 1930s, J. Edgar Hoover embarked upon a massive 
public relations campaign, portraying himself as a fearless 
crime fighter wielding a machine gun as he mowed down 
the criminals. In fact, he had never fired a gun at anyone 
during his career, nor did he do so at any later time until 
his death. Pressure from opponents on Capitol Hill — at that 
time, he had not yet attained his later ascendancy over Con- 
gress — ^forced him to become more involved in criminal mat- 
ters. Longtime friends of Senator Burton Wheeler and Tom 
Walsh had vowed to get Hoover because of his illegal use 
of FBI agents in a frenetic campaign to have these Senators 
indicted on charges of taking bribes. Their friends made impas- 
sioned speeches on the floor of the Senate, not only denying 
the charges agednst them, but also making pointed comments 


about Hoover's lack of personal experience in the field of 
law enforcement. Although they avoided direct charges that 
Hoover was operating a political police force in the United 
States, one critic noted that it was a matter of record that. 
Hoover had never participated in an arrest during his entire 
career! Stung by this criticism, and facing a possible wide- 
spread demand on Capitol Hill for his removal. Hoover notified 
his agents that they should delay the arrest of any prominent 
criminal, his famous "Public Enemy" category, until he was 
summoned to arrive on the scene. A few weeks later, he 
received a wire from New Orleans that FBI agents there had 
trapped Alvin Knrpis, Public Enemy No. 1. Hoover flew to 
New Orleans, where his agents assured him that Karpis had 
indeed been secured. Hoover rushed up the back stairs and 
burst into the room. Karpis was already surrounded by FBI 
agents, who had disarmed him. Hoover tried to put the hand- 
cuffs on him, and was informed that no one had remembered 
to bring them. One agent whipped off his necktie, and the 
most dangerous man in America was hustled out to the car, 
his hands secured by an ordinary necktie! 

Hoover realized that Karpis could make the story of his 
arrest a matter of public record, if he was ever released from 
prison. The Director notified the Bureau of Prisons that under 
no circumstances was Karpis ever to be given parole. The 
result was that an embittered Karpis spent much of the rest 
of his life in prison. When he was finally released, he did 
write a book, in which he referred to the Director in unprintable 
terms, describing both his reputed racial origins and his sexual 

President Franklin D. Roosevelt considered Hoover's per- 


sonal life a matter of great amusement. Roosevelt himself, 
despite his crippled condition, was an inveterate heterosexual. 
He often regaled his dinner guests with comments on Hoover's 
personal life. After one of these dinners, the British Ambassa- 
dor noted in a memorandum to the Home Office in 1938, 

"FDR fancies himself the reincarnation of a Byzantine Em- 
peror; in keeping with this image, he has placed a eunuch in 
charge of his household, as Hoover's FBI is principally con- 
cerned with keeping the government employees in rein." 

Some of the more daring Congressmen on Capitol Hill 
were no less scathing in their references to the Director. Repre- 
sentative John Rankin of Mississippi, who was wellknown 
for his iconoclastic remarks both on and off the record, incurred 
Hoover's wrath by a pointed reference to requests for huge 
increases in the annual FBI appropriations bill. Speaking on 
the floor of the House, Rankin quipped, "A lot of these statis- 
tics sound like fairy tales to me." 

As administration after administration came and went in 
Washington, Hoover remained imperturbably fixed in his seat 
of power, seemingly impregnable to the changing moods of 
the voters. At the beginning of each new administration, there 
were loud demands for his removal from office. One of the 
more vociferous of President Truman's leftwing aides. Max 
Ldwenthal, rushed into Truman's office shortly after the demise 
of FDR. "Whatever priorities you may have lined up, MrT 
President," he said, "you must realize that at the earliest 
possible moment, you should remove J. Edgar Hoover from 
the FBI, replacing him with someone more amenable to our 
Democratic program. And you certainly must be aware of 
his ah, proclivities." Truman listened without comment. 
Weeks went by, and he took no action. Lowenthal had failed 


to realize that Hoover's impregnable position rested not only 
on the famed Black Cabinet, a file of photos and telephone 
tape recordings of Congressional sexual peccadilloes and finan- 
cial maneuvers, but also on the fact that J. Edgar Hoover 
was one of the nation's most powerful Masons. Truman himself 
owed his entire political career to the years he had put in as 
chief Masonic organizer for the state of Missouri. Hoover's 
companion, Clyde Tolson, was also a high ranking Mason. 
Truman ignored Lowenthal's demand. 

Lowenthal then wrote a book denouncing Hoover and the 
FBI, primarily because of his supposed anti-Conmiunist activ- 
ity. Like most liberals in the United States, Lowenthal had 
accepted without question the public relations campaign which 
portrayed J. Edgar Hoover not only as the greatest crime 
fighter in the nation, but also as its most active anti-Communist. 
This was the first of a succession of books on the FBI by 
Washington's professional liberals. All of them ignored the 
true basis of his power, his Masonic affiliation. Lowenthal 
would never have believed that it was Hoover and his mentor, 
Harlan Stone, who had successfully sabotaged the national 
campaign against the Communists in 1924. This movement 
lay moribund until Senator Joe McCarthy revived it briefly 
in the 1950s. Like his forerunners in this movement, McCarthy 
was hounded until he died in disgrace, having been officially 
reprimanded by the Senate of the United States for having 
dared to oppose the Communist Party in this country. 

Although President Truman officially ignored Lowenthal's 
book, his personal assistant, David Niles, wrote him a glowmg 
letter, "You are doing a wonderful service to the country 
by writing a book of this sort." 

Even if he had been sincere in his opposition to Communism, 


J. Edgar Hoover would have had to accept the fact that the 
new administration in 1933 consisted of a Democratic Party 
which had been captured by the fanatical Stalinist wing of 
the world Communist movement. Not only did Roosevelt come 
into office with a prepared agreement to officially recognize 
the Soviet government of Russia; he also surrounded himself 
with dedicated Communist espionage agents. His three closest 
confidants were Alger Hiss, later sent to prison for lying about 
his activities on behalf of the Communists; Lauchlin Currie, 
who was named by Elizabeth Bentley and other ex-Communists 
in testimony before Congress as a Communist agent, and 
Harry Dexter White, personal assistant to Secretary of the 
Treasury Henry Morgenthau in the Roosevelt administration, 
who shipped the U.S. plates for printing American occupation 
currency in Germany to the Soviet Union. The Soviets ran 
off some $35 billion in U.S. occupation marks, which enabled 
them to pay the costs of their occupation of Germany. All 
of these marks were later paid for by American taxpayers. 
Hoover's files bulged with documented information about 
the Communist activities of many leading members of the 
Roosevelt administration, most of which he prudently kept 
under wraps. Roosevelt understood the situation, and knew 
that Hoover, as an accomplished bureaucrat, would do nothing 
as long as the Democrats were in power. During the Second 
World War, General Wild Bill Donovan, anxious to please 
Roosevelt, staffed the new Office of Strategic Services, (now 
the CIA) with many known Communist agents. To needle 
his rival. Hoover sent to Donovan some of the more damaging 
dossiers about his closest lieutenants in the OSS. Donovan 
reported the ploy to Roosevelt, with the wry comment, "Of 


course I knew they were Communists; that's why I hired 

As a sop to the Stalinists who controlled Washington, J. 
Edgar Hoover hired none other than the founder of the Commu- 
nist Party of the United States, Jay Liebstein, or Lovestone, 
as the ghostwriter for his projected book on Communism. 
The resulting book was artfully titled "Masters of Deceit." 
Perhaps as a joke on Hoover, Lovestone had included in the 
book a complete Communist manual for organizing local chap- 
ters of the Communist Party throughout the United States. 
Hoover apparently remained unaware of the deception, proba- 
bly because he never read it. He was content to collect the 
considerable sums which the book, an immediate best seller, 
brought into his bank account. All of the expenses, including 
Lovestone's fee, had been paid from the FBI's special infor- 
mant funds. 

J. Edgar Hoover's famed state of chronic paranoia was 
not due to the fact that he suspected people around him of 
being Communists or Nazis; he was always suspicious that 
they might use their position to amass information which would 
help his enemies to get rid of him. His Maginot Line of 
protection against this much wished for event was his Black 
Cabinet of incriminating information on the leading political 
figures in Washington. Only his longtime personal secretary, 
Helen Gandy, had access to it. Jack Anderson and other Wash- 
ington journalists might boast that they could gain access to 
any FBI file in Hoover's headquarters by offering favors or 
a discreet payment, but none of them could get to the material 
in the Black Cabinet. When a new President came into office, 
J. Edgar Hoover always made a point of sending him over 


some of the choicest tidbits about his political rivals. The 
President would be made aware that if Hoover had such infor- 
mation on others, he probably had equally damaging informa- 
tion on the present incumbent. The ploy served both as an 
offer of ingratiation, and as a warning. Of postwar Presidents, 
Lyndon Johnson probably appreciated these tidbits more than 
anyone. Known to his political intimates in Texas as "Dry 
Gulch Lyndon" because of the fate of those who threatened 
his political rise, his personality was closely related to that 
of the Director himself, totally dedicated to greed, lust and 

Having secured the White House and Capitol Hill, J. Edgar 
Hoover was now free to indulge his inordinate appetite for 
luxury. He and Clyde Tolson continued to be wined and dined 
by the nation's crime leaders. A 1957 cover story on Hoover 
by Time magazine noted that when he and Tolson went to 
New York, they were usually met at thek reserved table at 
the Stork Club by none other than Frank Costello, the acknowl- 
edged head of the national crime syndicate. While Hoover 
was in Washington, the colunmist Walter Winchell served 
as the official courier between Hoover and the Mafia. If a 
particular "family" was causing law enforcement problems 
anywhere in the United States, Winchell would arrange for 
a family member to meet with Hoover at the Stork Club. 
With the gregarious Costello sitting in as referee, the problem 
would be ironed out in a convivial manner. 

J. Edgar Hoover developed a small circle of multi-million- 
aire patrons, who cemented the friendship by showering him 
with expensive gifts. Hoover expected nothing less than solid 
gold cufflinks, sterling silver candelabra, and rare Oriental 


carvings of precious jade. At Christmas, the unofficial president 
of the J. Edgar Hoover fan club, Louis Marx, would deliver 
to Hoover expensive train sets and other high priced items 
from the Marx Toy Co. , which Hoover, as Santa Claus would 
then pass out to the children of FBI employees. Marx had 
profited greatly from the looting of conquered Germany. His 
firm took many intricate toy patents from German manufactur- 
ers, and reproduced them profitably in the United States. 

FBI agents also were expected to favor Hoover with expen- 
sive gifts. One agent borrowed money to have a Persian rug 
custom made for "the Boss" with the initials "JEH" woven 
into the center. This agent later enjoyed a meteoric career 
with the FBI. Hoover launched the practice of an annual birth- 
day party at his office, at which the agents, who received 
modest salaries, were expected to present him with solid gold 
or sterling silver gifts. No one was compelled to do so, but 
those agents who ignored the festivities were sometimes trans- 
ferred to Boise, Idaho, the legendary Siberia of the FBI. 

Although no one ever dared to fire a shot at Hoover during 
his legendary career, he maintained at government expense, 
($30,000 each), a fleet of five heavily armorplated Umousines. 
Two were kept in Washington, one in Miami, one in New 
York, and one in Los Angeles. Hoover frequently circulated 
photos of himself brandishing a machine gun, although he 
had never been known to fire it except on the firing range. 

J. Edgar Hoover's gilded existence ended suddenly, when 
he was found dead in bed by his longtime housekeeper, Annie 
Fields. This unexpected event (he had had no previous health 
problems) was linked by Washington insiders to the Watergate 
scandal, which was then at its height. An FBI agent in Mexico 


City had come up with some photos which directly linked 
top officials in Washington with the inner operations of 
CREEP, President Nixon's confidential reelection team. Some- 
one apparently decided that Hoover could only be prevented 
from using these photos for his own advantage (that is, by 
offering them to the highest bidder) by bringing a halt to his 
long career. This was done. 

J. Edgar Hoover's last will and testament did little to dispel 
the Capitol Hill rumors and ribald comments at the National 
Press Club about his personal life. He seemed to confirm 
longtime conjectures by resolutely cutting off his relatives in 
his will, and leaving his entire estate, with the exception of 
a few bequests to other associates, to his consort, Clyde Tolson. 
Tolson was also named executor of the will. Five thousand 
dollars was left to his secretary, Helen Gandy; three thousand 
to his housekeeper, Annie Fields, and two thousand to his 
chauffeur, James Crawford. The millions of dollars worth of 
gifts which Hoover had received over the years were appraised 
at a fraction of their value. His important collection of Oriental 
jade, said to be worth more than a million dollars, was listed 
at a few thousand dollars. In the published list of the appraisals 
of hundreds of items from his estate, we find Hoover's personal 
gold FBI shield Usted at five dollars. A collector would proba- 
bly pay $ 1 500 for it. Hoover's leather bill fold with the Depart- 
ment of Justice seal set with thirteen diamonds was Usted at 
$50.00. This would probably bring three thousand dollars at 
auction. A jade Phoenix bird on stand was listed at $35. 
This would be a thousand dollar item. The appraisal, which 
was duly notarized by Clyde Tolson as "a true and perfect 
inventory" listed a collection of one thousand books, most 
of which had been autographed by the authors to J. Edgar 


Hoover, at one dollar each. The collection included books 
by a number of Presidents, from Herbert Hoover to Richard 
Nixon, and from many other prominent figures. At autograph 
value alone, these would be worth hundreds of dollars each. 
Dozens of sterling silver items were listed at $5 or $10 each. 
Two sterling silver candelabra were listed at $16 for the pair; 
these would probably bring $350. Fifty-two pieces of Masonic 
flatware, the "Royal Arch Mason" pattern in heavy sterling 
silver, were Usted at $166 for the lot. Four yellow gold Masonic 
rings, one with diamond, were listed at $80 for the lot. Even 
at these deflated prices, Tolson inherited more than half a 
million dollars from J. Edgar Hoover. 

Hoover's successor at the FBI, Acting Director L. Patrick 
Gray III, an AnnapoUs graduate, admitted burning many FBI 
documents. Hoover's secretary, Helen Gandy , appeared before 
a special Congressional Committee to testify that she had 
shredded Hoover's secret files, the contents of the dreaded 
Black Cabinet. Instead of having her tried on criminal charges, 
as was later done with Col. Oliver North, the Congressmen, 
greatly relieved, all but commended her for a job well done. 
The Washington Post, on Jan. 19, 1975, carried a lengthy 
story that she had given twelve file cabinet drawers of ' 'particu- 
larly sensitive files" to Assistant Director of the FBI W. Mark 
Felt, who was rumored to be the Deep Throat informant of 
the Watergate massacre. Despite this documented testimony, 
the New York Times carried a story from its huge Washington 
bureau on Feb. 9, 1975 that "Unconfirmed reports claim that 
Mr. Hoover's friends removed or destroyed the files in the 
hours before Mr. Gray took office." Apparendy the Times 
Washington bureau never read the Washington Post. 

Basking in the heartfelt approval of the Congressional inves- 


tigators, Helen Gandy retired to Florida. She died of cancer 
in an Orange City nursing home on July 7, 1988, at the age 
of 91, leaving no survivors. 

Clyde Tolson died April 14, 1975. The Washington Post 
printed a photo with his obituary, which turned out to be a 
photo of Louis Nichols. The error was corrected on April 
16. Like his friend, J. Edgar Hoover, Clyde Tolson also disin- 
herited all of his relatives. The Washington Post commented 
that Tolson's will, disposing of some $540,520 (June 22, 
1975), represented the Hoover bequest. Tolson left $200,000 
to other Hoover cronies; another $4,000 to Helen Gandy; 
Tolson's secretary, Dorothy Stillman, received $27,000. The 
No. 3 man in the FBI, John Mohr, was named executor; he 
received $26,000. Hoover's former employees, Annie Fields 
and James Crawford, received $32,000 each. One might con- 
jecture that these bequests, which deliberately cut off Tolson's 
relatives in favor of Hoover's cronies, could be considered a 
tribute to the late Director's memory; they might also be consid- 
ered a reward for continued discretion. 

A further imbroglio developed when Mohr attempted to 
carry out Tolson's bequest of J. Edgar Hoover memorabilia 
to "the J. Edgar Hoover room in the new FBI building." 
The problem was that there was no J. Edgar Hoover room 
in the new FBI building, nor was there likely to be, due to 
spirited opposition on Capitol Hill. A few Hoover mementos 
were on display in one area of the guided tour, but officials 
were wary of setting up a special room in J. Edgar Hoover's 
memory. Disturbing rumors about his personal life were still 
circulating throughout the city, and considerable opposition 
had been voiced by Congressmen, media personalities and 


other spokesmen. They feared that at any moment, a national 
news story might break, which would document the rumors 
about Hoover's personal life. This might necessitate renaming 
the building, and declaring J. Edgar Hoover a "nonperson," 
in the accepted Stalinist style. The present writer had already 
filed a lawsuit against the estate of J. Edgar Hoover, and 
the possibility of a court hearing, and the presentation of 
witnesses and documented evidence, caused some Congress- 
men to demand that the new FBI building should not bear J. 
Edgar Hoover's name. The media cooperated in banning all 
further mention of my lawsuit, while the United States court 
system closed ranks to prevent any trial of the action. It was 
quietly dismissed, with no evidence, no witnesses, nor this 
writer ever being permitted to enter the courtroom. Justice 
(the Department of Justice, that is) had been served. 

The only living person who had dared to oppose J. Edgar 
Hoover at the FBI had been given the bum's rush by Hoover 
when Sullivan, who had long been the No. 2 man at the 
FBI, finally summoned up the courage to ask Hoover just 
when he planned to retire and relinquish his position to Sulli- 
van. For eight consecutive years, Hoover had made a solemn 
pledge to Sullivan at the beginning of each new year, that 
this would be his last year at the FBI, and that his only 
desire was to retire and live quietly at home with his pet 
dogs. The morning after Sullivan delivered what amounted 
to an ultimatum to Hoover, he arrived at the FBI headquarters 
to find that the locks had been changed on his door. His 
parking space and secretary were gone, and his personal effects 
were later delivered to him by a flunky. 

Sullivan later wrote a revealing book about the Boss, which 


was published under the title, "The Bureau." It skirted many 
important issues, which Sullivan had planned to treat in a 
later and more startling book. Sullivan had been Hoover's 
personal choice for the director of the controversial COINTEL- 
PRO program, a campaign of unparalleled hatred and vindic- 
tiveness against targets chosen by Hoover himself, including 
the present writer. In 1977, Sullivan was to be subpoenaed 
about COINTELPRO's operations, which included many ille- 
gal acts, including political conspiracy, black bag jobs or 
burglaries, the manufacture of phony evidence, and stories 
planted to harass innocent victims, illegal wiretaps, seizure 
of mail, and many other crimes which had led to great suffering 
and often death of the victims. Many details of the COINTEL- 
PRO operations were contained in some 52,000 pages of FBI 
files which had been obtained by the Citizens Investigation 
Bureau of Ohio through the Freedom of Information Act. 
Shortly before he was due to testify about COINTELPRO, 
Sullivan was shot and killed in a mysterious "hunting acci- 
dent." He was shot in an open field, in broad daylight, ostensi- 
bly by the son of a law enforcement official, while wearing 
bright red safety hunting clothes. The "accident" occurred 
when a shot was fired from a high powered rifle, using a 
telescopic sight. It had all the manifestations of a professional 
hit job, but the FBI resolutely resisted all demands for an 
official investigation into the death of its former No. 2 official, 
claiming that it was "a local matter." 

Hoover's successor, L. Patrick Gray III, hurriedly decamped 
when the present writer filed suit against Hoover's estate. 
He was replaced by a former FBI agent, Clarence Kelley, 
who was then serving as the police chief of Kansas City. 


Kansas City was a notorious Mafia controlled city, yet Kelley's 
wife refused to move to Washington, claiming that the city 
had too high a crime rate. (It was only a fraction of the 
present rate, which has won Washington the title of "murder 
capital of the world.") Kelley had to go home to Kansas 
City every weekend, leaving the running of the FBI to Hoover's 
longtime cronies. 

The Bureau was then presented to a federal judge with 
liberal credentials, William Webster, whom the present writer 
also sued for thirty-three years of harassment and surveillance. 
Webster was moved to the CIA, and replaced by another 
judge, a Texas protege of Senator John Tower, William Ses- 
sions. He also became known as an absentee director, spending 
most of his time travelling around the United States and visiting 
the field offices. The FBI was run in his absence by one of 
the old crowd. Assistant Director Buck Revell. Oliver (Buck) 
Revell, one of the FBI's Old Guard, had been in line for 
the position of director when Webster left for the CIA. He 
had developed a close relationship with Col. Oliver North; 
when the Iran-Contra story broke in Washington, Revell was 
deemed to be too compromised by this relationship, and was 
passed over in favor of Sessions. After repeated criticism of 
Sessions as an absentee director, and newspaper stories that 
Revell was actually running the FBI, Sessions hurriedly named 
a new Assistant Director, and suggested that Revell should 

Chapter 10 

The Strange Case of 

the Schizophrenic 


In 1979, the war of attrition against me was intensified by 
furtive officials lurking on my home front. I was arrested 
and charged with driving 50 mph in a 35 mph zone. At the 
time, I was driving about 4 mph, trying to locate a side street 
on which I wished to turn. I was convicted and fined in a 
local court, as the scene was described in a letter to the local 
newspaper under the heading "Shades of the Old West." 

"Admirers of the code of the Old West and the rough- 
and-ready six-gun justice administered by such courts as Judge 
Roy Bean's might not realize that this era has not yet vanished 
from American life. I had a taste of it when I answered a 
speeding charge in a local court. Although my case was posted 
as first on the docket, I sat on the bench for three hours, 
while every other case was heard. The court was then cleared 



of 'civilians,' that is, anyone who niight later corroborate 
my version of events. Apparently I am reputed to be very 
dangerous, as I gave my testimony in an otherwise empty 
courtroom, surrounded by heavily armed bailiffs. . . . The 
nearest 35 mph sign is 1.1 miles away, but a 55 mph sign 
is clearly visible where I was stopped. The officer falsely 
testified that this 55 mph sign was 'out of sight on the other 
side of the hill.' Judge Roy Bean, where are you?" 

I sued the Mayor and the Chief of Police, who then answered 
under oath that they had no responsibility for the actions of 
any policeman in the city. They requested a Bill of Particulars, 
which I filed, stating in part, 

"1. As a chief instigator and prosecutor of government 
officials in the Nuremberg Trials in Nuremberg, Germany, 
the Federal Government of the Utiited States firmly established 
as legal precedent the precept that officials such as city mayors 
and police are wholly responsible, actionable and Uable under 
a law for acts committed by their agents and underlings whether 
said officials have specifically commissioned and required such 
acts from said underlings or not, and the Federal Government 
of the United States convicted said officials and exacted the 
death penalty although none of the said officials had personally 
participated in the acts of which they were accused. The indi- 
cated defendants, while not personally present at the scene 
of the acts of assault against plaintiff, did commission, instruct, 
uniform and send forth yon arresting officer to commit said 
acts against plaintiff and defendants, by the precedents estab- 
lished as law at the Nuremberg Trials, and by numerous other 
legal precedents, are wholly and fully Uable for acts committed 
against plaintiff by their official, conmiissioned, assigned and 


instructed uniformed agents. . . . According to the Precepts 
of the Nuremberg Trials, defendants are wholly and legally 
liable and answerable for impeding plaintiff's progress on a 
public street, and defendants have no evidence and cannot 
exhibit any evidence that plaintiff was in violation of any 
law when his progress was impeded by an armed agent of 
defendants on a public street." 

This case also dragged on for some three years; much of 
plaintiff's complaint was printed verbatim in the local press. 
An interesting development occurred when the judge refused 
to grant a demurrer, (a dismissal as insufficient cause of action) 
for the city. He was exiled to a remote village where, presum- 
ably, he remains today. A "ringer" was brought in on the 
day of the trial, as a more malleable substitute. He allowed 
me to testify, and then granted a motion to dismiss by the 
city attorney. He benignly announced that I now "had had 
my day in court," a half hour having elapsed since the trial 
began. I filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment, which was rou- 
tinely denied. 


Now comes plaintiff, Eustace C. Mullins, as attorney pro 
se, and respectfully moves the Court to Vacate the judgment 
of February 11, 1982 in this action, on the following grounds: 

1. 49 Corpus Juris Secundum 265. "Courts of record or 
of general jurisdiction have inherent power to vacate or set 
aside their own judgments." Pavelka v. Overton, Civ. App. 
47 S.W.2d 369. 

2. 88 Corpus Juris Secundum 139. "A motion to strike 


evidence is premature if addressed to evidence, the competency 
or relevancy of which may thereafter be made to appear." 
Keber v. American Stores Co. 184 A.795, 116 N.J. Law 
437. And plaintiff deposes that the competency and relevancy 
of his testimony would have been corroborated by the testimony 
and subsequent cross-examination of the defendants in this 
action, and that the premature motion of the defendant to 
strike plaintiff's evidence and dismiss this action prevented 
plaintiff from curing any defects in his evidence. 30 A Corpus 
Juris Secundum, 262. Equity. "Defects cured by subsequent 
pleadings, proof or proceedings. Aided by the evidence." 
Kemp V. Kemp, 63 So. 2d 702, 703, 258 Ala. 570. 

3. 88 Corpus Juris Secundum 143. "A motion to strike 
evidence is too broad where a part thereof is admissible and 
the motion does not point out specifically the particular part 
objected to." Paparazzo v. Perpel, 84 A.2d 11, 16 N.J. Super 
128. And plaintiff deposes that defendant's motion to strike 
was too broad, and flawed in that it did not specifically cite 
any part or parts of plaintiff's evidence as grounds for said 

4. 88 Corpus Juris Secundum 144. "Unless the right to 
have the evidence stricken clearly appears, the court is not 
bound to strike it." Scarlett v. Young, 183 A. 129, 170 Md. 
358. And plaintiff deposes that defendant's motion to strike, 
being flawed, the Court was not bound to grant it. 

5. 88 Corpus Juris Secundum 134. "As a general rule, 
evidence competent for any purpose and relevant to any issue 
should not be stricken." Lewes Sand Co. v. Craves, 8 A. 2d, 
21 1 Terry 189. "The fact that evidence does not come up 
to the offer of proof, provided it is material, does not constitute 


ground for striking it." Smith v. Martin, 106 A. 666, 93 
Vt. 111. And plaintiff avers that his evidence was competent 
and relevant to the issues in this action, and that it was material, 
and that it should not have been stricken. 

6. 88 Corpus Juris Secundum 237. "A motion to strike 
or exclude all the evidence, sanctioned imder the practice of 
some states, is in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence 
and had the effect of such a demurrer in so far as it tests the 
sufficiency of the evidence." McCauU-Dinsmore Co. v. Ste- 
vens. 194 P.243. 59 Mont. 206, 64 C.J.P. 390 note 62. "It 
must be tested by the same rules as a demurrer to the evidence. ' ' 
Hawley v. Dawson, 18 P. 592, 16 Or. 344. "A motion to 
strike all evidence of the plaintiff from the tecord on the 
ground that the petition has failed to show a cause of action 
is not the equivalent of a motion to dismiss, with a statute 
providing for such a motion after plaintiff has completed pre- 
senting of his evidence." Munday v. Austin, 218 S.W. 2d 
624, 358 Mo. 959. And plaintiff deposes that defendant had 
previously submitted a Demurrer on the same grounds and 
that the Court had on September 14, 1981 denied defendant's 
Demurrer. 88 Corpus Juris Secundum 235. "A demurrer is 
properly overruled where the petition is sustained by competent 
evidence." Cargill Commission Co. v. Mowery, 161 P.634, 
162 P. 313, 99 Kan. 389. Thus we have a situation where 
plaintiffs evidence is ruled competent on September 14, 1981, 
and the same evidence is ruled incompetent in the same Court 
on February 11, 1982. 

7. "Demurrers are no favorites of courts of equity." Harlan 
V. Lee, 9 A. 2d 839, 177 Md. 437. Plaintiff, after defendant's 
motion to strike his evidence, pointed out to the Court that 


defendant's motion was in the nature of a demurrer, as cited 
above in par. 6, and that said demurrer had already been 
denied by the Court, but the Court took the position that 
defendant's motion to strike was not in the nature of a demurrer, 
and plaintiff prays the Court whether its decision of September 
14, 1981 denying the demurrer should not take precedure 
over its decision of February 11, 1982 to grant a motion to 
strike plaintiffs evidence, said motion being in the nature of 
a demmxer. 

8. 88 Corpus Juris Secundum 237. "A motion by defendant 
to strike plaintiff's evidence should be reserved until plaintiff 
has rested his case." Burke v. Gale, 67 S.E. 2d 917, 193 
Va. 130. And plaintiff did not state that he had rested his 
case, as plaintiff was expecting to make more of his evidence 
explicated to the jury during the cross-examination by defen- 
dant, which cross-examination was not forthcoming, and by 
plaintiff's cross-examination of the defendants, and said motion 
by defendant to strike plaintiff's evidence, which was not 
complete, constituted denial of due process. 16A Corpus Juris 
Secundum 591. "Suppression of evidence may be a denial 
of due process where it is vital evidence, material to the 
issue of guilt or penalty." Thompson v. People, 102 N.E.2d 
315, 410 III. 256. 

9. Defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs evidence, and 
to dismiss this cause, constituted irregular judicial proceedings 
because plaintiff had no prior notice of defendant's motion 
or any opportunity to prepare to argue it. Although said motion 
does not in itself constitute "surprise" in its judicial definition, 
in this instance it definitely qualified as surprise because plain- 
tiff, having already seen defendant's demurrer denied by this 


Court, had no occasion to expect or to prepare for a motion 
to strike plaintiif's evidence which was "in the nature of a 

10. "The declaration, complaint, or petition, or a count 
thereof, will be sustained if it is good on any theory." City 
of Madison v. Drew, 265 N.W. 683, 220 Wis. 511, 104 
A.L.R. 1387. And plaintiff avers that he was and is prepared 
to sustain all counts of his petition before a jury. In his opening 
statement to the jury, plaintiff stated that the jury would be 
asked to decide fundamental features of oiu- civil law , including 
the question of agency, violations of civil rights, involuntary 
servitude, the right to due process, the right to equal protection 
of the laws, and a consideration of whether radar, admittedly 
hearsay, could be accepted as valid evidence. Yet the jury 
was not allowed to consider or decide any of these questions. 

11. Defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs evidence and 
to dismiss this cause was based on the claim that defendants 
had no connection with this cause, which in effect denied 
the entue body of civil law which enunciates the doctrine of 
agency. "The master made the pledge of his servants. Omnes 
qui servientes habent." Edward the Confessor, Bract, fol. 124 
b. "If I make a deputy, I am always officer, and he performs 
the office in my right and as my servant." Y.B. 11 Edward 

IV. 1, pl.l. "The driving of the servant is the driving of 
the master." Smith v. Shepherd, Cro.Eliz. 710; M. 41 & 
42 Eliz. B. R. "Under Charles 11 it was laid down that the 
high sheriff and the under sheriff are one officer." Cremer 

V. Humberston, 2 Keble, 352 (H.19 & 20 Car. II). "For all 
civil purposes the act of the sheriff's bailiff is the act of the 
sheriff." Lord Mansfield. Ackworth v. Kempe, Douglas 40, 


42 (M.19 G.m, 1778). 2A Corpus Juris Secundum 1. "The 
law of agency is based on the Latin Maxim, 'Qui facit per 
allum, facit per se.', which may be translated 'One acting 
by another is acting for himself.' " Gustavson v. Rajkovich, 
263 P.2d 540, 96 Aris. 280. 27A Corpus Juris Secundum 4. 
Agency. "In its broadest sense, it includes every relation in 
which one person acts for or represents another by his author- 
ity." State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Industrial Accident Commis- 
sion, 14 P.2d, 306, 310, 216 Cal. 351. Yet defendant has 
this action dismissed on the claim that the Chief of Police 
of Waynesboro has nothing to do with any activity of the 
Waynesboro Police Department! 

12. 88 Corpus Juris Secundum 136. Trial. "As a general 
rule, where a party consents to the introduction of evidence 
or where no objection is made to evidence when offered, or 
to a question when asked, or no proper or timely objection 
(Lewis V. ShiflFers, Mun. App. 67 A. 2d 269) or no proper 
or timely objection, specifying the grounds thereof, is made 
(Berry v. Adams, App. 71 S.W. 2d 126, a motion made, 
after the evidence is admitted or the question answered, to 
strike may properly be denied." Terwilliger v. Long Island 
R.R. Co. 136 N.Y.S. 733, 152 App. Div. 168, affirmed 
106 N.E. 1114, 209 N.Y. 522. And plaintiff deposes that at 
no time during plaintiff's opening statement to the jury or 
his subsequent testimony did the defense offer any proper or 
timely objection to any of plaintiff's testimony, yet the defense 
then moved to strike all of plaintiff's testimony in toto, no 
prior objection having been made to any of it, and to obtain 
a dismissal of this cause thereby. 

13. The decision of the Court to dismiss this action was 


also partially based on the cited refusal of the plaintiff to 
appeal his conviction in Waynesboro District Court on July 
16, 1979, but at that time plaintiff had akeady filed his Motion 
for Judgment with the Circuit Court of the City of Waynesboro, 
which would have heard said appeal, and said Motion for 
Judgment dealt with the question of plaintiffs guilt or inno- 
cence of the speeding charge, and said question was sub judice 
in the Waynesboro Circuit Court during the entire period when 
plaintiff supposedly had refused to refer said action to the 
Waynesboro Circuit Court, thus the Waynesboro Circuit Court 
dismisses an action for failure to appeal it to the Waynesboro 
Circuit Court, when the question was before the Waynesboro 
Circuit Court during the entire period. 

14. The decision of the Court to dismiss this action on 
the grounds that plaintiff had refused to appeal his conviction 
in Waynesboro District Coiut to the Waynesboro Ckcuit Court 
bases a decision in a civil action on a step in criminal procedure. 
The Oxford English Dictionary, under "civil," states, "16. 
Law. Distinguished from criminal. 1611 COTGR. civilizer 
V. criminal, to change his Indictment into an Action; to tume 
a criminall into a civille cause. 1764. BURN Poor Laws 289. 
Civil, implies an offence of a private nature between party 
and party, and not where the king is party. 1844 H. H. Wilson 
British India II 395. In the administration of civil law, Pancha- 
yats were had recourse to, while criminal cases were investi- 
gated by the British functionaries in person. ' ' Thus the question 
is raised whether a civil action can properly be decided by 
the rules of criminal procedure. 

15. Although he was appearing as attorney pro se, plaintiff 
was not properly instructed by the Court at the conclusion 


of this action of his right to request that the decision be set 

16. Corpus Juris Secundum 16. 178. "Statute conferring 
the police power on municipalities, however, should be con- 
strued as not to authorize an unreasonable exercise thereof." 
Father Basil's Lodge v. City of Chicago, 65 N.E. 2d 805, 
393 111. 246. And plaintiff avers that his arrest was a violation 
which prevented him from engaging in his lawful occupation. 
16 Corpus Juris Secundum 224. "One has to carry on his 
business free from all unlawful interference, ' ' Wallace v. Ford, 
D.C. Tex. 21 F. Supp. 624. 

17. 16 Corpus Juris Secundum 199. "The police power 
must at all times be exercised with scrupulous regard for 
private rights guaranteed by the Constitution and even then 
only in the public interest." Okla. Natural Gas Co. v. Choctaw 
Gas Co. 236 P.2d 970, 205 Okla. 255. And plaintiff avers 
that the police power exercised in his arrest was not in the 
public interest and violated his private rights. 

18. Plaintiff was threatened with imprisonment for debt, 
in violation of his Constitutional rights. 16 Corpus Juris Secun- 
dum 204. "Ordinarily, a debt owed to a governmental unit 
is no exception to the Constitutional provision." Clark v. 
City of Cincinnati, Com. PI. 121 N.E. 2d 834. 

19. 53 Am. Jur 435. "The courts are generally agreed 
that an employer may be held accountable for the wrongful 
act his employee committed while acting in his employer's 
business and within the scope of his employment, although 
he had no knowledge." Palmer v. St. Albans, 60 Vt. 427, 
13 A 569. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully moves the Court to 


grant his Motion to Vacate Judgment on the grounds that it 
is contrary to law and the evidence. 

Meanwhile, at a meeting of Freemasons at a local syna- 
gogue, other matters were shelved while an agitated discussion 
took place as to what ' 'could be done about Eustace MuUins. ' ' 
One member stood up and bravely offered that he would "do 
something." A few days later, while I was driving down a 
side street, a huge Lincoln came roaring out of a business 
lot, and crashed into the side of my car. As my complaint 
later stated, 

"3. On Sept. 19, 1979, at about 1 P.M. defendant did 
feloniously and with great force crash his automobile into 
the side of the vehicle owned and operated by plaintiff, and 
did strike plaintiff's vehicle on the right hand front and rear 
doors, crushing them in, and plaintiff did suffer great bodily 
harm and property damage thereby." 

"7. Plaintiffs vehicle, an Oldsmobile 98 sedan, which was 
severely damaged, is a rare surviving example of a collector's 
vehicle known as the Chappaquiddick Special, a model in 
which a girl met her death during an association with a promi- 
nent upstanding figure, and this vehicle could be worth a 
large sum during a forthcoming political campaign and must 
be fully restored. 

"Defendant stated to plaintiff that defendant was at fault 
and would assume full responsibility for all damages, but 
when police were called, defendant stated he did not wish 
to talk to the police, and as police drove up, defendant fled 
the scene of the accident." 

"Plaintiff remained at the scene of the accident, and gave 


police full details of the circumstances of the accident, where- 
upon the investigating officer stated that defendant should be 
charged with hit and run and leaving the scene of an accident 
before an investigation was completed." 

"Plaintiff was overcome by intense chest pain, nausea, 
vomiting, dizziness, fainting spells and intense back pain, 
whereupon plaintiff went directly to the Emergency Room." 

Powerful fraternal influences immediately went to work 
for the defendant, who was never subsequently charged with 
any offense. There were interesting ramifications which I did 
not learn for several years. First, the driver had been suffering 
from advanced schizophrenia for years, and under state law, 
he should have turned in his license. He had avoided this by 
going to private mental instimtions, as state institutions would 
have required that he turn in his driving license. 

Second, at the time of the accident, the defendant had for 
years been taking a number of powerful drugs, according to 
his physician, among them Dilantin, Phenobarbital, Tolinase, 
Dyzazide, and Haldol. His physician later stated in a sworn 
deposition that "Mr. S. has diabetes mellitus type two, he 
has a seizure disorder, he has an organic brain syndrome, 
he has hypertension essential, and he has manic depressive 
illness and a complication of medication called tardive dyskine- 
sia, resulting in uncontrollable movements." 

In short, the defendant's insurance was inapplicable because 
of these problems. City officials and attorneys now embarked 
on a weird three year campaign to keep the case from being 
heard. The result was one of the most amazing legal three 
ring circuses ever recorded in this nation. The attorneys first 
sent me a 54 question set of Written Interrogatories, supposing 


that, as an attorney pro se, I would refuse to answer them, 
and the case would be dismissed. I answered with eighty 
pages of single spaced legal size forms, which more than 
answered their questions. Their next step was to "discover" 
a witness to the accident. They "found" an elderly black 
alcoholic and mental patient, who claimed to have been drink- 
ing in an alley near the scene of the accident with some of 
his buddies. This good citizen was brought in for deposition. 
The attorney asked him, "Is this Mr. MuUins here beside 
you?" Answer. "I don't believe it is. I think he was a taller 
man. In my opinion, it looked like he was a taller man." 
Question. "Do you remember what kind of car it was?" 
Answer. "Now that, I would not know. It was just an automo- 
bile, in my opinion." 

Although this witness could neither identify me nor my 
automobile, he was still listed as the defendant's principal 
witness. I had the court order his police and mental hospital 
records, which disclosed that he had been arrested for carrying 
a concealed weapon, that he had been arrested numerous times 
for being drunk in public, and that he had been sent to the 
mental institution ' 'on detention order from wife for threatening 
behaviour and abuse of her. Threatened with axe. Drinks 
cheap wine or whiskey all day. Was convicted of shooting 
and maiming a woman. Has been on probation since that 

This pillar of the community remained the defendant's chief 
witness, until fraternal ties brought in another one. This relative 
and notorious black sheep of our family came in on deposition 

to give hearsay testimony that I had told him I ran into 's 

car, and that it was my fault. I had not spoken to him for 
months. On cross-examination, I asked him what drugs he 


was on. He refused to answer. I asked him what drugs he 
had taken that day. He still refused to answer. 

By this time, I had filed suit against the attorneys. 

"As and for his complaint, plaintiff respectfully alleges 
that, for the promise of large money, defendants did conspire 
and act in concert to attack, injure and destroy plaintiff, by 
speaking, writing and filing false statements and false accusa- 
tions against plaintiff which are false, defamatory and prejudi- 
cial against plaintiff, as follows: 

(a) At a Pretrial Conference, defendant did state 

to the Court that plaintiff, in his pleadings, had repeatedly 
referred to defendant's client as being "of the Hebrew race" 
and as "being of the Hebrew religion," and as "that Hebrew," 
and defendant wished to inform the Court that he resented 
the references to his client. This allegation, made before six 
persons, was immediately denied by plaintiff, who truthfully 
stated that nowhere in his pleadings had he made such state- 
ments . . . defendant persisted, stating to the Court, "I know 
it's in there somewhere," although those present, searching 
through the file of plaintiffs pleadings, could not find said 

This was typical of the vicious tactics of this outstanding 
law firm. They immediately filed Demurrer, whereupon plain- 
tiff cited the statute, "Liability for words used in proceedings 
concerning conduct. No lawyer, or association or corporation 
composed of lawyers, shall be held liable in any civil action 
for words written or spoken in any proceeding . . . imless 
it be proved by plaintiff that such words were used with actual 
malice, were false, or were used without any possible or 
probable cause." 

I further stated, "Defendants err in their presumption that 


a license to practice law is a license to gratuitously attack 
and injure other persons without cause." 

The friendly judge nevertheless granted dismissal to his 
close associates, whereupon I refiled and forced him to dismiss 
it again. 

Although the judge repeatedly tried to aid his colleagues 
in their blatant attempts to prevent the case from coming to 
trial, I forced the motion through. At the trial, the attorneys 
came up with another miracle witness. They claimed that 
defendant, who had been alone in the car with his wife, had 
her sister sitting in the back seat! I later learned she had 
been in a Hadassah meeting in Norfolk on the day of the 
accident. The judge had warned me that the strange statutes 
forbade the mention of "insurance" in an accident trial. The 
attorneys then announced that their star witness, the black 
alcoholic, had conveniently been reommitted to the mental 
institution hours before the trial. I insisted that he be brought 
in. After a delay of a half hour, he was brought in under 
heavy armed guard. I then took the stand, where the attorneys 
tricked me into mentioning the word "insurance." The senior 
attorney leaped to his feet, screaming, "Mistrial!" 

I filed Motion to Vacate Order of Mistrial, which went 
the way of all of my motions. 


Plaintiff, Eustace C. MuUins, respectfully moves the Court 
to vacate the Order of Mistrial issued on July 29, 1981 in 
this action, for the following reasons: 

1 . The Order of Mistrial requested by the defendant, because 


of the inadvertent mention of the word "insurance" in the 
presence of the jury, and apparently in violation of statutes 
prohibiting same, and which was subsequently granted by 
the Court on July 29, 1981, has, in effect, added a new party 
to these proceedings, the entity of insurance, and a party 
whose interests must be safeguarded by casting over them 
an impenetrable armor of silence. This insurance entity, whose 
presence, although known to the parties, and being known 
to the Court, was not to be made known to the jury, although 
Virginia statutes, which require compulsory motor vehicle 
insurance for all residents of the State of Virginia, which 
the members of the jury qualified to be by reason of their 
being called to service on this jury, was therefore already 
known to the members of this jury before plaintiff's inadvertent 
mention of the compound noun "insurance agent" presumably 
revealed to the jury a hitherto unknown and unacknowledged 
presence in the courtroom. Statutes thus prohibited the mention 
of an entity which was already known to the Court, to the 
parties, and to the jurors, a peculiar presence, like Banquo 
at the feast, haunting the proceedings in the manner described 
by Paul Valery, in the Cimitiere Marin, as quoted by William 
Butler Yeats in "A Vision" as "a seaside cemetery, arecoUec- 
tion, some commentator explains, of a spot known in child- 
hood. The midday light is the changeless absolute and its 
reflection in the sea 'les oeuvres purs d'une cause etennelle.' 
The sea breaks into the ephemeral foam of life; the monuments 
of the dead take sides as it were with the light and would 
with their inscriptions and their sculptured angels persuade 
the poet that he is the light, but he is not persuaded. The 
worm devours not only the dead, but as self-love, self-hate. 


or whatever one calls it, devours the living also." Thus plain- 
tiffs cause is devoured by the all-conquering worm of an 
unseen entity, the entity conjoured up by the defense, the 
entity of insurance. 

2. By requesting a mistrial because plaintiff inadvertently 
used in his giving of evidence the compound noim "insurance 
agent," the defendant effected a transfer of liability, and was 
no longer liable because an entity had been conjoured who 
simultaneously relieved defendant of further defense of his 
liability at this trial, and transferred it to an entity who was 
not liable at this trial. 

3 . A statute denying plaintiff the opportunity to give evidence 
in which the compound noun "insurance agent" is mentioned 
thus enthrones insurance corporations and their private stock- 
holders and insulates them against paying due awards from 
their profits, thus granting them a title of nobility and creating 
a nobility class. The Constitution of the United States, Art. 
1. Sec. 10, expressly forbids the establishment of such a 
nobility class, as follows: "No state shall grant any title of 
nobility." The establishment of insurance companies as im- 
mune from legal mention not only violates the Constitution, 
but renders plaintiff out of law, or dead in law. 

4. A state statute denying plaintiff the opportunity to give 
evidence in which the compound noun "insurance agent" is 
mentioned, violates the Constitution of the United States in 
these several particulars: That it creates an involuntary servi- 
tude forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment; That it abridges 
the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; 
That it denies to the plaintiff the equal protection of the laws; 
That it denies plaintiff due process of the law. The Fourteenth 


Amendment says, "No State shall make or enforce any law 
which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens 
of the United States. Nor shall any State deny to any person 
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In 
16 Wall. 36, 21 L.Ed.394, Mr. Justice Field stated, "It is 
nothing less than the question whether the recent amendments 
to the Federal constitution protect the citizens of the United 
States against the deprivation of their common rights by State 
legislation. In my judgment the 14th amendment does afford 
such protection, and was so intended by the Congress which 
framed and the States which adopted it." 

5. If such state statutes prevent plaintiff from presenting 
evidence before a jury, the question is raised as to whether 
plaintiff should transfer his case to a federal court in which 
such statute would not apply. 

6. It is a well-established precept of trial procedure that if 
the defendant sees that he is losing the case, any opportunity 
for a mistrial must be seized upon, as occurred on July 29, 
1981 . It was defendant's lack of a viable defense which caused 
plaintiff to file a Motion for Summary Judgment on June 9, 

7. In plaintiff's Reply to Grounds of Defense filed by defen- 
dant, plaintiff stated on Nov. 7, 1979, "Defendant had 
promptly given the name of his insurance agent and the tele- 
phone number of said agent to plaintiff but defendant did 
not request plaintiff's insurance agent as defendant had as- 
sumed full responsibility and had no intention of seeking any 
payment from plaintiffs coverage." It was this evidence, 
which is crucial to plaintiff's case, which plaintiff attempted 
to inform the jury as to the issues of fact which were to be 


determined by them, but plaintiff was prevented from doing 
so by defendant's motion for mistrial. In future hearings of 
this action, if statute still prevents plaintiff from informing 
the jury of the facts of the case, due process will not occur, 
plaintiff will be out of law, or dead in law, and by not giving 
said evidence, plaintiff will be guilty of withholding evidence 
from the jury, and of obstructing justice, even if in so doing, 
plaintiff is following the express instructions of the Court 
and is in accordance with statutes prohibiting the mention of 
insurance in the presence of the jury. 71 Corpus Juris Secundum 
4: "What Constitutes Pleadings. It covers all proceedings 
taken during the progress of the trial. Snelling v. Darrell, 
17 Ga. 141. 

(a). 46 Corpus Juris Secundum 1308. "Plaintiff must prove 
every material allegation or fact in issue. Christ v. Pacific 
Mut. Life Ins. Co. 231 II., app. 439, affirmed 144 N.E. 
161, 312 111. 525, 35 A.L.R. 730. Plaintiff alleges that he is 
prevented from proving the facts in issue. 

(b). 71 Corpus Juris Secundum 525 C. "Matters eliminated 
from case or admitted. The pleadings on which trial is had 
are determination of whether evidence is admissible. Pecos 
R.R. Co. V. Crews, civ. app. 139 S.W. 1049." Plaintiff 
alleges that said evidence had already been included in his 
pleadings without objection. 

(c). 71 Corpus Juris Secundum 528. "Generally, any evi- 
dence is admissible under the general issue which contradicts, 
or tends directly to contradict, the allegations which the adverse 
party must establish to sustain his claim. Sylvis v. Hays, 6 
P.2d 1098, 1100, 138 Or. 418. Plaintiff alleges his evidence 
is thus admissible. 


(d). 71 Corpus Juris Secundum 2. Statutory Provisions. 
"Codes of civil procedure and rules promulgated thereunder 
are designed to simplify pleading and to eliminate some of 
the technicalities of pleading at common law; but generally, 
except as modified by such provisions, the common law rules 
of pleading are deemed to remain in force. Stinson v. Edgemoor 
Iron Wks, D.C. Del. 53 F.Supp. 864." Plaintiff alleges that 
his evidence is admissible under common law pleading, and 
that common law precedent overrides any statute designed 
to protect insurance entities from legitimate awards. 

8. Although plaintiff had filed a Motion to Bar Inadmissible 
Testimony before the trial was heard, defendant did not file 
such a motion and thereby indicated no inadmissible testimony 
was expected from plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Order of Mis- 
trial should be granted. 

The judge then intimated to me that the attorneys wished 
to negotiate a settlement, but they did not wish to negotiate 
with me because I was not an attorney. He promised that if 
I hired an attorney, they would settle. I was still naive enough 
to believe this judge. I inquired around, and hired a young 
attorney who would frequently break out into strange equine 
giggles. When we met to negotiate with the defendant's stellar 
attorneys, he promptly jumped up and ran to the men's room. 
"What's wrong with him?" I asked a Mend who was sitting 
in with us. "Oh, he just went to throw up," he replied. 
"It's his first negotiation." When he returned, he promptly 
agreed that I should pay witness' fees to the sister-in-law, 
some $400. No other negotiations were concluded. I fired 


him that afternoon, and sent the following notice to the defen- 


Plaintiff, Eustace C. MuUins, as attorney pro se, hereby 
serves notice to the defendant that your position at the pretrial 
conference of April 11, 1983 was openly and positively and 
definitely reaffirmed, that you have refused and continue to 
refuse to negotiate any pretrial agreement or settlement with 
the plaintiff, a position you have steadfastly maintained for 
the past three and a half years. You are hereby placed on 
notice that the mounting legal costs of this action are and 
have been and continue to be solely due to your refusal to 
enter into any pretrial negotiations with plaintiff, and that, 
on recovery of these costs, plaintiff will demand that said 
legal costs in this action be deemed punitive in assignment 
and arrogation to defendant, and thus doubled by decree of 
this Court, because the large costs of this action are and have 
been and continue to be solely consequent to defendant's re- 
fusal to negotiate any pretrial agreement or settlement with 
plaintiff, and plaintiff reiterates that he has been and continues 
to be willing to negotiate a pretrial settlement at any time 
since this action was filed on October 1, 1979, and that any 
and all legal costs since that date should be attributed, assigned 
and arrogated to defendant as his Uability because of his refusal 
to enter into any pretrial negotiations with plaintiff. 

After months of further deliberations, I succeeded in having 
the case brought to trial again. The attorneys introduced the 


deposition from the defendant's physician, stating that defen- 
dant was now in a psychiatric hospital and would not be 
appearing at the trial. The judge then ruled that I could not 
make any reference to the drugs or schizophrenic and manic 
depressive condition of the defendant, ruling the entire physi- 
cian's report "inadmissible." 

Two days before the trial, the policeman who was my sole 
witness died suddenly in a local hospital, of medical treatment. 
I was warned by my automobile mechanic, a black man well 
versed in the vagaries of small town existence, that the jury 
would be stacked. ' 'They got this same list, ' ' he said. "Nobody 
else ever gets on that list." 

Without my only witoess, and denied any opportunity to 
present to the jury the evidence that the defendant had been 
driving illegally, while under the influence of seizure-causing 
drugs, and suffering from schizophrenia, my case did not 
take long to present. The judge suggested that I bring my 
car up so that the jury could examine it. The jury filed out, 
made a lengthy examination of the two smashed-in side doors, 
and returned to the jury room to deliberate. Eight minutes 
later, they returned to find for the defendant. In effect, they 
had ruled that I had indeed backed my car into the front 
fender of defendant's car, which, in some manner, defying 
the laws of physics, crushed in the two side doors! 


Chapter 11 

The Strange Case of 
the Senile Millionaire 

In 1982, the present writer received a telephone call regard- 
ing his book on the Federal Reserve System. An elderly gentle- 
man suggested, in a quavering voice, that he would be inter- 
ested in financing a new edition. I promptly informed him 
that all previous arrangements regarding this book had been 
a personal disaster for me, and that I was not interested. He 
gave me his name, one that I had never heard of. A few 
evenings later, he called again. He was very persistent, and 
he informed me that he had resolved to finance the book, 
with all proceeds to go to me, because of the unfortunate 
experiences I had had with previous publications. I had re- 
searched his name, and found that he was one of the wealthiest 
men in America. I agreed to meet with him. 

I found that he was indeed a very elderly man, and that 
he had been donating money to some conservative causes 
for years, although he had never donated to anyone I was 
acquamted with. One of the recipients of his largesse was a 



Lebanese lawyer with the improbable name of Dr. Peter Beter. 
It was Dr. Beter' s thesis that all of the prominent personalities 
in the world had been shot through the forehead with one 
bullet, including President Jimmy Carter, and that they had 
been replaced by robots. Because they had always been robots 
for the World Order, no one but Dr. Beter had noticed that 
anything was amiss. It should have been a warning to me 
that the old gentleman was impressed by this type of fertile 
imagination, but by that time, I had sold myself on the idea 
that I was now a writer who had at last found his patron. 
The fact that the patron was a little loose in the upper story 
did not concern me. I would write the book, he would have 
it printed, and turn over all the proceeds to me. 

I began work on the book with my usual energy and enthusi- 
asm. Within a few weeks, I had made considerable progress, 
renewing my trips to the Library of Congress, where I had 
done my original research almost four decades earlier. It was 
then that I received a sign, one which should have alerted 
me to later developments. The old gentleman's chief assistant, 
a man much younger than myself, suddenly died of a heart 
attack. I had already seen that my benefactor was extremely 
demanding on all those who worked for him; this did not 
bother me, because I always worked at top speed, seven days 
a week. I ignored a very obvious warning, and plunged ahead 
with the book. We had made no formal agreement, but he 
was advancing small sums for my expenses. I completed the 
manuscript, and at that time, he informed me that his lawyers 
had drawn up a Joint Venture Agreement. Although I never 
saw or talked with his lawyers, who were in another state, 
the agreement contained a very attractive paragraph: 

"The publisher (as my partner was referred to throughout 


the agreement) shall receive five per cent of the gross receipts 
from the sale of the book and the author shall receive all of 
the net profits from the sale of the book." 

I had been doing my own legal work for years, and the 
agreement seemed very straightforward. He informed me, 
rather apologetically, that his lawyers had told him the agree- 
ment would not be legal unless he would receive something, 
hence the five per cent of the gross receipts which he had 
opted for. He also assured me that he Would never try to 
collect it. 

There was another clause in the agreement, which struck 
me as somewhat odd; "Upon the death of either party, this 
agreement shall terminate and all interests herem shall belong 
to the survivor." 

Because he was almost two decades beyond the Biblical 
limit, and bom long before my father, it seemed odd that he 
would include this clause, but I privately supposed that it 
would assure my receiving all interests in the book if he 
should die before me. Here again, I was given another warning, 
which I failed to heed. 

After the book had gone to press, he became even more 
demanding upon me, setting up meetings with people he 
thought I should meet, trips I should take, and frequently 
calling me at home in the evenings and on weekends. His 
secretary informed me that he constantly did the same with 
her; she then reminded me of the sudden death of his manager. 
We began to call each other when we wished to discuss things 
in the book which he had challenged. She suggested we use 
the code name, Fagin, to refer to him, which we did henceforth. 

The book was published, and because the new edition had 


been awaited for many years, it began to sell very fast. I 
banked all of the receipts, without drawing on them, because, 
according to our agreement, they were all mine anyway. Sud- 
denly he began to demand considerable sums, for ' 'expenses. ' ' 
By this time, I was totally dominated by him, and I wrote 
the checks and handed them to him. Over several months, I 
gave him $25,000, most of what had come in, because of 
his insistence. He seemed to exercise a hypnotic influence 
over me, and I never balked at anything he demanded. When 
I arrived at his home, he would now rush into the kitchen 
and prepare me a cup of coffee, not allowing his housekeeper 
to do it, as she had done on prior visits. On one occasion, 
after leaving his home, I passed out at the wheel. I thought 
it was exhaustion. Other drivers had begun honking wildly, 
and I came to and regained control of the car. On my next 
visit, this happened again. I drank the coffee, and on the 
way home I lost consciousness, and slumped over the wheel, 
at seventy miles an hour. I came to to find that I was almost 
touching the side of a car on my left, as I veered towards 
him. I avoided the accident, but, after I got home, I recalled 
the strange clause in om* agreement that the survivor would 
receive all interests in the book. 

I then received an alarming letter from England, from a 
financier named Alex Herbage. 

"Dear Mr. MuUins: 

I have just read a review in the National Educator of your 
new book, "The World Order." I assume this is an update 
of 'The Federal Reserve' and would be most grateful if you 
would forward me a copy. I have recently had some correspon- 
dence with E.D. (my partner, ED.) who led me to believe 


he controlled the rights over your books , as I could be interested 
in re-publishing these over here, for distribution in Europe." 
Alex Herbage. 

The entire picture was now revealed to me. Not only was 
Fagin determined to finish me off, in order to have sole rights 
to my Federal Reserve book, but, in anticipation of my early 
demise, he was already making arrangements to repubUsh 
all of my books, both in the United States and Europe. Once 
I was out of the way, who would challenge him? 

Shortly thereafter, Alex Herbage was much in the news. 
The Washington Post headlined "High Society Financier In- 

"A British financier with ties to some of the country's 
top Conservative politicians was indicted yesterday on charges 
of defrauding 3,000 Americans of $46 million through a mail- 
order investment scheme. Alex Hermage, a 450-pound figure 
who has entertained the cream of British society at his million- 
dollar estate, was charged with falsely promising to invest 
the Americans' money in gold bullion, commodities and Euro- 
pean currencies. Instead, according to an indictment returned 
in Orlando, Fla., Hermage spent the funds on a 'lavish life 
style' that included chartered jets. Rolls Royce and Mercedes 
Benz automobiles, an expensive art collection, the 44 acre 
estate in England and villas in Scotland, France and the Nether- 

Herbage, which the Post insisted on spelling "Hermage," 
(which is pretty close, as critics of the Post will allow), was 
later sent to prison. Herbage was typical of the swindlers 
and criminals with whom Fagin was involved. I called his 
secretary and informed her that I would have to file suit against 


Fagin, unless he withdrew from our agreement. She said that 
she had repeatedly told him that I should have some of the 
proceeds from the book, whereupon he retorted, "There ain't 
gonna BE any profits!" 

I sent Fagin a copy of a standard Termination Agreement, 
which he refused to sign. I was left with no alternative but 
to file suit against him. He responded by employing, not 
one, but two, of the state's most influential and expensive 
counsels. Obviously he intended that I would have to pay 
for all this. Both firms were well connected with such agencies 
as the FBI and the CIA, and could count on these alUances 
to obtain as much damaging information about me as possible. 
This did not bother me. I was akeady planning to publish 
some 120 pages of my FBI file in my next book. 

I charged Fagin with intent to defraud, embezzlement, con- 
spiracy to defraud, violation of copyright, making false state- 
ments, and misrepresentation, for starters. Much more would 
come later. All of my charges were documented. His lawyers 
responded with the standard tactics intended to trip up and 
get rid of an attorney pro se. They filed a Decree with the 
Court, but did not send me a copy. I checked the court file 
at least once a week, and discovered it. I inmiediately filed 
a Motion stating I had not been sent a copy of pleadings. 
There was never an apology from this highly-esteemed firm, 
but undoubtedly chagrin that their obvious tactic had failed. 
I then filed a Motion to Amend Complaint. 


Now comes the Plaintiff, Eustace C. MuUins, appearing 
for himself, and respectfully moves the Court for permission 
to amend his Complaint, for the following reasons: 


1. Plaintiff has uncovered numerous further violations by 
said defendant of the statutes which should be heard by the 
jury in this action. 

2. Defendant, as chairman of Co., con- 
tinues to wage a war of attrition against plaintiff. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully moves the Court for 
permission to Amend his Complaint. 

The courts will always grant at least one request for amend- 
ment of complaint, and sometimes more than one. It is all 
part of the legal hopper, and keeps the wheels turning. 

I filed an amended complaint, and, to protect my life's 
work, my writings, I filed a Motion for Injunction. 

"Now comes plaintiff, Eustace C. MuUins, as attorney pro 
se, and moves the Court for an injunction against the defendant, 

, ordering defendant to refrain from assigning 

or conferring re-publishing rights of any or all of plamtiffs 
published works, on the following grounds: 

1 . Defendant, according to correspondence with one Alex 
Herbage (Exhibit A attached) is claiming the rights to plaintiff's 
published books, and making arrangements to lease, sell or 
otherwise convey said rights to others, 

2. Defendant, in awarding said rights, is once again dealing 
with the confidence men, tricksters, and double agents with 
whom he prefers to deal, and whom plaintiff has repeatedly 
tried to avoid, despite defendant's repeated orders that plaintiff 
shall meet with and work with persons of this type." 

When Fagin had corresponded with Herbage, he had as- 
sumed that by that time I would have been disposed of, by 
special treats of coffee, or by other means. It was hardly his 
fault that his plan had gone awry, or that his confidante was 


now facing a long prison term for embezzlement. Despite 
my documentation of my motion with copies of Herbage's 
letter, and the Post article detailing his criminal career, the 
judge refused to grant my Motion for Injunction, on the incredi- 
ble excuse that "He hasn't yet actually re-published any of 
your books, and his attorneys assure me that he will not." 
This was in the accepted tradition of never granting a motion 
from an attorney pro se. I was to see it again and again 
throughout the next three years of this proceeding. An injunc- 
tion against the defendant would be damaging in the record 
of the case, and would be prejudicial against him with a 

One of the most sadistic actions of Fagin against me occurred 
shortly after I met him; he persuaded me that rare early editions 
of my books were unsafe in my home, and that they would 
be "protected" in his safe deposit box. He was right; they 
are still there today. Although the books were worth thousands 
of dollars, I was never able to recover them. One of them 
was a first edition of "MuUins on the Federal Reserve," 
which I had inscribed to my father. It was my only memento 
of him. I pleaded with Fagin to return it, but he ignored 

Fagin had noted one payment of $12,500 to his personal 
lawyer for drawing up the Joint Venture Agreement, a standard 
four page agreement. This was included in some $90,000 
which he claimed to have invested in the book; he had actually 
spent about four thousand dollars in its production, and I 
had repaid him almost $25,000. He was eventually to cost 
me more than three hundred thousand dollars on this book 
alone. During my legal researches, I found that his lawyers 


had neglected to consult the state statutes, which gave the 
following requirement under "Partnership Certificates: No two 
or more persons shall carry on business as partners unless 
they sign and acknowledge a certificate setting forth the full 
names of each and every person composing the partnership, 
with their respective post office and residence addresses, the 
name and style of the firm, the length of time for which it 
is to continue, and the locality of their place of business, 
and file the same in the office of the clerk of the court in 
which deeds are recorded in the county or corporation wherein 
the business is to be conducted." 

No such certificate had ever been drawn up, signed, or 
recorded. I thereupon filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. 

"Plaintiff, appearing for himself, moves the Court to grant 
the Plaintiff Summary Judgment against the Defendant, on 
the grounds that defendant had failed to answer or deny the 
documentary evidence which Plaintiff submitted with his Com- 

I had filed photostats of the statutes requiring the signing 
and filing of the Partnership Certificate, a requirement of which 
Fagin's attorneys were not aware. This should have been a 
routine judgment in my favor, but the judge denied my motion 
without comment. At no time did Fagin's attorneys ever try 
to explain why he had never executed the requisite Partnership 
Certificate, which rendered the Joint Agreement invalid, and 
gave me full reason for judgment in my favor. 

Fagin's attorneys were now in full cry after me with the 
usual pre-trial discovery demands for depositions and produc- 
tion of documents. I had countered with my usual Motions 
for Protective Orders. As always, my motions were denied 


by the court, and I was ordered to proceed with the depositions 
and production of documents. I realized that I was trapped 
in a court in which every decision would be against me, and 
that this was primarily due to the pernicious Masonic influence 
which guided the court. It was imperative that I move out 
of this court. I filed a Motion to Remand to Federal Court, 
citing the number of federal questions involved in the case, 
copyright law, interstate fraud, etc. The judge replied to my 
motion with a personal letter that he would not hear the motion! 
This was astounding, because the United States Code cites 
many pages of precedents for remanding to federal court when 
federal questions are involved. I debated bringing an action 
against the judge for refusing to hear my motion, but I realized 
this would be useless, given the state of our legal system. I 
then filed a Motion for Voluntary Nonsuit; if I could obtain 
nonsuit, that is, drop my suit in the state court, I could then 
refile it in federal court. However, I had little hope that this 
would happen; the court had routinely denied all of my motions. 
My dilemma was solved by one of those miraculous events 
which take place just when it seems that I have nowhere to 
turn. The day before the hearing on my Motion for Voluntary 
Nonsuit, a friend called on a radio talk show, mentioning 
that she knew someone who was due to appear in court the 
following day, and that he had no chance, because the lawyers 
and the judge were all Masons. The next morning, when we 
appeared in chambers, I noticed that the judge's eyes looked 
like boiled liver. I sat down and waited for the usual decree, 
Motion Denied. Incredibly, the judge began by saying, "I 
am inclined to grant Mr. MuUins' motion." Fagin's lawyers 
were amazed. "But, Your Honor" one of them exclaimed, 


"it's too late in the case for that. We have these other matters 
pending (referring to Discovery)." I thought his point was 
well-taken, but the judge seized a volume of statutes from 
the shelf, opened it at random, and pretended to consult it. 
"No," he said, "it's right here. It's all right. I am granting 
the Motion for Nonsuit." 

I left chambers, jubilant that at last I had had something 
decided in my favor. My friend, to whom I owed this develop- 
ment, was also smiling. Fagin's lawyers were so angry that 
they refused to get in the elevator with us. Instead, they 
stomped down the stairs. 

I promptly filed my complaint against Fagin in federal court. 
More than a year had gone by, with my suit bogged down 
in a court where I had no chance. Now I could argue the 
federal questions in my suit. Fagin's lawyers answered the 
complaint with their usual Motion to Dismiss. I then filed a 
Motion to Amend Complaint, which was granted. In my 
amended complaint, I upped my request for damages to $25 
million, with an additional $25 million in punitive damages. 
My complaint documented every item. Fagin's description 
of his $12,500 payment to his private lawyer stated "Profes- 
sional services — ^Tax planning for publishing venture, opinion 
on joint ventiu^e, and drafting joint venture with Eustace C. 
MuUins." I pointed out that this read as though I had been 
in consultation with Fagin's lawyer, when in fact I had never 
met or talked with him. Fagin had also diverted considerable 
funds from receipts of the Federal Reserve book to publish 
one of his personal pamphlets; large sums paid for his personal 
phone bills, payments to his secretaries, and to his other em- 
ployees and acquaintances for private work having nothing 


to do with the joint venture. Fagin also sold one thousand 
of the books to his personal financial counselor below cost, 
in order to curry favor with him, despite my strong objections 
to the transaction. He opened a private bank account with 
proceeds from his sale of the book. None of this money was 
ever accounted for. 

During hearings in state court, I had filed several Motions 
for Censure against Fagin' s attorneys for their improper ac- 
tions. We now engaged in more than a year of federal court 
maneuvers, during which I again repeatedly filed Motions 
for Censure. One of Fagin' s attorneys frequently called me 
at my home, trying to trap me into agreeing to some procedure 
or to make a damaging admission. I complained of this in 
one Motion to Censure, which put a stop to the telephone 
calls. In each instance, however, the judge would deny my 
Motion to Censure, trying to laugh it off as a whimsy, instead 
of a flagrant violation of ethical procedure. 

I then came down with a painful kidney stone attack, proba- 
bly due to the daily stress of fighting this action. The day 
after I came out of the hospital, I was due for deposition. I 
appeared, but informed Fagin's attorney that I was still too 
ill to answer extended questions. The attorney promptly de- 
manded sanctions against me from the judge, which he refused. 
I then filed a Petition for Public Trial, as follows: 


Now comes plaintiff, Eustace C. MuUins, as attorney pro 
se, and petitions the Court for a public trial of this action. 
Plaintiff prays said petition as a citizen of the United States 


of America and the domiciled voter of the State of Virginia, 
under Article 4. Sec. 4, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED 
STATES, and under Article I, Sect. 11, CONSTITUTION 

1. The object of said public trial would be to determine 
the validity of plaintiffs claims against defendant by a jury 
of his peers, and to determine the innocence of said defendant 
by said jury if defendant is able to prove said innocence. 

2. Plaintiff prays said petition as a necessary step in maintain- 
ing the public order, in maintaining the courts as an essential 
part of the public order, so as to avoid anarchy and a general 
breakdown of law and order. 

3. The public must remain sovereign, and the public cannot 
have sovereignty without public trial. 

4. Plaintiff paid substantial court fees for a request for 
jury trial, and neither wishes to be defrauded of said payments, 
nor does he wish his fees to pay for a closed trial in which 
the plaintiff is not only the defendant, but in which the plaintiff 
had previously paid the court fees for the defendant to attack 

5. Said closed trial would be a Bill of Attainder against 
plaintiff, which would violate the Constitution of the United 
States, Art. 1 Sec. 9. 

6. Said closed trial would violate Article L, Sec. 1 1 , Consti- 
tution of Virginia. 

7. Said closed trial would violate the 13th Amendment to 
the United States Constitution. 

8. Said closed trial would violate the 14th Amendment to 
the United States Constitution. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully moves the Court to 


remand this action for jury trial as provided by the Constitution 
of Virginia, with plaintiff as the plaintiff and with defendant 
as the defendant. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Eustace C. MuUins 

This Motion was also denied, and Fagin's lawyers pressed 
on with their demands for discovery. Despite my health prob- 
lems, I was very confident of the suit, looking forward to a 
jury trial where I could present the documentation of my 
complaint for damages. Fagin's lawyers were equally deter- 
mined that the case would never go to trial. As I suspected, 
Fagin was now hopelessly senile, and would never be able 
to appear on the witness stand. I no longer had any contact 
with his secretary. Our telephone conversations ended when 
she made an obvious attempt to trap me into making a misstate- 
ment. I realized that the conversation was monitored, and 
never called her again. 

We had now entered the third year of proceedings. At no 
time did Fagin ever make a personal appearance in the action. 
Time was on my side, and I was not pushing for a trial 
date. In any case, I could not have obtained it without comply- 
ing with the pre-trial discovery procedures. However, I realized 
that I needed to get on with my other books (I now had 
twenty-two projected volumes which I must write over the 


next twenty years), and it seemed time to speed up the legal 
process. I did this by filing a Motion for Joinder of Additional 
Parties. This is a very technical motion which must be phrased 
just so, or the court will deny it. I did what any paralegal or 
legal secretary would do; I copied it verbatim from West's 
book of legal forms. Fagin's lawyers were amazed that I 
could have produced this motion. They informed the judge 
that I must have obtained legal counsel without having in- 
formed the court, as I was still attorney of record. As the 
hearing on the motion, the judge sternly asked me, "Mr. 
MuUins, do you now have a lawyer?" I was surprised by 
the question, but answered, "No, Your Honor." He then 
had no choice but to grant the motion. I had named Fagin's 
son, his accountant, and the treasurer of his firm as co-defen- 
dants Although they were deeply involved in Fagin's swindle, 
I knew that they would not wish to appear and be questioned 
about their activities. It seemed that at last I was on the verge 
of forcing Fagin into a settlement. However, I reckoned with- 
out the depths to which the attorneys would sink. They immed- 
iately devised a plan of counter attack which proved success- 
The judge had ruled as follows: 

1. Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint 
shall be, and it hereby is, denied. 

2. Plaintiff's motion for sununary judgment shall be, and 
it hereby is, denied. 

3. Plaintiff's motion to censure shall be, and it hereby is, 

4. Plaintiffs motion for a protective order with respect to 
production of documents shall be, and it hereby is, denied. 


5. Plaintiff's motion for a protective order with respect to 
depositions shall be, and it hereby is, denied. 

6. Defendant's motion to compel discovery shall be, and 
it hereby is, granted. Plaintiff shall respond to defendant's 
request to produce documents on or before Oct. 14, 1986. 
Plaintiff shall present himself for deposition on Oct. 15, 1986, 
at 9:30 A.M., at a location mutually convenient to the parties. 
Defendant's motion for attorney's fees in connection with 
this motion shall be, and it hereby is, denied. 

7. Ruling is deferred on the motion for an accounting made 
in defendant's counterclaim. 

8. Plaintiff's motion to join , , 

and as defendants in this action shall be, and it 

hereby is, granted." 

My Motion for Protective Order Against Deposition noted 

"2. Said defendant used the same tactic against plaintiff 
in a previous action, aided and abetted by counsel in a vicious 
campaign of attrition against plaintiff, forced plaintiff to cancel 
all his speaking engagements for the months of April and 
May by continuing demands for appearances at depositions 
in order to force plaintiff to drop proceedings against defendant, 
and cost plaintiff many thousands of dollars in lost income, 
in the great tradition of the practice of law as laid down by 
Roy Cohn when he appeared on Sixty Minutes, 'I make it 
so damned expensive for the S.O.B.s that they have to drop 

3. Defendant has scheduled said deposition so that his hired 
man can act as judge and jury, and conduct a private trial of 
this action, thus denying plaintiff the jury trial which he has 


requested. In a previous action, defendant managed to have 
plaintiff's complaint moved into chancery for private trial, 
although plaintiff had requested jury trial. 

4. Corpus Juris Secundum 26A 1. 'As a word of legal 
terminology it (deposition) is usually limited to the testimony 
of a witness, taken in writing, under oath or affirmation, before 
some judicial officer. ... At common law, the right to take 
depositions in law actions was unknown in the absence of 
consent. ' The plaintiff deposes that he objects to said private 
trial without jury before counsel for defense as a proceeding 
in chancery. 

5. CJS 26 A9: Grounds for Taking. The statutes . . . limit 
the power to take testimony out of court to clearly marked 
emergencies and situations. Thus an application to take deposi- 
tions may and shall be granted only where one or more of 
the established grounds therefore exist, where there is some 
reasonable ground for believing that actual necessity requires 
it." And plaintiff deposes that defendant's demand to take 
deposition cites no emergency or necessity for said demand. 

6. CJS 26A cites as basis for demanding deposition the 
nonresidence or distant residence, disability, or that it is un- 
likely that the person will appear at the trial, yet defendant 
cites none of these bases as none are applicable. 

7. Defendant has a proven record of seeking deposition 
from plaintiff solely for the purpose of harassing and embarrass- 
ing him, oppressing plaintiff with undue burden and expense 
and as a threat to plaintiff's health. Defendant has deliberately 
set the stage for such oppression by calling for the deposition 

to be held in the office of one , with whom plaintiff 

has been in litigation since 1979, and plaintiff as personally 


sued and is considering further action against said 

, thus forcing plaintiff into a hostile atmosphere, in 

which the hired hand of defendant can freely oppress him. 
Since defendant persuaded plaintiff to begin association with 
him in 1982, plaintiff subsequently became gray-haired and 
developed a heart condition and high blood pressure solely 
due to said association and defendant's manager dropped dead 
of a heart attack during this same period. 

8. Defendant has not established jurisdiction over the person 
of plaintiff. 

9. Defendant Command to take deposition is an integral 
part of defendant's ongoing campaign to ruin, impoverish 
and destroy plaintiff, the many details of which plaintiff will 
duly present before a jury as a revelation of the incredible 
malice and malevolence of said defendant." 

It had long been obvious to me that I had fallen into the 
clutches of a truly demonic being, who for a time exercised 
total control over me, and who had provably attempted to 
murder me and seize control of all of my life's work. I had 
filed Written Interrogatories and Requests for Admission to 
Fagin, which he had refused to answer, with no sanctions 
being levelled against him by the court. He had responded, 
but without direct answers. During the three years of this 
action, I had been saving the revelations of the true nature 
of this demonic being for the jury, and had been holding 
back the most shocking evidence of his behaviour. 

The judge had now placed me under Federal Court Order 
to take Deposition, and for Production of Documents. Although 
I still had no inkling of danger, the plan of Fagin' s attorneys 
had now begun. The first strike was a completely new request 


for Production of Documents, which demanded that I produce 
" 1 . Originals or, if not available, copies thereof, of all Federal 
and State Income Tax Returns filed for the years 1952 and 
through, 1985. 

2. All documents, writings and records of every kind and 
description which m anyway relate to income received, and 
any expenses related thereto, from 1952 through the date hereof 
in relation to the publication of the book "MuUins and the 
Federal Reserve." 

Fagin's attorneys could not even get the title of the book 
accurately, it was "MuUins on the Federal Reserve." 

I immediately filed Motion to Censure — ^Abuse of Process. 
There was no question that the judge would see that the request 
was impossible. I had akeady submitted testimony that during 
many of those years, I was homeless. The FBI agents had 
had me fired from job after job. I slept by the side of the 
road, or in empty buildings, or stayed with friends. I had no 
doubt that the judge would throw out the substituted request. 

"The Plaintiff, Eustace C. MuUins, appearing for himself, 
moves the Court to Censure Counsel for Defense for violating 
the integrity of this Court (a bit of sarcasm on my part. ED)., 
open defiance of a Court Order, and malicious abuse of process , 
as follows: 

1. On June 2, 1986, counsel for defense filed a Request 
for Production of Documents. Plaintiff then filed a Motion 
for Protective Order on same, which was duly argued in open 
court on Sept. 16, 1986. The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion 
for Protective Order, but deferred defendant's motion for an 

2. Counsel for defense later substituted a different Request 


for Production of Documents from the one which had been 
argued on Sept. 16, 1986, serving this new request on Plaintiff 
on Sept. 26, 1986. 

3. Counsel for defense switched Request for Production 
of Documents commanded plaintiff to bring all his Federal 
and State income tax returns for the years 1952 to and including 
1985, to counsel for defense's associate counsel's office on 
Oct. 14, 1986, and all of plaintiff's expense accounts connected 
with the book which is the subject of this action for the years 
1952 to the present date. Counsel for defense had not argued 
this request before the Court in response to plaintiff's Motion 
for Protective Order. Counsel for defense had no legal basis 
for this illegal request, because the earliest date mentioned 
in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is October 15, 1982, which 
counsel for defense apparently misread as 1952 and called 
for records from 1952. By demanding an accounting from 
plaintiff of tax returns and accounting of expenses connected 
with said book from 1952 through 1985, counsel for defense 
openly and flagrantly and contemptuously defied the decision 
of this Court on Sept. 16, 1986 and the Order of this Court 
that 'Ruling is deferred on the motion for an accounting.' 

4. Counsel for defense's demand that plaintiff produce said 
accounting records for the past thirty-four years is malicious 
abuse of process with a two-fold purpose: First, to invent 
conditions impossible for plaintiff to meet, as it is unlikely 
that any individual can produce Federal and State tax returns 
and detailed expense accounts for the past thirty-four years, 
during much of which time plaintiff slept in empty buildings 
and by the side of the road, and cannot return to said empty 
buildings and retrieve detailed expense accounts therefrom, 


and counsel for defense filed such demand with the Court in 
expectation that plaintiff would drop this proceedings because 
of inability to meet said demands. In over two years of litiga- 
tion, counsel for defense has not been able to answer plaintiff's 
documented charges against defendant, who continues to avoid 
any physical appearance in Court, remaining secluded on his 
vast estates like a latterday Howard Hughes while daily order- 
ing out his paid hirelings to attack and destroy anyone who 
dares to oppose his malignant operations; and second, counsel 
for defense's associate counsel, with whom plaintiff has been 
in litigation for ten years, and whom plaintiff has sued for 
improper conduct, desires plaintiff's income tax returns so 
as to involve plaintiff in a second vendetta with the Internal 
Revenue Service, as said associate counsel succeeded in doing 
when plaintiff sued said associate counsel's client for damages, 
and said associate counsel boasted, 'Don't worry about Mullins 
now; I've seen to it that the IRS will handle him,' and shortly 
thereafter, plaintiff was summoned by the IRS for an audit, 
whereupon plaintiff was forced to file suit against the IRS, 
litigation continuing for many months, and dismissed without 
trial by jury against plaintiff's wishes. 

5. Malicious abuse of process is designed solely to force 
plaintiff to drop this action against said defendants, as evi- 
denced by the Washington Post, May 19, 1980, "Discovery 
Cases Abuse Due Process": U.S. District Judge John F. Grady 
on April 17, 1980 said much of discovery in the ATT case 
was irrelevant and immaterial. U.S. District Judge Harold 
H. Green said the discovery process had become 'a trial by 
combat,' in which the litigant most able to afford the necessary 
expense or willing to spend funds will eventually prevail by 


hiring a law finii willing to engage in endless and needless 
rounds of discovery . . . maneuvers. . . . Useless discovery 
. . . must be curtailed if justice is to be done.' The Post 
commented, "Abuse of discovery clogs up the courts and 
unnecessarily inflates attorneys fees." 17 CJS 10. "Abuse 
of legal processes or proceedings is a contempt. " in re Toepel, 
102 N.W. 369, 139 Mich. 85. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully moves the Court to 
censure counsel for defense for the above detailed violations 
and to award plaintiff full summary judgment against the defen- 
dants because of these abuses of process." 

I never doubted that the judge would order the defendant 
to withdraw the demand for Production of Documents as exces- 
sive and unreal. I was stunned when he upheld the demand 
that I produce thirty-four years of state and federal income 
tax forms. During most of those years, the state had not even 
had a state income tax! 

On the appointed day, I and a friend hauled two huge 
boxes of documents to associate counsel's office. I obtained 
a receipt from them for delivery of 10,000 documents. To 
this day, there is no record that any of those documents was 
ever returned. Included in the boxes were some, but obviously 
not all, of the tax returns and expense receipts which I had 
been placed under Federal Court order to produce. The set- 
up, with cooperation on the highest levels, was now in place. 

I then appeared for the Deposition. I was expecting an 
interrogation of from a half hour to an hour. Instead, I was 
subjected to a ruthless assault of some nine hours of the most 
intensive grilling I have ever undergone. I was recovering 
from another kidney stone attack, and had gone on record in 


my pleadings as having developed high blood pressure and 
heart trouble due to Fagin's persecution. The attorney, a vigor- 
ous man in his thirties, expected that I would collapse and 
perhaps die from the stress of such a prolonged third degree. 
After some hours, he began to subject me to pointed question- 
ing about my sex life, hoping to develop something damaging 
about a relationship with a married friend. She was present 
at the deposition, and had faithfully supported me throughout 
the proceedings. I objected, but he pressed harder than ever, 
as he questioned me about my sex life over the past thirty 
years. I anticipated filing suit against him on this line of 
questioning, but when I paid an enormous sum for the tran- 
script, all of these questions had carefully been edited out, 
as had my responses to them. 

Few laymen realize that the supposedly sacrosanct deposi- 
tions, which are given under oath, are frequently edited by 
the attorneys before being typed in their final form. There 
are numerous deletions and alterations, all of which are illegal, 
and all of which are done with the full cooperation of the 
court reporter, who depends upon the lawyers for all income. 
It is but one more development in the total corruption of the 
legal process. 

In previous depositions, the attorneys had usually found 
me unshakeable, and had given up after a half hour or so. I 
had had one equally intensive deposition some years earlier, 
when I sued the Washington Post for a million dollars for 
criminal libel. Their columnist, George Sokolsky, had pillo- 
ried me as a "subversive." Sokolsky died of a heart attack 
shortly after I brought suit against him. The Post remained as 
a defendant. Their attorneys, Covington and Burling, which 


employed Alger Hiss' brother Donald, and a host of other 
pillars of Washington's liberal Establishment, were the corpo- 
rate counsel for the Post, one of the properties owned by 
the international bankers, Famille Meyer, who bought the 
paper with the proceeds from printing and selling Liberty 
Bonds in duplicate during World War I, through the War 
Finance Corporation. At that deposition, I had an attorney, 
who sat by and said nothing while the Post's attorneys merci- 
lessly threatened and hounded me for several days. Your attor- 
ney is supposed to object when the questioning becomes obvi- 
ous harassment, but this dummy refused to do anything to 
help me. I fired him the next day. 

As the afternoon wore on, Fagin's attorney began to wilt. 
He became increasingly red-faced, and excused himself several 
times to go out into the hall. It was apparent that he was on 
some sort of drug, as he became back refreshed and full of 
vigor. However, this only lasted a half hour or so, and he 
would have to go out again. I sat in my uncomfortable chair, 
totally at ease, making certain my answers contained as much 
damaging information as possible about the incredible malevo- 
lence of the demonic Fagin, who of course was not present. 
The fact that this material was going into the record infuriated 
his attorney, who began to scream and shout at me. As the 
sun sank over the horizon, he suddenly collapsed, and halted 
the deposition. As we were leaving the building, he came 
up to me, and with considerable respect, for he had been 
soundly beaten at his own game, he said, "I think it is time 
we got together and settled this thing, don't you?" I agreed, 
and we set a date for the following week. I was jubilant, 
because I expected a reasonable settlement. I was asking for 


fifty million dollars, and a tenth of that was now a good 

When I arrived at the attorney's office, I noticed that he 
seemed calm, rather than downcast, as I had expected. We 
sat down, and he immediately said, "You haven't produced 
the tax returns or the expense accounts, have you?" I replied, 
"No." He said, "You know you are under Federal Court 
order." I said, "You know, and I know, and the judge knows 
that I don't have those records for thirty-four years." He 
said, "In that case, we have to go to the judge for sanctions. 
That means you will be remanded to custody until you comply 
with the order." 

I understood why the judge had refused to grant my Motion 
for Abuse of Process , and had upheld the demand that I produce 
thirty-four years of records. Fagin's associates were desperate, 
after I brought them in as co-defendants, and their only chance 
was to have me put in a box. I was now to be committed 
indefinitely to prison. Since I could not produce the records, 
I would be in for life. The attorney now offered an alternative. 
"I mentioned the other day that we should settle this," he 
said. "I've prepared this quit-claim." 

The quit claim stipulated that I drop all claims against Fagin, 
allow him to keep $16,000 that he had illegally banked from 
the sale of my book, and that I turn over the entire $23,500 
I had kept in the bank without drawing upon a cent of it. 
He was confiscating all of the proceeds from my book. 

I realized that this was extortion and blackmail obtained 
under duress. I signed the quit claim. This same judge had 
already dismissed two suits with prejudice which I had brought 
before him; I knew that he would agree, and had probably 


already agreed, ex parte, to carry out the indeterminate jail 
sentence until I produced the nonexistent records. I believed 
that I now had sufficient evidence to have the entire crew 
prosecuted under criminal statutes. However, after leaving 
the office, I reconsidered, and decided not to give the attorney 
the check after all. I went to Charlottesville to consult pertinent 
statutes in the law library, and returned to my home late in 
the evening. After I sat down, my front door suddenly was 
flung open (I had neglected to lock it), and Fagin's attorney 
came rushing in. He was red-faced, breathless, and extremely 
distraught. It seemed obvious that he was going to attack 
me, and my gun was upstairs. He was standing between me 
and the stairs. 

"What do you want?" I asked. 

"You've got to give me the check, right now!" he ex- 
claimed. There were only the two of us in the room, but I 
suspected he might have U.S. Marshals waiting outside to 
take me to prison. I decided the check would be the final 
evidence I would need to institute criminal charges, and I 
wrote it out. He insisted it be made out to his firm, not to 
Fagin. This again was evidence which I wanted. I wrote him 
the check. 

I then wrote to two United States Attorneys in the states 
we had been operating in, and to the Department of Justice, 
as follows: 

"The statutes governing misprison of a crime require me 
as a citizen of the United States to report to you the following 
offenses: interstate conspiracy to defraud and injure; violations 
of use 17; violations of USC 18 245, unlawful coercion, 
blackmail and extortion, (documents attached) showing Racke- 


teer Influenced Corrupt Organization." I included documenta- 
tion, including Fagin's lawyers' assurances that they would 
obtain rights to all my published books and articles, the receipt 
for 10,000 documents from the attorneys, the check and its 
endorsement by Fagin's attorneys, as well as a number of 
other documents from the file of the case. 

I reckoned without Fagin's widespread political influence. 
Like most very wealthy men, he made regular campaign dona- 
tions to prominent officials. One U.S. attorney replied to my 
letter, "You have settled your case, and there is nothing we 
can do." The registered complaint of extortion, blackmail 
and undue duress was ignored. I had seen the American legal 
system in action. 

Chapter 12 

Freedom of Speech, 

I was uniquely qualified to found the American Council 
of Freedom of Speech Organizations, because I not only was 
the only person ever fired from the staff of the Library of 
Congress for political reasons; I also was the only writer who 
had had a book burned in Europe since 1945. The announce- 
ment that my history of the Federal Reserve was to appear 
in a German edition was greeted with horror by U.S. High 
Commissioner James B. Conant. I have repeatedly memorial- 
ized James B. Conant as the most notorious war criminal of 
the Second World War, a title which no one has sought to 
wrest from him. As a chemist, he developed an anthrax bomb 
on request from Winston Churchill, which would have killed 
every human being and every animal in Germany. The war 
ended before the bomb, (which Conant succeeded in perfect- 
ing) could be used. He then returned to Washington, where 
he advised President Truman to drop the atom bomb upon 
Japanese women and children. After the war, he became the 



ruthless Gauleiter of the conquered German people. I made 
legal objection to his wanton act of book-burning by filing 
the following complaint: 


V. ) No. 



As and for his Petition, the plaintiff, Eustace C. Mullins, 
seeks redress from the defendant for the following acts commit- 
ted by defendant: 

1, On or about July 10, 1955, defendant, acting through 
its duly appointed agents and respondent subsidiaries, did 
cause and order to be confiscated and seized and destroyed 
the property of defendant, the entire German edition of a 
ISLAND," by Eustace C. Mullins, Plaintiff. The only recorded 
instance of a book being burned in Europe since 1945, defen- 
dant's act has been termed "one of the most barbarous acts 
of the twentieth century." The said seizure and destruction 
was duly reported by Reuters News Agency, the Washington 
Post, and other international news agencies. 

2. From July 10, 1955 to the present date, defendant has 


continuously, consecutively and concurrently acted to cover 
up said crime of burning or destroying plaintifFs books, and 
has continuously conspired to obstruct justice by refusing plain- 
tiff any compensation for said act of burning plaintiff's books, 
and has conspired to deny that said book burning took place, 
said conspiracy having been in effect from July 10, 1955 to 
the present date. 

3. Said act by defendant of burning plaintiff's books took 
place as part of defendant's military occupation of a defeated 
nation. West Germany, and constitutes a WAR CRIME as 
defined by the Nuremberg Trials of which defendant was a 
participant and signatory. 

4. Said order to bum plaintiff's books issued from the office 
of James Bryant Conant, in his capacity as United States 
High Commissioner of West Germany, and said order by 
defendant's principal agent to officials of a defeated and occu- 
pied nation constitutes a WAR CRIME. 

5. Defendant, through its duly appointed agents and respon- 
dent subsidiaries, did further cause the said book to be continu- 
ously banned in West Germany from July 10, 1955 to Novem- 
ber 1980, thereby causing the death of the publisher, Guido 
Roeder, Widar Verlag, in Oberammergau, Germany, from 
shock, harassment and impoverishment. Plaintiff's book has 
been published in Oberammergau, the home of the Passion 
Play of Jesus Christ, as an act of Christian piety. 

6. Said agent of defendant, one James Bryant Conant, did 
act and seize plaintiff's book from hidden motives in his capac- 
ity as the second ranking Communist agent in the United 
States, to forestall any resurgence of anti-Communist feeling 
in Germany, because plaintiff's book exposed the financial 
origins of the Communist rise to power. 


7. Said agent of defendant acted illegally because plain- 
tiff's book had been widely circulated in the United States for 
three years, in two editions, with no legal action from any 
United States official, and had been publicly praised by 
such great Americans as Congressman Wright Patman of the 
House Banking and Currency Committee (letter of Nov. 23, 

8. In November, 1980, Roland Bohlinger, WobbenbuU- 
Husum, West Germany, did defy the illegal ban instituted 
by defendant, and did publish and circulate plaintiff's book 
in West Germany, with the approval of the present government 
of West Germany, solely because defendant, its agents and 
respondent subsidiaries, no longer have the power to demand 
obedience from West German officials or to bum plaintiff's 
books in West Germany. Said sequence of events proves sole 
guilt of defendant in the seizing and burning of plaintiff's 
books in West Germany on or about July 10, 1955, and in 
the subsequent conspiracy to injure plaintiff by the continued 
ban to November, 1980, and the conspiracy to obstruct justice 
in covering up this crime, and defendant is solely Uable for 
all damages resulting from said act. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks damages from defendant 
for losses from sales of this book in West Germany from 
1955 to 1980 of deprived royalties of six million dollars 
($6,000,000.00), plus an additional six million dollars 
($6,000,000.00) which plaintiff would have earned from the 
sale of plaintiff's other books and articles in the market in 
West Germany and Europe which would have been created 
by the circulation of the destroyed book, plus punitive dam- 
ages in an amount to be determined by the Court. 

In further pleadings, I referred to this action as follows: 


Nature of the Case 

"Plaintiff's petition is the oldest and most historic civil 
rights case now in litigation. Plaintiff came to the U.S. Court 
of Claims because plaintiff has been consistently denied a 
hearing of this case and legal redress. Plaintiff had not ex- 
hausted legal remedies but had been denied legal remedies. 
. . . The Dept. of Justice has repeatedly and illegally refused 
to act on plaintiff's complaints of violations of his civil rights, 
as evidenced by attached copy of letter from Jerris Leonard, 
Asst Atty Gen, Civil Rights Division, dated March 5, 1970, 
which concludes, "If you believe your rights have been vio- 
lated, you may wish to retain a private attorney to determine 
what remedies, if any, are available to you.' " 

This case was dismissed without a hearing. 

I had also sought vainly for reinstatement to the staff of 
the Library of Congress since I was discharged in 1952, I 
had been discharged by the pathetic drunkard, Luther Evans, 
on charges that I had used the letterhead "Aryan League of 
America," and that I had been the American correspondent 
for "The Social Creditor," a small English newspaper. The 
American Library Association had risen in anger at the specta- 
cle of numerous plays, movies, and television productions 
which showed courageous Bette Davises battling prejudice 
as leftwing small town librarians. The ALA Council announced 
that it had formed two new committees to deal with the clear 
and present danger. ' 'The Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) 
and the Intellectual Freedom Conmiittee (IFC) will announce 
that they are ready, willing and able to take action on com- 
plaints of violations of the Library Bill of Rights whether 
from ALA members directly through the State Intellectual 
Freedom Committees, or indeed, from anyone else." 


Unfortunately for the ALA, the OIF and the IFC, I was 
the only person who had been fired from a library for political 
reasons, and I was a known anti-Communist! They dashed 
for the exits each time that I contacted them, and have been 
running ever since. As I wrote to the redoubtable head of 
the American Library Association OIF, Judith Krug, 

Judith F. Krug, 

Office for Intellectual Freedom 
American Library Association 
50 E Huron St Chicago 111 

Dear Mrs. Krug; 

Thank you for your letter of January 8, 1970, which contains 
the statement that I did not exhaust the administrative remedies 
available. After receiving Mr. Mason's letter, I requested the 
hearing before the Librarian of Congress, Dr. Luther Evans, 
and was granted this hearing. Dr. Evans stated that he had 
no choice but to discharge me. This exhausted the administra- 
tive remedies available. The following week. Dr. Evans made 
a speech before the American Library Association defending 
the principle of freedom of speech, and displaying a remarkable 
moral agility after his action in my case. I do not know how 
you obtained information that I did not exhaust the administra- 
tive remedies. 

As for being a probationary employee, I have heard this for 
seventeen years, but no one has ever explained to me why a 
probationary employee can be denied his civil rights, as I 
know of no other probationary employee who was denied 
tiiem. A probationary employee means one who is allowed 


to work a certain length of time while his qualifications are 
evaluated in order to reach a decision as to his fitness to 
hold the job. My competence and my moral background, as 
well as my relationships with customers and fellow employees, 
was never questioned. The exercise of totalitarian Fascism 
in this instance by Dr. Evans and Mr. Mason is an outrage 
that will be remedied, although from your response I am 
beginning to wonder if the Office for Intellectual Freedom is 
seriously interested in this case. For the record, I believe 
your office will stand or fall by its decision in this case, as 
it is a historic case which will be pressed in every possible 
manner as an exposure of totalitarian Fascistic activity by 
Dr. Evans and Mr. Mason, who reached a personal decision 
to deny me my civil rights and in so doing violated Section 
241 Title 18 of the United States Code in a criminal violation. 


Eustace Mullins 

In my thirty year campaign for reinstatement to the Library 
of Congress, I wrote to Luther Evans' successor, L. Quincy 


L. Quincy Mumford, 
Librarian of Congress, 
Washington, D.C. 

Dear Mr. Mumford; 

Your letter of July 16, 1969 to Senator William B. Spong 
Jr. carefully avoids discussing the facts of the case in my 


discharge from the staff of the Library of Congress. You do 
not mention that no public expression of prejudice was made 
to any staff member or customer of the Library of Congress, 
or that said "prejudice" had not prevented me from carrying 
out my duties and maintaining satisfactory working relation- 
ships in a racially integrated group for six months prior to 
my discharge. 

Nor do you mention that the complaint, coming from outside 
the Library by persons who had never seen or spoken to 
me, was drawn up by J. Epstein, an active member of the 
Communist Party then serving on the staff of Senator Herbert 
Lehman, D.N.Y., and sent to the Library over Senator Leh- 
man's signature. These persons did not appear in person to 
make a complaint. 

Is it not a fact that no member of the Communist Party has 
ever been discharged from the staff of the Library of Con- 

Is it not a fact that if I had expressed pro-Communist views, 
instead of the anti-Communist ones in the article in dispute, 
I would have received no disciplinjuy action? 

Your letter to Senator Spong shows a total amorality and 
complete disregard of my rights as an American citizen and 
as a human being. Although the great majority of Federal 
employees are loyal, decent, hard-working American citizens, 
it is regrettable that the department heads are still being drawn 
from the sinister cabal organized during the 1930s by Harry 
Dexter White and Lauchlin Currie, and that employees not 
in sympathy with their amoral, foreign allegiances are dis- 


charged, in the same ruthless manner as I was discharged 
from the Library of Congress. 

I have been informed that persons ordering any of my eight 
titles from the Library stacks invariably have the slips returned 
marked, "Not on Shelf." Is this not the accepted practice 
of book-burning? The next step will probably be to deny me 
access to Library facilities, which I frequently use in research 
for my books on Christian themes. 

I seek justice, not only for myself, but for the vast majority 
of disenfranchised American citizens. 


Eustace MuUins 

I then filed suit against Mumford, as follows: 
"Defendant has wilfully, maliciously and capriciously re- 
fused to reinstate plaintiff as a member of the staff of the 
Library of Congress because of personal pique and prejudice 
even after being informed of the distorted and false claims 
advanced in plaintiff's letter of dismissal, and said claims 
were initiated by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
in open and flagrant violations of plaintiff's civil rights." 

The following press release, sent to all major news media, 
was never printed anywhere. 


A historic civil rights scandal surfaced here with the filing 
of a suit asking two and one half million dollars in damages. 
E. MuUins, 51, has sued L. Quincy Mumford, Librarian of 


Congress, charging that Mumford, in refusing to reinstate 
MuUins on the staff of the Library of Congress, has shown, 
"pique, prejudice and violation of his civil rights." 

The only person ever fired from the Library for political rea- 
sons, MuUins was given a letter of dismissal stating that he 
had used a letterhead named The Aryan League of America, 
and that he had written an article on foreign aid for The 
Social Creditor of England, a now defunct monetary journal 
which had a circulation of eight hundred, and which was 
not circulated in the United States. 

MuUins had earlier received two promotions during six months 
on the Library staff, and had been personally hired by the 
Librarian, who had heard him give a reading of his poetry. 

Since his dismissal, MuUins has repeatedly requested reinstate- 
ment, but Mumford has ignored these requests, taking the 
position that, as a "probationary" employee, MuUins had 
no civU rights. 

"This legal confrontation is of vital importance to every Fed- 
eral employee," says MuUins. "The courts must decide 
whether the bureaucrat is answerable to the law." 

Judge June L. Green, famous for her capricious decisions, 
dismissed my suit with prejudice Jan. 14, 1975. 

Chapter 13 

Taxation Without 

During much of my adult life, the years spent in research 
and study, I had no contact with the Internal Revenue Service, 
because I had nothing to report. My first taste of the financial 
rewards of a writing career came when I received a $1500 
advance for my biography of poet Ezra Pound, in 1961. In 
exchange for my room and board, I was teaching at a small 
Christian school in the mountains, when I received a summons 
to travel to the city. I was called into an IRS office, where 
the agents indignantly demanded a reason why I had not paid 
$500 of this sum as income tax. I contacted my brother, 
who was an excellent tax adviser. He informed me that I 
need only file a revised return, proving that I had spent more 
than $1500 in researching the book. I did so, and the IRS 
was satisfied. 

Some fifteen years passed before I heard from them again. 
I had been embroiled in several lawsuits, during the course 



of which I was forced to file suit against an attorney for the 
defense. He had persisted in repeating outrageous and mali- 
cious lies about my pleadings to the judge, in order to justify 
the judge's one hundred per cent denial of all of my motions. 
I sued under the statutes, which provide legal redress when 
an attorney makes false statements. This not only caused con- 
sternation (apparently no one had ever sued a lawyer in my 
town before), but also doubled his malpractice insurance. He 
seemed anxious to convince me that my effrontery had not 
gone unnoticed, and one morning when I was passing by 
his office, he was trudging towards the door. "Mr. MuUins," 
hesaid. "Oh, good morning," I replied, without halting stride. 
For those who persist in claiming that there is no God, this 
attorney, at the very moment he was uttering vicious lies 
against me, was stricken, and his face began to rot away 
from a malignant and rapidly spreading growth. I had little 
desire to come closer to this apparition, a head of Medusa, 
and a reminder to all that God is not mocked, when he said, 
"Just a minute," "Yes?" I asked. 

"You may think you are getting somewhere by filing 
these lawsuits," he said, "but you won't be a problem much 

"How is that?" I asked. 

"The IRS will be taking care of you," he said. 

"I have no problem with the IRS," I told him. 

"You do now," he said. He tried to smile, with the result 
that his decaying features contorted into a grin which would 
have done credit to a corpse. 

The next day, I received a summons from the IRS to appear 
for an audit. I appeared at the office with a tape recorder, 


which I did not know how to turn on, and two truculent 
friends. After a brief encounter, we left the office. I had 
abeady filed suit against the IRS agent for damages, asking 
$300,000 for terrorism. The govenunent promptly remanded 
my suit to federal court. I then filed a petition for remand to 
state court. 


Comes now plaintiff, as Attorney pro Se in this action, 
and moves the Court to remand this action to State Court 
for the following reasons: 

1 . Plaintiff filed this Motion for Judgment against an individ- 
ual in a State Court. 

2. Plaintiff filed a Motion of Opposition to defendant's 
Petition for Removal to federal court. 

3. Defendant has admitted in Motion for Summary Judgment 
dated March 10, 1980 that federal court lacks jurisdiction 
over the subject matter of this action. 

4. Plaintiff denies that the United States District Court has 
jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28, U.S. Code Section 1346 
(a) as plaintiff denies that this is a claim against the United 

5. Plaintiff denies that defendant was "acting within the 
scope of his office or employment. N.C.St Hwy Comsn v. 
U.S. D.C. N.C. 1968 288 F. supp. 757 affirmed 406 F 2d 

6. Plaintiff denies that the United States of America can 
be substituted as defendant in place of C. L. Wright Jr. pursuant 
to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2679 (d) and plaintiff 


cites Title 28, United States Code, Section 2680. "Exceptions, 
(c) Any claim arising in respect of the assessment or collection 
of any tax or customs duty or the detention of any goods or 
merchandise by any officer of customs or excise or any other 
law enforcement officer, (h) Any claim arising out of assault, 
battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecu- 
tion, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, 
or interference with contract rights. (1). Any claim for damages 
caused by the fiscal operations of the Treasury or by the 
regulation of the monetary system." 

7. Plaintiff cites Title 28, Section 1446-2, United States 
Code. "Construction. Grounds and procedure of removal will 
be strictly construed in effort to preserve jurisdiction and comity 
of state and federal courts. Wood v. DeWeese D.C.Ky 1969 
305 F Supp. 939. This section should be strictly construed 
in favor of state court jurisdiction. Vilas v. Sharp D.C.Mo. 
1965 248 F.Supp. 1019. Higson v. North River Ins Co. 
C.C.N.C. 1911 184 F.165. Daugherty v. West Un Tel Co 
C.C. Ind 1894 6. F. 138. Proteus Fds & Industries Inc v. 
Nippon Reizu Kabushiki Kaisha D.C.N.Y. 1967 279 F Supp 
836 Ziegler. V. Hunt D.C.La. 1941 38 F Supp 68 Soldifar 
V. Heiland Res Corp D.C.Tex. 1940 32 F. Supp 248." 

8. Plaintiff further cites Title 28, United States Code, Section 
2680, note 67 . ' 'Test of whether government officer is immune 
from tort suit depends on whether individual defendant was 
exercising a discretionary function. Gamer v. Rathbum 
D.C.Colo. 1964 232 F Supp 508. affirmed 346 F. 2d 55. 
Note 14. Abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion does not 
impose liability on the United States under this chapter and 
section 1346 (b) of this title. U.S. v. Morrell C.A. Utah 


1964 331 F 2d 498 certiorari denied 85 S Ct 146 379 U.S. 
879 13 L Ed. 2d 86. 

9. Plaintiff denies that this proceeding is a tort action brought 
against the United States as defined by Title 28, United States 
Code, Section 2671 et seq. 

10. Plaintiff cites Title 26, United States Code, Section 
7214 (a). "Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents. Any 
officer or employee of the United States acting in connection 
with any revenue law of the United States (1) who is guilty 
of any extortion or wilful oppression under color of law. 
... 4. whoever conspires or colludes with any other person 
to defraud the United States. . . . shall be dismissed from 
office, fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or imprisoned 
not more than five years, or both." 

11. In "MY LIFE IN CHRIST," Faith and Service Books 
1968, by Eustace Mullins, plaintiff has written, on p. 87, 
' 'The secret of Christ Power lies in the nature of human poten- 
tial." Defendant's action in singling out plaintiff's poverty- 
level tax return for "special attention" is due solely to plain- 
tiffs Christian work, to plaintiff's work as officer of a taxpayer 
organization, and to plaintiff's authorship of numerous articles 
such as "WITHHOLDING TAX IS ILLEGAL," Christian 
Vanguard, Issue #86, Feb., 1979, and reprinted by popular 
demand in the March 1980 issue of the Christian Vanguard, 
and thereby defendant's prejudicial actions against plaintiff 
were outside the scope of his office and employment. 

12. On Feb. 24, 1980, on the program "60 Minutes" Paul 
Strassels, former Internal Revenue Service official and nation- 
ally-recognized authority on the operations of the Internal 
Revenue Service, stated that any citizen reporting an income 


of below $15,000 had little chance of being audited, and 
that any citizen reporting ssi income of less than $10,000 
had NO chance of being audited, yet defendant bypassed the 
established procedures of the Internal Revenue Service to order 
an audit of plaintiffs poverty-level income. 

13. Plaintiff has requested a jury trial of this action, and 
remand to state court would preserve plaintiff's constitutional 
right to jury trial. 

14. Defendant acted beyond the scope of his official duties 
m singling out plaintiff's poverty-level income for "special 
attention" because plaintiff is listed as No. 2 on a list of 
American patriots who have publicly opposed the subversion 
of the legd government of the United States by the State of 
Israel, and said list was compiled by Mossad, the Israeli Intelli- 
gence Service, and turned over to the Internal Revenue Service 
by said alien saboteurs with the demand that the Internal Reve- 
nue Service take immediate action against plaintiff and other 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays the Court to remand this 
action to state court as originally filed by plaintiff. 

I then filed a request for my IRS file. 


Comes now plaintiff, Eustace C. MuUins, a citizen of the 
assembled States of the Republic of the United States of Amer- 
ica, with all rights and privileges attendant, and moves the 
Court to order defendant to produce for plaintiff all pertinent 


records of the Intelligence Division of the Internal Revenue 
Service concerning plaintiff in any way, for plaintiff's due 
perusal and study as an essential part of plaintiff's prosecution 
of this action. 

In almost two years of litigation, the IRS never produced 
any documents. I also filed Written Interrogatories to the Com- 
missioner of Internal Revenue. I never received any answer 
to these Interrogatories. 

I then filed a motion for injunction to prevent the government 
from sending the fraudulent 1040 form through the mail. 


Comes now plaintiff, Eustace C. MuUins, as attorney pro 
se in this action, and moves the Court to issue an Injunction 
against Defendant To Deny Use of Mails for Fraudulent Docu- 
ments (1040 Forms), for the following reasons: 

1. The 1040 Form which is mailed to citizens of the United 
States by the Internal Revenue Service, Department of the 
Treasury, is a fraudulent document because it is a legal sum- 
mons, but nowhere on this form is the recipient notified that 
this is a service of a legal sununons, thereby creating a fraudu- 
lent act by sending said document through the mail improperly 
and illegally lacking any identification as to its true nature, 
nor does it warn the recipient of the penalties for disobeying 
said summons: United States Code Title 26-7210. Fail to obey 
summons will result in fine of not more than $1000.00 and 
imprisonment of not more than one year, or both. 

(a). Corpus Juris Secundum, v.83, p.795. A Summons is 


defined as "A call to attend, or to act, as at a particular 
place or time." The 1040 form is a call to attend, or to act, 
as at a given place or time, and is a legal summons. 

(b). 1672 Rec. Proc. Justin, crt Edinb. (S.H.S.) 11 77 A 
Messenger executing a Summonds must shew his warrand. 

(c). 1578 Lindsaye, (Pitscottie) Chron. Scot. (S.T.S.) 1.150 
Than was send ane summondes of foirfaltour. 

2. The 1040 form is a legal warrant, but nowhere on this 
form is the recipient informed that this is the service of a 
warrant, and it thereby becomes a fraudulent act to send said 
document through the mails improperly and illegally lacking 
identification as to its true nature. United States Code 26- 
5557 authorizes internal revenue agents to issue search warrants 
but said warrants must be properly identified. United States 
Code 26-7608 (b) also authorizes internal revenue agents to 
execute and serve search warrants, but does not authorize 
the service of same without proper identification. United States 
Code 18-2234, Authority exceeded in executing warrant. 
"Whoever, in executing a search warrant, wilfully exceeds 
his authority or exercises it with undue severity, shall be 
fined not more than $1000.00 or imprisoned not more than 
one year. " Je 25 48, C645 62 Stat. 803. The action of defendant 
in sending the 1040 search warrant through the mail without 
proper preliminaries is a violation of United States Code 18- 
2234, because it exceeds statutory authority for sending a 
search warrant without proper legal preliminaries. United 
States Code 18-2235. Search warrant procured maliciously. 
Whoever maliciously and without probable cause procures a 
search warrant to be issued and executed should be fined 
not more than $1000.00 or imprisoned not more than one 


year. Code of Virginia 19.2-52 When search warrant may 
be issued: 19.2-55 issuing general search warrant without affi- 
davit deemed malfeasance. 19.2-59 Search without warrant 
is a misdemeanor. Plaintiff, a citizen of the sovereign State 
of Virginia, is protected against said violations. 

(a) Corpus Juris Secundum, sec. 932. "The guaranty of 
the Fourth Amendment to the federal Constitution against 
unreasonable searches and seizures includes searches and sei- 
zures under, or in connection with, internal revenue laws. 
Amos V. U.S. S.C.41 S.Ct.266, 255 U.S.313, 65 L.Ed. 654. 
U.S. V. Costner, C.C.A.Tenn. 157 F. 2d 23 U.S. v. Swan 
1 D.C.Cal. 15 F.2d 598 U.S. v. One Kemper Radio, D.C.Cal. 
1 8 F.Supp.304." The burden of these decisions is that the 
16th Amendment to the Constimtion authorizing the income 
tax does not confer upon defendant any authority to violate 
other provisions of the Constitution. 

(b) Corpus Juris Secundum, sec. 933. "An affidavit on 
which a warrant is issued must conform to the statutes and 
to the Fourth Amendment. ... In view of the provisions 
of the Fourth Amendment, a showing of probable cause is 
necessary to justify the issuance of a warrant." 

(c) Corpus Juris Secundum, Sec. 934. "A search without 
a warrant contravenes the Fourth Amendment." 

3. The 1040 form is a legal contract between the party of 
the first part, the citizen who makes out and signs the form 
as a statement of debt and promise of payment, and the party 
of the second part, the defendant who receives payment but 
does not sign the contract, and said contract is therefore invalid. 
O.E.D. A contract is defined as "to enter into mutual obliga- 
tions." L. contractus, an agreement enforceable by law, an 


agreement which effects a transfer of property, a conveyance. ' ' 
(a) 1588 A.King tr. Canisius Catech. 39. All unluachfuU. 
. . . vsurping of vthir mens geir be thift. , . . usurie, inust 
winning, decept, and vther contractis." The 1040 form effects 
a transfer of property from the party of the first part to the 
party of the second part, even though the party of the second 
part does not fulfil its obligations, and is therefore a fraudulent 
document, and cannot legally be sent through the mail. 

4. The 1040 form of defendant, demanding monies with 
the tacit and implicit use of force, is legally an extortion 
note, and is in violation of United States Code 18-875, 876, 
872, 606, 607, 597 and 602. Because the 1040 form attempts 
to extort monies from citizens of the United States by force 
in order to give or pay tribute to foreign potentates and princes 
with said monies, said extortion is in violation of United 
States Code Chapter 11, Section 18-201. 

5. The 1040 form of defendant contains a section for the 
Presidential Election Campaign Fund, "Do you want $1 to 
go to this fund?" This violates United States Code 18.606. 
Intimidation to seciure political contributions, 607, Making 
political contributions, 597, Expenditures to influence voting, 
and 602, Solicitation of political contributions. This also vio- 
lates the fundamental Constitutional principle of secrecy of 
the ballot, a basic principle of our Republic, because the 
citizen who refuses to offer $1 to this fund publicly indicates 
his political preference as a political dissident who does not 
support either of the government financed and controlled politi- 
cal parties, and the citizen thereby becomes subject to audit 
by the Internal Revenue Service, as plaintiff was selected 
for audit solely for said reason. Thus the 1040 form, which 


is in violation of the principle of secrecy of the ballot, cannot 
legally be sent through the mail. 

In further support of said Injunction, plaintiff cites Title 
26, United States Code, Section 7426 (b) (1) and Title 26, 
Section 2613, Note 28. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs Motion for Injunction should be 

Included in some 38 motions filed during this lawsuit were 
five Motions for Injunction to halt the collection of income 
tax, one of which is as follows: 


Comes now plaintiff, as attorney pro se in this action, and 
moves the Court to issue an Injunction against Department 
of the Treasury/Internal Revenue Service Commissioner of 
Internal Revenue, to halt collection of monies by force and/ 
or intimidation from citizens of the assembled States of the 
Republic of the United States of America if any portion of 
such monies are designated to be paid as tribute to foreign 
princes and alien potentates, for the reason that plaintiff cites 
in paragraphs 5 and 13 of his Motion for Judgment, the subver- 
sion of the Internal Revenue Service by aliens and collaborators 
and the ensuing harassment of plaintiff and other American 


patriots and patriotic organizations who have publicly opposed 
the subversion of the legal government of the United States 
by said collaborators who are in violation of Chapter Eleven 
of the United States Code, and that cited activities of defendants 
are in violation of Chapter 105 of the United States Code, 
"Sabotage," and that defendants may be held under the Emer- 
gency Detention Act of 1950, Sections 811, 813 and 825, 
and that this injunction shall remain in effect until such times 
as the defendants are no longer in violation of said Sections 
of the United States Code and said violations are corrected. 

In support of this Injunction, plaintiff cites Title 26, United 
States Code, Section 7426 (b) (1). "Injunction. If a levy or 
sale would ureparably injure rights in property which the 
court determines to be superior to the rights of the United 
States in such property, the court may grant an injunction to 
prohibit the enforcement of such levy or to prohibit such 

Plaintiff further cites Title 26, United States Code, Section 
2613, Note 28. "Apart from this motion permitting injunction 
restraining making of assessment or levy where taxpayer has 
not received proper notice, suits to restrain assessment or 
collection of tax may be maintained despite Section 7421 of 
this title prohibiting maintenance of suit to restrain assessment 
or collection of a tax." 

Thus, plaintiff's Motion for Injunction should be granted. 

I also filed a Petition for Remand for Jury Trial: 


Eustace Clarence MuUins, Defendant, as attorney pro se, 
respectfully petitions the Court to remand this cause for a 
jury hearing, for the following reasons: 

1. The Virginia Bill of Rights provides (8) ". . . jury of 
his vicinage ..." 

2. The English Act of 1309, restraining chancery jurisdiction 
without jury. 3 Ed II. 

3. An impartial jury, being fundamental to a fair hearing 
in a fair tribunal, is a basic requirement of constitutional due 
process. Durham v. Cox, 328 F. Supp. 1157 (W.D.Va. 1971). 

4. Magna Carta (1215) Cap 35, "the writ called praecipe 
shall not in future be issued so as to cause a freeman to lose 
his court." 

5. Magna Carta (1215) Cap 39. "No free man shall be 
taken or imprisoned or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or 
anyways destroyed; nor will we go upon him, nor will we 
send upon him, unless by the lawful judgment of his peers, 
or by the law of the land." 

Stimson, The Boston Book Co., Boston, Mass. 1908, p. 11. 
"The Right to Law. The law required by this general right, 
furthermore, must be the Common Law of the English people. 
That is to say, in origin, the body of their free customs and 
usage, made by themselves, not by a king, and also, in earliest 
days, enforced by themselves; and furthermore, it must be 
the Common Law, not the Roman or Civil Law, nor the 
Canon or Church Law, nor any supposed Administrative Law, 
or orders of decrees of the king, or king in Council. Even 


chancery jurisdiction, which rests originally on the royal power 
as wielded by the king's chancellor (whence the writs of injunc- 
tion, mandamus, prohibition etc. are called Prerogative writs) 
is hardly an exception. For many centuries we find statutes 
restraining or limiting chancery jurisdiction, p. 12. In early 
English trials, therefore, what was tried was rarely whether 
the man did the deed (it was usually admitted or known) but 
whether he was right in doing it; that is to say, was he in 
his law? Was he acting upon a state of facts whereon the 
unwritten law gave the right of reparation or vengeance into 
his own hands? If not, he was out of law, outlaw; that is, 
he had lost his right to law as against anyone molesting him 
in person or property, p. 24. The common law sounds in 
damages. . . . Thus, the earliest codes of statutes merely 
fix a scale of penalties. The notion of compelling a freeman 
to do something or to abstain from doing something was foreign 
to Anglo-Saxon ideas of liberty. Like the doctrine of free 
will carried to its extreme, a freeman was lord of his own 
acts; only liable for the consequences of same, to the person 
injured; later, only to the Crown if a criminal act, and to 
the individual injured if a private wrong. Even when the judg- 
ment of the court went against him, the defendant was never 
compelled to do a thing, or even, in ordinary cases, to make 
restitution, as in the Oriental system of rendering justice. 
This principle must never be lost sight of, for it explains 
many things noted in local history and in popular prejudice. 
Probably the power of the chancellor to issue injunction writs 
went as far towards prejudicing our ancestors against the courts 
of chancery and the Star Chamber (which was merely its 
criminal side) as the absence of the jury and the local county 


court. Repeated attempts to limit or do away with this jurisdic- 
tion are found in the States of the Realm, and the general 
prejudice against chancery courts came to our ancestors by 
direct inheritance. As is known, some States, notably Massa- 
chusetts, for some time withheld chancery jurisdiction entirely, 
and when adopted it was in a limited and tentative way. . . . 
Bearing in mind firmly the principle that the EngUsh law 
sounds only in damages, and that the notion of ordering or 
even forbidding any act (except under a criminal statute) is 
utterly foreign to its system; and the cardinal principle that 
no fact can be found without the intervention of the petit 
jury; we shall be able to understand both the historical reason 
and the present meaning of the objection of the American 
people to the injunctive powers of chancery and ex parte 
sentences for contempt made by the judge who issued the 
injunction and upon the facts found by him showing the in- 
fringement of the same. . . . Many further authorities can 
be cited to sustain this position; but these are sufficient to 
establish the general principle that the injunction process and 
contempt in chancery procedure, as well as chancery jurisdic- 
tion itself, is looked on with a logical jealousy in Anglo- 
Saxon countries as being in derogation of the conunon law." 

TECTS PRIVATE RIGHTS" by Frederic Jesup Stimson, 
Scribner's, New York, 1923, p. 22.: 

The Anglo-Saxon people have a genius for ruling them- 
selves. Their laws are the most ancient of modem law, they 
extend in unbroken line from Ethelbert, the first Christian 
king of Kent. p. 59. Chancery jurisdiction rested originally 
on the royal powers as wielded by the King through his Chan- 


cellor (in civil matters) or Justiciar (in criminal). These high 
officials were usually clerics, hence familiar with canon or 
Roman law rather than the Anglo-Saxon common law, which 
they probably despised. The common law knew only one 
remedial process, punishment for doing wrong; it could not, 
as a priest might do, order a litigant to do right. . . . From 
the Chancellor grew his court of chancery and all our courts 
of equity. Mitigating or supplementing the somewhat clumsy 
and uncompromising common law was well and good; but 
the Chancellor also shared this extraordinary, un-English, Nor- 
man and tyrannical power of ordering a free citizen to do 
something that he did not wish to do. . . . For what we 
may call the Continental notion, derived from the Roman, is 
that all law rests on the order of a sovereign to his subject, 
couple with a threat of punishment if he does not obey; to 
make a man do something or not do something. This is still 
more the Oriental notion. , . . But this notion had absolutely 
no place in the common law of England. An Englishman 
was a freeman, responsible for his acts; he could be punished 
for them by the state, or made to pay damages for them by 
the individual; but he could not be ordered to do anything 
else. In the earliest days of all, when in Saxon tribes each 
man executed his own law, the 'courts,' i.e. the assembly 
of his neighbors, only tried the question whether he was in 
his right in so doing, and if not, he paid a regular fine, at 
first fixed by custom, later, and most elaborately, by the earliest 
written laws we have preserved in England. . . . so no one 
was ever ordered to do anything by court process." 

WHEREFORE, defendant claims the right to a jury hearing 
of this action. 


The federal judge finally dismissed my suit without argu- 
ment, on the incredible grounds that 

"It appears that the plaintiff attempted to claim a deduction 
for business losses on the ground that the annual inflation 
rate exceeded his 7% return on investments. Accrued interest, 
of course, should have been reported as gross income on the 
plaintiff's income tax return, USC 26 sec 61, and the failure 
to do so constituted a legitimate basis for IRS review." 

The judge's opinion proved his total incompetence. I had 
fully reported all interest income on my tax return (it was 
interest on a savings account of $2100, and amounted to less 
than $200); the judge, or his clerk, became confused by the 
fact that I had filed a Motion for an Injunction to Halt the 
Collection of Income Tax on Savings Interest Income. He 
apparently thought that this meant I had refused to report it, 
although my suit had stipulated that I had filed and reported 
all sources of income. The judicial error was so flagrant that 
I had no doubt, on appealing it to the notorious "Rocket 
Docket," the leftwing U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th 
Circuit, that they would find in my favor. In my appeal, I 
explained in detail the error of the judge. On April 3, 1981, 
the appeUate court stated "MuUins maintains he fully reported 
his interest income. Even if MuUins' statement is correct, 
the district court did not err in granting the government's 
motion for summary judgment." 

Note the brilliant legal scholarship flaunted in the observa- 
tion "Even if MuUins' statement is correct." This is a bold 
admission that the appellate court did not even bother to ascer- 
tain whether I had told the truth about reporting the interest 
income. Such sloppy judicial work, showing a callous disre- 


gard for the appellate rights of the citizen, leads one to wonder 
what sort of actual judicial work would be done if I were 
appealing a death sentence. 

On Nov. 20, 1987, I was advised to send Certified to the 
Department of Justice a brief record of the circumstances 
leading to the denial of income from my writings. I sent the 
following notarized statement, which was also sent to the 
Internal Revenue Service. There was no response. 


I, the undersigned, Eustace C. MuUins, residing at 126 Madi- 
son PI. Staunton Va. 24401 hereby swear and affirm the follow- 
ing facts: 

On or about 15 June, 1953, I was being driven from my 
Manhattan apartment by Charles Smith (Smetonius) to his 
office in Union, N.J., where he managed Common Sense, 
an anti-Communist paper. During this drive. Smith informed 
me that his employers (he was a double agent working for 
the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation 
League of B'Nai B'Rith) were upset by my articles circulating 
widely. They authorized Smith to make this offer: I would 
continue to write whatever I wished, but all articles would 
be submitted to Smith and his employers prior to publication. 
In return, I would be paid handsomely. If I refused this offer. 
Smith's employers would see to it that I never received any 
further income from my writing. I declined the offer, because 
I wished to be independent, and I could not believe any group 
had power to deny me all income from my work. Smith then 


issued 100,000 copies of my book, The Federal Reserve Con- 
spiracy, without payment of royalties. Other publishers also 
began to issue large printings of my books, which continues 
to the present. I filed two suits with the U.S. Court of Claims, 
because federal agents were active in these printings, but these 
suits were never argued in court. I complained to federal 
agencies continually since 1953 and in every case was rebuffed. 
I filed suits in federal courts but the judges refused to uphold 
Title 17 use, copyright law, even though I held valid copy- 
rights. In thirty-four years, I have suffered approximately 
$25,000,000.00 loss of income from my books because of a 
criminal conspiracy to violate the laws of the United States, 
and a criminal conspiracy to violate my civil rights by a private 
government which regards itself as being beyond the reach 
of due process, composed of the above-named groups, and 
in which federal agents and federal agencies have played an 
active role to deny me all income from my writings. You 
are duly notified. 


Chapter 14 

The Taxing Power 

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." So spake 
the Supreme Court, in the early days of the American Republic. 
However, the power to destroy not only carries a like power 
to refrain from destroying, but its punitive power has the 
obverse role of granting privileges and immunities, otherwise 
known as rewards. The political genius of the secretive Canaan- 
ite mechanism reached its apogee in 1913. Not only did it 
award control of the money and credit of the people of the 
United States to its most trusted henchmen; it also carried 
the admiralty powers conferred by the Sherman Anti-Trust 
Act, carefully phrased to protect the monopolies, by making 
new and rival monopolies illegal, to a new high with the 
16th Amendment to the Constitution. This "income tax" 
amendment achieved the enviable goal of turning anyone who 
opposed the regime into a "criminal," while it simultaneously 
erected a vast bureaucratic maze in which the criminals could 
forever conceal themselves, immune from any punitive action. 

The nineteenth century political observer, Lysander 
Sqooner, wrote, 



' 'Whoever desires liberty should understand. . . . that every 
man who puts money into the hands of a 'government' (so 
called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used against 
himself, to extort more money from him." 

1913 was the year in which Americans handed over to 
the international financiers control of their money and credit, 
and also allowed the passage of a tax amendment which in 
operation would allow the government to say who is a criminal 
and who is not. The result is that millions of law-abiding, 
hard-working, productive Americans are now toiling on a 
treadmill of taxation which seizes by extortion from fifty to 
eighty per cent of their earnings and assets each year. Lenin 
laid down the dictum, in "The Threatening Catastrophe," 
1917, that "concealment of income will be punished by confis- 
cation of assets." This became the official program of the 
Internal Revenue Service. The tax billions which are hauled 
in by the IRS from working Americans are inmiediately trucked 
to the nearest Federal Reserve Bank — not to the U.S. Treasury! 
Any minor league IRS agent has the power to declare any 
American a criminal, and to seize his money and property. 
The legal redress against such declarations is almost nil. The 
majority of the assessments for "deficiencies" are figures 
which would cost the taxpayer as much or more to dispute 
by hiring a lawyer. As a bargaining figure, the IRS usually 
claims a deficiency at least four times greater than any possible 
amount "owed." The Washington Post noted, April 16, 1989, 
that in 1988, the IRS, with all of its seizure power and totalitar- 
ian tactics, recovered only 26 per cent of the total deficiencies 
it had claimed it in vases that were closed." These were 
claims that were actually settled. In many cases, the IRS 


claims astronomical sums from taxpayers, claims of millions 
of dollars against citizens whose net worth may be ten or 
fifteen thousand dollars. The IRS knows that this money will 
never be collected, but it is a useful figure to bring before 
Congress. Budget increases are based upon such claims; the 
IRS can state that it has ten billion dollars in outstanding 
claims for deficiencies; Congress votes additional funds, so 
that the IRS can hire more people to collect the money, having 
no idea that two-thirds of the figure is mere hot air, with no 
possibility of its ever being collected. 

The Post quotes Chief Judge Arthur L. Nims ID, "They 
(the IRS) set up some big numbers once in a while, totally 
unjustified." However, these are the numbers which are reli- 
giously quoted in the media, as "evidence" that many Ameri- 
cans are "evading" billions of dollars in income taxes. In 
fact, the IRS is collecting every dollar it can claim, using 
techniques of seizure, garnishee, and outright theft. IRS abuses 
led Congress to pass a Taxpayers Bill of Rights. Such a bill 
was totally unnecessary, because we already had a Bill of 
Rights. The IRS violations of the Bill of Rights caused Con- 
gress to pass a measure enormously popular with the voters, 
which promised to get the IRS "off their backs." In fact, 
the bill was an absolute fraud. Paul des Fosses, a former 
IRS agent, who now leads the National Association of IRS 
Whistleblowers, revealed in an interview in the Post, April 
29, 1989, that the Taxpayers Bill of Rights was passed by 
Congress as a tongue in cheek measure. The Congressmen 
accepted the gratitude of their constituents for passing it, while 
at the same time notifying the IRS to ignore it. Des Fosses 
stated that "The reality is quotas (of tax collection) are still 


being maintained and enforced, and the problem lies in the 
fact that IRS is under tremendous pressure from Congress to 
provide the funds Congress needs." 

One of the most forceful warnings against the 16th Amend- 
ment came from Richard E. Byrd, Speaker of the Virginia 
House of Delegate, on March 3, 1910. Father of the political 
leader, Senator Harry Byrd, Richard E. Byrd warned, 

"It (the 16th Amendment) means that the state must now 
give up a legitimate and long established source of revenue 
and yield it to the Federal Government. It means that the 
state actually invited the Federal Government to invade its 
territory, to oust its jurisdiction and to estabUsh Federal domin- 
ion within the innermost citadel of reserved rights of the com- 
monwealth. This amendment will do what even the 14th and 
15th Amendments could not do — ^it will extend the Federal 
power so as to reach the citizens in the ordinary business of 
life. A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed 
upon every man's business; the eye of a Federal inspector 
will be in every man's counting house. The law will of necessity 
have inquisitorial features, it will provide penalties. It will 
create a complicated machinery. Under it businessmen will 
be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines 
imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly 
menace the taxpayer. An army of Federal inspectors, spies 
and detectives will descend upon the State. They will compel 
men of business to show their books and disclose the secrets 
of their affairs. They will dictate forms of book keeping. 
They will require statements and affidavits. On the one hand 
the inspector can blackmail the taxpayer and on the other, 
he can profit by selling his secret to his competitor. When 


the Federal Government gets a stranglehold on the individual 
businessman, state lines will exist nowhere but on the maps. 
Its agents will everywhere supervise the commerce of the 

Note that State Senator Byrd speaks only of the businessman. 
The original propaganda for the income tax amendment sug- 
gested that it would only apply to businessmen, who would 
be required to maintain tax records. Senator Byrd would have 
found it beyond the wildest imagination that Federal tax inspec- 
tors would require newsboys and scrubwomen and waitresses 
to record every nickel earned by their toil, and hand over 
more than half of it to the Leninist tax inspectors. Another 
of the five points of Lenin's 1917 program, which swept 
him into power in Russia, was "the abolition of commercial 
secrets." This goal could easily be attained by the tax agent 
program of the IRS . Although Lenin could hardly have foreseen 
it in 1917, another great benefit of the tax program has been 
the steady stream of U.S. taxpayers' funds which have been 
collected by the IRS and turned over to the Soviet Union. 
This is obviously illegal, because no government agency has 
any constitutional power to tax an American citizen for the 
benefit of a foreign power. The engines of government, most 
of which have been in existence for less than fifty years, are 
dedicated to maintaining their flow of fuel, that is, tax money. 
Some of the revenues are taken from one group of citizens 
and given to another group; this is the famed policy of ' 'redistri- 
bution of wealth" which originated on the gaming tables of 
Europe. Much of the revenue is spent by the agencies on 
themselves, and on their further self-aggrandizement, or on 
programs which have been created deliberately to spend these 


revenues. Such programs have only one basic requirement, 
that all the expenditures be wasted. 

Few Americans realize that the basis of "wasteful govern- 
ment," as well as its oppressive policies, is our debt money 
system, which can be traced back to the cult of Baal and 
the Babylonian money system. Money is created from debt; 
the payment of the debt extinguishes the money. Therefore, 
the sole purpose of our present manipulated government is 
to create inextinguishable debt, and to maintain the debt money 
machine. They continually waste this money in boondoggles 
whose creators live only for today, hoping in vain that tomor- 
row will never come. 

One cannot understand the "income tax" or what sort of 
tax is being laid on what type of income, without knowing 
the history of the tax. A tax on incomes was demanded by 
reformers after the Civil War, to supplement the revenues 
raised by the tariff; the tariff revenues were more than sufficient 
for the government expenditures of that period, but the reform- 
ers wanted a government which would exercise more direct 
control over the people. Congress imposed an income tax 
on all incomes above $4,000 per year on Aug. 28, 1894. 
This was the equivalent of $60,000 a year in today's dollars. 
On May 20, 1895, the income tax law was declared to be 
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers 
Loan & Trust, 1895. The Court ruled that 1. taxes on real 
estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or 
income of real estate were equally direct taxes. 2. That taxes 
on personal property or on the income of personal property 
were likewise direct taxes. The whole act was declared uncon- 
stitutional and void. 


Despite this precedent, an income tax was enacted by consti- 
tutional amendment in 1913, although many scholars have 
noted that the amendment was never properly ratified by most 
states. It was a necessary measure, required to fund the financ- 
ing of the First World War by the United States. The European 
nations were akeady bankrupt and had no money to finance 
the war. Thus the income tax was properly a "war tax," a 
fact which became more obvious during the Second World 
War, when the withholding tax on incomes was passed by 
Congress as a temporary wartime measure. Forty-five years 
later, it is still in effect, having been regularly renewed by 
Congress to feed its insatiable appetite for public funds. The 
Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a scrip act, establishing a 
privately owned bank, which was not federal, which had no 
reserves, and which was not a "System," but a criminal 
syndicate. The Act authorized the central bank, which was 
thereby established to issue interest-bearing scrip. This was 
done by book-keeping entries, thereby creating money out 
of nothing, as King William in had authorized its predecessor, 
the Bank of England, to do in 1694. The Federal Reserve 
Act further authorized the use of "elastic currency," that is, 
currency which could be expanded, in the great economic 
tradition of the rubber check. However, this elastic currency, 
inimitably expanded, had to be periodically retrieved, or the 
entire Ponzi scheme would collapse. The salvage agency which 
was created to handle this problem was the IRS. This agency 
has the task of sopping up the flood of elastic currency, known 
as counterfeit, or frauds, because it has nothing but p^)er 
backing, being backed by paper bonds. 

The salvage operation was not wholly successful until Con- 


gress passed the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, now 
known as the withholding tax. It has never been a "withhold- 
ing" but it is an illegal garnishee of wages. A garnishee is 
a legal notice served as a writ of attachment to attach the 
wages of a debtor. Withholding named you as the debtor, 
and the government as the creditor. However, the tax is not 
collected by a legal notice, or by a writ of attachment. Second, 
no debtor-creditor relationship exists. The IRS makes the un- 
founded claim that the withholding system establishes "the 
liability at the source." However, no debt is established until 
the end of the year, long after the withholding has been col- 

In collecting the withholding tax for the government, the 
employer commits an illegal act against the employee. He 
executes a hen, although this has never been allowed in U.S. 
law. U.S . V. Hooe, 3 Cranch 73, established the legal precedent 
that "The United States, in the mere character of a creditor, 
have no lien on the real estate of the debtor. The priority to 
which the United States were entitled, did not partake of the 
character of a lien on the property of a public debtor. If the 
priority existed from the time the debt was contracted, and 
the debtor should continue to transact business with the world, 
the inconvenience would be inmiense." Not only does the 
employer have no authority to collect taxes; he collects taxes 
as a condition of your employment; both functions are illegal. 

The withholding tax plan originated during World War H, 
ostensibly as the creation of the chairman of the Federal Re- 
serve Bank of New York, Beardsley Ruml, a longtime Rocke- 
feller Foundation employee. He boasted to a New York inter- 
viewer that the withholding tax plan had been devised at a 


luncheon meeting at the exclusive Plaza Hotel in New York, 
by himself and some "fellow intellectuals," whom he refused 
to identify. 

Because of the strong arm methods of its agents, the IRS 
is frequently accused of violating the Constitution. However, 
the IRS does not operate under any provision of the Constitu- 
tion, just as the Mafia does not operate under any provision 
of the Constitution. The IRS operates under the principles 
of the law merchant. Its victims are brought before the Tax 
Court, which is an equity court. Because of their law merchant 
framework, IRS agents seize property without legal authority, 
conduct trials without juries, and harass citizens until they 
die of heart attacks. American citizens facing "tax charges" 
are never told that Constitutional safeguards do not apply. 
The jurisdiction of these admiralty courts is based upon the 
alleged "contract" which citizens enter into when they obtain 
a Social Security number, or when they use Federal Reserve 
scrip. However, such a contract cannot be valid if the party 
of the second part, the citizen, has never been advised of its 
provisions. Similarly, any conviction handed down in an admi- 
ralty court proceeding can be overturned because the judge 
failed to issue a Miranda warning to the defendant that he 
would be allowed no Constitutional safeguards. In many tax 
cases, judges have sternly warned defendants not to cite Consti- 
tutional safeguards. 

The IRS frequently goes public with its basic principle 
that the Constitution does not apply in tax cases. In August 
of 1988, Rosemary Campbell, a spokesman for the IRS, ap- 
peared on Denver radio station KOA. She was asked by the 
interviewer, Gary Tessler, if IRS agents were not required 


nvAnMiNT or huum a human sut vices 


3iauxf 10, 1938 

HMkh, SD 57CSfc 

Ottrl^. SshMta, 

Ttar XM«at Ittttr ta th* itternqr Oemnl's oftle* hu btan femrded to 
u to IMMr. 

Beetal SMOittr la • TClnatuy •jrstw in that no on* Is nmliad to gat • 
nafbor. Kairmt, prograM Mileh us* soeisl soeurtty nuabsia for eoBtral 
pnpesM Biitst not allcw • paxsen without a soeld. saemitar aaibar to 

9m btanal laraoM Sardea nsas aeelal aaeniltgr aortai* aa taxpagrar 
iMBttlleatlon oMban. P.!. <7-397 was passed en October 5, 1961 noulr- 
ut aaeh taxpajrar to fionlah an idsntliying niaba* for tax laportlof 
mposaa. Baeaisa of this, eaplLagreTa Kst hara the aoelsl saenrltgr mabaia 
of thair weifcsn to lagaUor report thslr aaxnlngs. Ihagr eodld not eontlma 
to asi^lagr an indlildual for whoa thagr eosld not lagallj' report eamlniB- 

A bitk or laadlng lasUtntiea la not gomned ty soeiai aeeniltgr rales but 
I doobt vsqr neh If Um^ would raAiss a loan sloply beeausa the appUeant 
°~"» •;«i?,««»>ltsr mAar. Bowevar, a parson with no aoolal seeurlty 
WwrwooW hate no tnaUU IneoM (eee paragraph abo«o) and I aa sax* 
this fact would ka«* a beartng ca their deei2on. 

!"Ji52*!2!!.i!'"?-!5?f *2i» **">*• *»" *«"*»• *>»• rmAvim to iwm 

f J^fy ?y°*f ^ ""^ '"" "* pmrpoaes. Bia parson UaUng the tnherl. 
tme would not be rentlied to ha** a aoetal security nurter Juat for this 

i?2r^i'^'!,^5S^I2*^J2?**"' »>«»«^«or«irtherlafo«Mtlon, 
jn wajr saU ua at 1^0(V452-O100. 


Vnqrltftoa V 

nsias IsprsaaBtattf* 
I hereby certify that the ebov* lettar from the Depertment of Heelth & Humen flervloee 
to Jerome T. Bchlefen, iRRl, Box IMQ. Huadon. South Oekote 6703<l. deted Jemiery W. 1080. 
la a true end correct copy of the original. 

My oommlalcn explrea_ 


to abide by the same rules as police officers in making a 
search. "We aren't protected by the Constitution (in income 
tax cases)?" Tessler asked. "That's correct," Campbell re- 
plied, going on record for the IRS. 

The motto of the IRS is the ancient cry of the English 
highwayman, "Stand and deliver." Robbery is their aim, 
and the admiralty courts uphold their methods. Citizens are 
frequently horrified and angered by the callousness and brutal- 
ity shown by IRS agents against the public. This brutality is 
explained by the underlying desperation which inspires every 
action of the agents. They must recover the Federal Reserve 
scrip from the citizens; this allows for the issuance of more 
' 'elastic currency, ' ' and makes it possible to continue payments 
to the Bank of England (which controls the Federal Reserve 
System through five New York banks, who own 53% of the 
Federal Reserve of Bank of New York stock). 

Former IRS agent Mike Klein is preparing an explosive 
revelation of the tactics used by the IRS in their dealings 
with American citizens. When Klein joined the IRS, he was 
stunned to hear agents boasting about how they threatened 
people. One agent declared that he loved to "bust chops," 
others were openly vicious. After talking to a citizen, an 
agent would brag, "Boy, did I make that guy jump. I had 
that woman crying when I told her I'd put her out on the 
street with her kids." Another agent was asked by a taxpayer 
how he expected him to pay the tax after he had padlocked 
his business. The agent rudely told him, "Go get your wife 
to peddle her " 

The number of citizens who have died of heart attacks in 
IRS offices is not available, but it is believed to be in the 


hundreds. Many of those targeted for investigation are what 
the IRS terms "easy marks," that is, elderly people, in poor 
health, who can be easily intimidated. Klein cites the fate of 
one such taxpayer who was ordered to appear for an audit. 
After a lengthy and exhausting interrogation, he collapsed in 
the office and died of a heart attack. "They shoved the body 
into a vacant office, and threw a blanket over it." An audit 
is probably the most stressful ordeal any American can un- 
dergo. A citizen comes in, knowing that he may lose his 
business, his home, and all of his assets. The agent is also 
under tremendous strain; he must produce more revenue, be- 
cause his career depends on how much money he can bring 

One Criminal Investigation Division agent for the IRS was 
a lifelong sadist. He was so brutal to his wife and children 
that his son and daughter finally shot him. Despite the fact 
that the circumstances were widely aured on television, a judge 
sentenced the children to long prison terms. 

Alarmed by the unconstitutional acts of the IRS agents, 
many Americans were faced with a serious dilemma — could 
they in good conscience continue to support a government 
which had now exceeded the worst abuses of King George 
ni two centuries earlier? Some of them began to protest against 
the confiscation of property a la Lenin, without legal process. 
They thereby exposed themselves to immediate retribution, 
not only by the IRS, but also by other government agencies, 
and by the admiralty courts. One "conservative" group took 
an uncompromising stance — ^the John Birch Society thundered 
that "good Americans" were bound to pay all taxes assessed. 
They denounced any tax resistance. However, this move was 


said to have been forced upon them by their longstanding 
ties with the Council on Foreign Relations and other interna- 
tionalist conspiracy groups. 

The 1913 tax seemed a modest one, calling for a tax of 
1% for couples with incomes over $4,000. By 1919, the mini- 
mum income for filing had been lowered to $1000, and the 
tax was increased by 77%. During the Great Depression, few 
Americans had to pay any income tax, because most of them 
were unemployed. By 1943, wartime employment made it 
imperative for the criminal syndicalists to enact a measure 
which would allow them to seize income "at the source," 
through the withholding tax. Although the Leninists' tax pro- 
gram was in fiill swing, few citizens remembered that an 
inalienable right of citizenship is the right to own property. 
It is the great distinction between our Republic and the Marxist 
nations, which forbid the ownership of private property. Prop- 
erty stems from the word "proper," deriving from the Latin 
"proprius, one's own, belonging to oneself," and from the 
French verb "proprier," to have in possession. Thus it is 
right to own property; one is not a proper citizen unless one 
owns property. The Founding Fathers required property owner- 
ship as a requisite to voting. Those who were not proper, 
who owned nothing, could not be expected to vote in a responsi- 
ble manner. 

We fought the Revolutionary War as a tax protest; no taxa- 
tion without representation. Most colonists regarded them- 
selves as good Englishmen; they had no desire to separate 
themselves from the British Empire. Indeed, slightly more 
than one-half of the colonists remained loyal to England 
throughout the war, the numerous Tories. Taxation was the 
bone of contention, although the admiralty courts and the 


denial of jury trial were also sources of unrest. Today, we 
have both excessive taxation and the admiralty courts, yet 
popular opposition is not nearly so great. 

America's first tax revolt took place in 1632. The inhabitants 
of Watertown, Mass. were outraged when the directors of 
the Massachusetts Bay Co. levied funds for the fortification 
of Cambridge. The revolt was ended when the settlers agreed 
to the popular election of selectmen, who then levied the 
taxes . Americans accepted taxation if it was done by a represen- 
tative government. The present Congress is loyal only to the 
monopolists, and to foreign governments. 

President Andrew Jackson, who incurred the undying enmity 
of the international bankers by his battle against their central 
bank, the Second Bank of the United States, was so averse 
to taxation that in 1836, he reduced internal tax receipts to 
less than $500. In his Farewell Address, President Jackson 
said, "Congress has no right under the Constitution, to take 
money from the people unless it is required to execute some 
one of the specific powers intrusted to the Government; and 
if they raise more than is necessary for such purposes, it is 
an abuse of the power of taxation and unjust and oppressive. ' ' 

William Gladstone observed that "I believe an Income Tax 
does more than any other tax to corrupt the people." In the 
face of this declaration, the House of Representatives noted 
in the Congressional Record, July 12, 1909, "The income 
tax is the most just because (it) takes from the backs of the 
masses of the people some of the burden of taxation and 
lays it upon the pockets of those who do not bear their just 
share of the burdens of the government (i.e. the very 

Congress' 1909 claim that the income tax takes from the 


backs of the masses should now read "takes from the pocket- 
books of the masses." The principal victims of forcible IRS 
collections are newsboys and scrubwomen, waitresses and 
elderiy widows. Contrast the treatment of scrubwomen by 
the IRS with the lengthy courtroom battles fought by media 
moguls such as the Newhouse family. Their newspaper empire 
is now worth $5.2 billion; the IRS seeks an estate tax of 
$609 million, later upped to $914 million. The Newhouses 
claim that the actual tax owed is $47 million. Insiders, accord- 
ing to Business Week, believe they will eventually pay some 
$50 million, plus several million in fees to their attorneys. 
The elder Newhouse was an autocrat who believed he would 
live forever; consequently, he refused to discuss estate plan- 
ning. Now the heirs must bluff and cajole the IRS. One observer 
comments, "Don't shed any tears for the Newhouse boys. 
They will finally plant some trees in Israel, and the IRS will 
accept the lowest figure for a settlement." 

The Philadelphia Inquirer recently published a series, "The 
Great Tax Giveaway," documenting that thousands of Ameri- 
cans have received tax writeoffs of billions of dollars through 
Congressional special tax "laws." One Califomian received 
a tax break excusing him from paying millions of dollars in 
taxes; he then applied for a second private tax law to gamer 
millions more. These provisions were incorporated into TE- 
FRA, the notorious "Tax Reform Act" of 1986, passed by 
Congress in September of that year. The Act closed off long 
established tax deductions for most Americans, but extended 
them for a favored few. There was no altruism involved; the 
recipients of these multi-million dollar tax breaks were those 
who had previously donated to political campaigns. A donation 


of a few thousand dollars could inspire gratitude amounting 
to millions of dollars in tax breaks. The 1986 tax law gave 
one company a $20 million tax break, even though it had 
filed for Chapter 1 1 bankruptcy in 1981 and no longer existed. 
It was disclosed that a New York lawyer is now reaping this 
$20 million tax break. Two paragraphs inserted into the 1986 
law allow certain companies to avoid payment of hundreds 
of millions of dollars in federal income taxes. One company 
was able to avoid payment of a half billion dollars because 
of the special provisions incorporated into the "Tax Reform 

While opening the sluice gates of special refunds and tax 
breaks for chosen individuals and firms, the tax agents are 
steadily tightening the screws on the wage-earning population. 
Michael Milken can "earn:" $500 million in 1988 through 
"junk bond" deals, but a $100 a week waitress must disclose 
every dollar she receives in tips. Only the prostitutes can 
still scoff at the tax laws. 

However, the IRS toughest crackdown is scheduled for 
the nation's children. New IRS guidelines have decreed that 
every child over the age of five must have a Social Security 
number. Most American children are now issued a Social 
Security number when their parents register them for their 
birth certificates. The teen-agers who mow lawns during the 
summer, babysit or deliver newspapers in order to save money 
for their college tuition must now report and pay taxes and/ 
or penalties on every nickel they receive; otherwise, they 
become "tax evaders." The "kiddie tax" provision is an 
essential part of the Congressionally drafted and enacted TE- 
FRA, Tax Reform Act of 1986, the same "tax reform" act 


which contains so many special multi-million dollar writeoffs 
for the chosen few. 

It has long been obvious that the income tax code is the 
greatest weapon of the monopolists. Not only is it the spoils 
system refined to an incredible degree, and, as such, the most 
lucrative gold mine for politicians and their favorite lobbyists; 
it is also the principal weapon against the productive American 
middle class. Not only are the children of this class (in a 
supposedly "democratic" government in which class distinc- 
tions do not exist) taxed and penalized because they wish to 
save money for their tuition — ^being "middle class," they 
are not eligible for the many tuition giveaways which are 
available to children from "special interest" families — ^but 
they are also prevented from engaging in ' 'capitalist accumula- 
tion," as Karl Marx termed it, that is, saving money to finance 
any profit-making venture. The greatest problem facing any 
of the monopoly corporations is the march of time; the replace- 
ment of buggy whips by automobile horns. This explains 
why the monopolists funded and gave political backing to 
the world Communist movement. Under Communism, eco- 
nomic development will remain frozen in time, as the cryogenic 
economy of the world. People will be driving reproductions 
of the 1938 Packard for the next three hundred years, as the 
Soviets have been doing since that year. To prevent the Henry 
Fords of the future from building a better automobile in a 
rickety packing shed, the monopolists intend to see that they 
will never be able to "accumulate" the couple of hundred 
dollars they will need for tools and supplies. The IRS obligingly 
fulfills this vital function, seeing to it that the American worker 
remains restricted to the "bare subsistence wage." Under 


this dictum of David Ricardo, the worker will never be paid 
more than the minimal amount which he needs for himself 
and his family. There would be no possibility of saving any 
money from this hmited income. Ricardo (1772-1823) was 
the third son of one Abraham Israel, a wealthy member of 
the Amsterdam banking community which had financed the 
Cromwell execution of the King of England, and the "Glorious 
Revolution," which put William of Orange on the throne of 
England, and resulted in the chartering of the Bank of England 
in 1694. Israel emigrated to England as part of the chosen 
influx of the Glorious Revolution. He soon became a prominent 
member of the London Stock Exchange. His son David worked 
closely with Nathan Rothschild, and amassed a large fortune, 
which qualified him to become an economist. He not only 
authored the infamous "subsistence wage" theory, but also 
provided that if it became absolutely necessary to increase 
the wages of the workers, for some reason, then the government 
must step in and increase their taxes by a corresponding 
amount. Ricardo's slave labor theories of wages and labor 
were enthusiastically received by the more sinister elements 
of the capitalist community, not the least of whom was Karl 
Marx, a ' ' scholar' ' who subsisted off of donations from wealthy 
entrepreneurs. Marx adopted Ricardo's theories, which became 
the guidelines by which the workers of Soviet Russia are 
enslaved today. Marx is even more renowned in the United 
States for his invention of the progressive income tax, which 
was first aired in his Communist Manifesto of 1848. The 
Marxist tax was enacted into law in the United States during 
the Civil War, shortly after Marx had authored it. A second 
version of Marx's tax was enacted in 1894, but was promptly 


declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The monopo- 
Usts were forced to take a new approach; they put the tax 
through as an amendment to the Constitution. 

Ricardo's dictum, which became known as "the iron law 
of wages," became a standard feature of economists' proposals 
throughout the world. His descendant, Rita Ricardo, came 
to Washington in 1980 as part of the "Reagan Revolution," 
which was intended to be a re-enactment of the Glorious 
Revolution of England. She promptly assumed the post of 
Reagan's adviser on social security payments and workers' 

As the KGB of Ricardo's iron law of wages, the IRS not 
only works to maintain the monopoly corporations in power 
throughout the United States; it also protects the Marxist gov- 
ernment estabUshment by routinely delaying any criminal in- 
vestigations of other government agencies, and thus plays a 
vital role in Drug, Inc., the international machine of the drug 
czars and organized crime. Reader's Digest noted in an article, 
in 1981, "How the IRS Helps the Mob," that a key provision 
of the aforementioned TEFRA reform act of 1986 was its 
special pronunciamentos purporting to protect the right of 
privacy. The Digest noted that these provisions have proven 
to be so protective of criminal rights that TEFRA is now 
known as "The Organized Crime Relief Act." Government 
agents who were investigating a narcotics case in Cleveland 
requested IRS help in deciphering numerous financial records 
which they had seized in their raids. They were told to send 
the documents to the IRS. Months later, the IRS informed 
the agents that not only would they refuse to discuss the 
case any further, but that the records which had been sent to 


them had now been classified as "confidential tax infonna- 
tion," and they could not be returned! 

Meanwhile, IRS agents continue to be the subject of an 
ongoing House Government Operations Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs, chaired by Geor- 
gia Representative Doug Barnard Jr. In their investigation of 
IRS violations of civil and criminal statutes, the Committee 
found that when the IRS learned that senior employees were 
using their offices for private gain, and of other examples of 
misconduct, little or no punitive action was taken against 
the guilty parties. William Duncan, former Criminal Investiga- 
tive Division agent of the IRS, testified that he felt like he 
had been "in the Twilight Zone." He had been ordered by 
superiors not to disclose information to the committee, and 
he was told to lie to the Congressmen if certain matters were 
brought up, including a money laundering operation. He then 
quit. Fred Goldberg, the Internal Revenue Service commis- 
sioner, sent a prepared statement to the Committee that he's 
not ready to make a quick judgment about the IRS internal 
security system. Duncan quit the IRS after 17 years of service. 

IRS Manual on Revenue Procedure, 64-22 states, "It is 
the duty of the Service to carry out that policy for raising 
revenue by correctly applying the laws enacted by Congress. 
... not to adopt a strained construction in the belief that 
he is protecting the revenue." The IRS agents are in fact 
forced to take a "strained construction" if they are to protect 
their jobs; careers and promotions depend on the amount of 
extra money they can bring in. On p. 145, the manual states 
that there is no set definition of 'substantial compliance' on 
producing records." Here again, the agent plays it by ear. 


The citizen he is auditing will not have a copy of this manual 
in front of him, and must do whatever the agent demands. 

The Committee has publicized some notorious examples 
from its investigations, including the incidence of criminal 
conspiracy to obstruct the tax laws in the Los Angeles office 
of the IRS. The former chief of the LA CED IRS was "per- 
suaded" by Guess Jeans to investigate a tax fraud against a 
competing designer jeans firm, Jordache. The IRS official 
delivered the investigation, and then went to work for Guess. 
He was later found to have "deterred or impeded" two other 
tax investigations while he was head of the CID. 

IRS agents have frequently played a crucial role in political 
campaigns, intervening on behalf of one candidate against 
another. The most famous victim of such abuse was Congress- 
man George Hansen of Idaho. IRS tactics not only defeated 
him for re-election, but later sent him to prison on flimsy 
charges of "ethics violations." It was proven that he had 
followed House guidelines in filling out the new forms, but 
he was convicted and imprisoned in a political vendetta. When 
his wife announced that she would run for his Congressional 
seat, she was immediately threatened by IRS agents. They 
informed her that if she would not turn over lists of her cam- 
paign contributors, she too would be sent to prison. Her cam- 
paign supporters then came under fire from the IRS, and she 
was forced to abandon her race for Congress. All of these 
acts are forbidden by law; they constitute illegal interference 
with the electoral process, and at least five or six other criminal 
acts. Nothing has been done. 

For those Americans who still believe that they have some 
Constitutional rights left, the Washington Post carried a demur- 


rer on Feb. 26, 1989. The Post cited a Jan. 20, 1989 decision 
by Judge Larry McKinney, who handed down a ruling that 
there is no Constitutional right of privacy for bank accounts. 
(Raikes v. Bloomfield State Bank). The decision gives the 
IRS complete authority to continue its longtime practice of 
furtive examination of citizens' private bank accounts. The 
McKinney decision is merely part of a nationwide campaign 
to tighten the screws on all Americans by the tax collectors. 
Paul Craig Roberts noted in his syndicated column, Feb. 7, 
1989, "Ever since Reagan and a handful of outsiders lifted 
the oppressive tax burden on the American people, Washington 
insiders and the capital's coterie of special interests have been 
trying to hike taxes." 

Andy Melechinsky touched upon this problem when he 
recently stated 

"Any person who lives by the Bill of Rights today, is 'at 
risk' of being caged, and even worse, by a powerful, ruthless, 
and insidious tyranny such as the world has never before 

Melechinsky points out the vital distinction between 
"rights" and a "privilege" for those who depend upon their 
"rights" when they go into an American court. "I should 
point out that Fifth Amendment RIGHTS are not privileges 
in a court of law (as opposed to equity). Only in a court of 
equity do rights become privileges, and no one can be lawfully 
brought into a court of equity unless he knows exactly what 
he is getting into, and wants to be there." 

Few Americans realize that if they elect to go into the 
Tax Coiut, they are walking into an equity court whose judges 
are chosen by the government taxing authorities. Under Presi- 


dent Carter, the Tax Court Nominating Commission forjudges 
was chaired by Robert Mundheim, the General Counsel of 
the U.S. Treasury Dept. Second in conmiand was Jerome 
Kurtz, director of the IRS. The other commissioners had like 

One of the more outspoken critics of the IRS has been 
Virginia scholar and activist, Kenneth White, who has for 
years headed the Virginia Taxpayers Association. White has 
given documented evidence on IRS abuses before Congres- 
sional committees and state legislatures. He has cited under 
oath specific IRS violations of 26 USC 7214 (extortion); 18 
use Sec 1001 (false and fraudulent documents); 18 USC 
241 (conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate), 
and 18 USC 1341 (mail fraud). White has also filed two 
criminal complaints with former Atty Gen Edwin Meese III 
against Raymond Keenan , director of the Memphis IRS Center, 
and against other IRS employees for using false and fraudulent 

American citizens such as Kenneth White are routinely vili- 
fied by government propagandists, and their names placed 
on special blacklists. They are given the derogatory term of 
"tax protester" because they have dared to document criminal 
activities by IRS agents. A citizen who voices a complaint 
or registers a document stating that a crime has been committed 
against him or against any other citizen is not a "protester"; 
he is merely complying with the law. Statutes define one 
who fails to file information about a crime known to him is 
guilty of "misprision," that is, of failing to notify the con- 
cerned authorities about a crime which to his knowledge has 
been committed. Like other concerned Americans, Kenneth 


White is trying to clarify matters which have never been satis- 
factorily defined — ^such as "Who is actually required to file 
and pay an income tax?" "In what medium of exchange 
should such a tax be paid?" and whether the U.S. government 
is empowered to lay and collect taxes on American citizens 
for the benefit of foreign governments. Atty Lowell H. Becraft 
Jr. of Huntsville Ala. points out that the legal tender powers 
of Congress are valid only in "its jurisdiction." He cites 
the Revised Statutes, Title 39, Sec; 3588, the act which made 
U.S. notes a legal tender, "United States notes shall be lawful 
money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public 
and private, within the United States, except for duties on 
imports and interest on the public debt." 

The last U.S. notes authorized to be printed in the United 
States were authorized by President Kennedy, shortly before 
his assassination in Dallas. On June 30, 1963, Kennedy signed 
Exec. Order No. 11110, further amended E.O. Mo. 10289, 
Sept. 1951, thereby giving the President authority to issue 
the currency. He thereupon ordered the issue of $4,292,- 
893,815.00 in lawful American money, which was not interest- 
bearing currency , as are the Federal Reserve notes . The printing 
order was rescinded as one of President Lyndon B. Johnson's 
first ofiBcial acts after he succeeded Kennedy. At least he 
knew why he had ascended to the Presidential chair. Despite 
the fact that the Federal Reserve notes are issued by the pri- 
vately owned Federal Reserve banks, they are still promissory 
notes, obligations or promises to pay by the American taxpayer. 

When the present writer was sent the dread sunmions to 
appear at the IRS for a tax audit (unknown to him, the order 
had been sent at the instigation of an attorney who had been 


unable to defeat me in a lawsuit) I promptly sued the agent 
for $350,000 for terrorism. The case was filed in a state circuit 
court, but was immediately remanded by the government to 
federal court, whereupon the plaintiff filed a motion to have 
it remanded back to state court, citing numerous precedents 
and stipulations from the U.S. Code. The case dragged on 
for many months, during which time the plaintiff filed thirty- 
eight motions, not one of which was ever answered by the 
government, or allowed to be argued in court. Plaintiff also 
filed Written Interrogatories with the IRS which were never 
answered. "Question 8. Plaintiff has charged the IRS with 
racial discrimination. Does the IRS practice racial discrimina- 
tion against white taxpayers such as plaintiff, while allowing 
black political leaders to avoid paying income taxes because 
of these black leaders' threats to organize riots in the black 
communities if they are forced to pay taxes? Question 9. 
Why did an IRS official tell Drew Pearson that "We accept 
noncompliance from black political leaders because this is 
the price that Americans must pay to maintain racial peace 
in American cities?" Pearson printed this dialogue verbatim 
in his Washington Merry Go Round column. 

Not only does the IRS function as a ' ' vigorish' ' or collection 
arm for the Black Hand, as the Mafia operation called the 
Federal Reserve System is known to insiders; not only does 
the IRS function as the enforcement arm of Karl Marx's pro- 
gram calling for a graduated or progressive income tax; not 
only does the IRS function to maintain monopoly corporation 
power throughout the United States, preventing American citi- 
zens from competing by developing their own businesses under 
our alleged "free enterprise" system; the IRS also functions 


as the single largest negative force on the U.S. economy. 
Michael Evans, in his ground breaking work, "Let's Abolish 
the Income Tax," records that during the year of 1986, Ameri- 
cans spent a total of 5.3 BILLION hours in maintaining finan- 
cial records, documents, and the preparation of income tax 
returns at the command of the IRS. If the average income 
of these American taxpayers is computed at a reasonable figure 
of $20 per hour, because most persons who earn less than 
$10 an hour pay little or no income tax, we have a dead 
loss to the American economy of more than $100 billion a 
year, a figure which could significantly reduce our national 
deficit. In 1988, the progressive or graduated income tax of 
Karl Marx brought in some $400 billion of tax revenue to 
the government from individuals, as compared to only $100 
billion collected in corporate income taxes. 

If we examine the aforesaid loss of $100 billion a year 
from nonprofit activity of American citizens, from an econo- 
mist's view of the phenomenon known as "velocity of circula- 
tion," with an average turnover of five times per year in 
velocity of circulation, we arrive at the true figure of a loss 
to the American economy of $500 billion a year — to say noth- 
ing of the psychological stress under which Americans are 
placed as they toil over their income tax returns, knowing 
that as an error of a few dollars may cost them everything 
they own, in penalties and confiscations a la Lenin. 

Because the IRS system itself has been for years on the 
point of total collapse, Americans need not fear that they 
will have to continue spending five billion hours per year on 
their income tax returns. The IRS now has a 25 year plan 
under which IRS agents will eventually fill out all tax forms. 


They will compute your tax as a "simplified service" for 
taxpayers. In view of the fact that 60% of all IRS advice 
given to taxpayers about filling out their income tax forms 
has been shown to be erroneous, and is so faulty that the 
IRS itself will not allow the advice of its own agents to be 
used as a legal excuse for filing a faulty or incomplete tax 
return, we can only shudder at the chaos which will result 
when the IRS agents prepare everyone's tax form, and notify 
the citizen the amount he is expected to pay. The IRS 25 
year plan also calls for "pay equality," an IRS refinement 
of the ancient Marxist precept of "comparable worth," which 
sets down guidelines for paying taxes from each according 
to his worth and handing the proceeds out to each according 
to his needs. Under the IRS plan, hardworking Americans 
will be forced to accept "pay equality," that is, reductions 
in pay, disguised as higher taxes, while favored special interest 
groups will get special bonuses. Any challenge to such IRS 
decrees would be interpreted as "Criticism of the state," or 
by the accepted term in Soviet Russia, "Slandering the State," 
and would be punished accordingly. The contemplated IRS 
plan would permanently enthrone it as the KGB of America, 
an all seeing, all powerful secret police which would inflict 
the maximum punishment on anyone who dares to criticize 
Big Brother in our 1984 Socialist State. It is Orwell's vision 
of the jackboot being stamped into the citizen's face, forever. 
Although few Americans have expressed alarm at the specta- 
cle of some of the most notorious leftwing Congressmen hastily 
departing Washington only hours ahead of sunmionses and 
indictments, the exodus may have greater import than those 
revelations afforded us by the servile press. 


The hegira of these professional politicians, although boding 
well for the future of the Republic, may not have been alto- 
gether inspired by the prospect of lengthy ethical hearings 
followed by the usual slap on the wrist. For some time, there 
have been rumors about a disturbing memorandum drawn 
up by the Department of Justice, which outlines a strong 
possibility that one or more of the Arab nations may request 
the indictment of a number of our more prominent Congres- 
sional leaders on war crimes indictments. The Department 
of Justice memorandum cites the public activity of these Con- 
gressmen in sponsoring and passing numerous appropriations 
bills for the State of Israel, these funds then being used to 
massacre Palestinian women and children in the vain efforts 
of the Zionist terrorist leaders to crush the desire of the captive 
Palestinians for freedom from their oppressors. 

The memorandum makes it plain that these Congressmen, 
by their own admission, have become liable under the Nurem- 
berg trials guidelines for the "massacre of thousands of civil- 
ians, including many women and children," for "confining 
thousands of political prisoners in concentration camps, under 
extremely inhumane conditions prohibited by the Geneva Con- 
vention," and for "plotting and waging aggressive war" 
against civilian populations. 

The legal basis for the indictments is that these Congressmen 
have provided all of the military and economic aid to Israel 
which has made the Israeli occupation possible, which has 
paid for every bullet fired into the body of each Palestinian 
victim of Zionist atrocities, and which has paid all of the 
expenses of the Israeli occupation government. Under the 
Nuremberg guidelines, the Israeli government qualifies as a 


military occupation force equivalent to Nazi occupation gov- 
ernments in European countries in which they had set up 
satellite states. Many officials of these occupation governments 
were subsequently convicted and executed by decision of the 
Nuremberg tribunals, although, in many cases, the evidence 
of their liability was much less than that of U.S . Congressmen 
in the sponsorship of the Israeli government actions. 

The Department of Justice memorandum was prepared in 
response to an inquiry from a Congressional staff member 
about the possibility of war crimes charges being brought 
against one or more members of Congress. Its conclusion is 
that "We regret to inform you that, from the overwhelming 
amount of evidence readily available for prosecution, that 
defense against such a charge would be extremely difficult, 
if not impossible. Even though conviction of charges of war 
crimes would not necessarily result in the imprisonment or 
other punishment of those charged, due to the absence of an 
international force capable of carrying out such a sentence, 
the mere airing of such war crimes charges would be very 
damaging to the continuation of present United States foreign 
policy commitments, and might well result in extensive re- 
thinking of and revision of our outstanding commitments to 
the State of Israel." 

The memorandum went on to describe the "deleterious 
propaganda value of such war crimes charges," because the 
United States government would find it difficult either to defend 
the accused or to cooperate in their prosecution. 

Another Department of Justice legal position recently sur- 
faced which has even more alarming potentialities. It suggests 
that great obstacles now exist to further prosecution of Ameri- 


can citizens who are indicted on charges of failure to file or 
failure to pay income taxes, because of the possibility that 
they can mount an unbeatable defense by citing the First 
Amendment, (1791), 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment 
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" 

For some years, I had pointed out that Congress, by enacting 
into law numerous appropriations bills which gave billions 
of dollars to the State of Israel, were in violation of the First 
Amendment. My argument had been that because the State 
of Israel is publicly known as a theocracy, that is, as a religious 
state with an openly religious government, and which excludes 
from office members of other religions who are nevertheless 
resident in and paying taxes in that nation, the Congress is 
thereby guilty of violating the First Amendment, that Congress 
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." 
I had not yet had the opportunity to introduce this argument 
in a legal action, but had long been hoping for the chance 
to place a federal judge on the spot, forcing him to admit 
that it was impossible to extort by force funds from American 
citizens, when those funds were then appropriated by act of 
Congress to be sent to a theocratic state, for the purpose of 
maintaining a religious entity as a sovereign nation among 
the family of nations. Indeed, the State of Israel seems to 
be the only world power at the present time which is openly 
and acknowledgedly a theocratic state, the tendency in modem 
history having been for several centuries against theocracy 
in government, and favoring governments which were open 
to members of all religious beliefs, as in the United States. 

Support for my legal argument emerged last year when 


the hero of the Congressional political show trials of the Iran- 
Contra debate, which has finally resulted in the conviction 
of Col. Oliver North on vague charges of having "obstructed 
Congress , " a charge , which if true , should cause him to receive 
a medal from the American people, said hero, Senator Daniel 
K. Inouye (D. Hawaii), who was then chairman of the Senate 
foreign operations subcommittee, aroused a controversy by 
yielding to the command of one of his campaign contributors 
that he appropriate eight million dollars from the U.S. Treasury 
to build religious schools for North African Jews in France. 
Inouye, who had been notorious for his vicious attacks on 
Col. North throughout the Iran-Contra hearings, eagerly agreed 
to violate the Constitution of the United States by giving the 
eight million dollars to the Zionist agitprop group, the Ozar 
Hatorah organization. There was a brief discussion of the 
appropriation in the servile media, although no mention was 
made of the fact that it was a flagrant violation of the First 
Amendment. Congressmen, like our judges, look upon the 
Constitution as an outmoded document which, in any case, 
has been totally replaced by admiralty law or the law merchant. 
Under the law merchant, there is no legal stigma or prohibition 
against U.S. taxpayers' funds being spent for Jewish religious 
instruction, as the law merchant observes no Bill of Rights. 
Most of the bills enacted into law by the United States Congress 
base their legal validity upon the principles of the law merchant, 
the most notorious being the enactment of the Federal Reserve 
Act into law by Congress in 1913. The Federal Reserve Act 
openly violated the Constitutional provision that only Congress 
should have the power to coin money, regulate the value 
thereof (Art I. Sec. 8), and may be said to have enthroned 


the law merchant as the new and regnant law of the United 

The problem of funding Jewish religious schools is once 
again raging in Washington, as a headline in the Washington 
Post of July 18, 1989, duly noted, "AID Funding of Israeli 
Rieligious Schools Hit" "Lawmakers Decry 'International 
Pork Barrel. ' ' ' The story revealed that the Agency for Interna- 
tional Development (AID) has earmarked $3.5 million for 
the construction of two orthodox Jewish religious schools in 
Israel and a teacher-training institution for Jewish settlements 
in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. AID deputy administrator 
Mark Edelman is now fielding protests about the "apparent 
increased politicization" of AID's $35 million ASHA pro- 
gram — ^American Schools and Hospitals Abroad. The story 
goes on to condemn the ASHA program as "an international 
pork barrel for pet projects of key pro-IsraeU senators and 
their Jewish fundraisers." AID is also paying out one and a 
half million dollars in construction funds to the Sha'alvim 
Teachers College in Ayalon, Israel, to build dormitories for 
Israeli students, who will then work as teachers in West Bank 
Jewish settlements. The teachers college, founded in 1976, 
is described as "a center for the teaching of Jewish culture." 
Also scheduled for AID funds is the Machon Alte Institute 
in Safed, Israel, part of a network of Jewish centers run by 
the Chabad Lubavitcher Movement, an extremely orthodox 
Hasidic sect which is headquartered in Brooklyn, and which 
is wellknown for sponsoring local vigilante groups in Hasidic 
neighborhoods. It also has one and a half million dollars ear- 
marked by AID for the construction of dormitories. AID also 
has set aside $500,000 for the Or Machayim Girls College 


in Bnei Brak, Israel, whose stated purpose in its AID applica- 
tion is "to raise the economic and cultural levels of Israel's 
Sephardic population." The Israel Arts and Science Academy 
in Jerusalem is also scheduled to get $1.5 million from AID 
this fiscal year, and an additional one million next year for 
dormitory construction. Its American sponsor is Robert H. 
Asher, who, coincidentally, is also the chairman of Washing- 
ton's most powerful political lobby, the American Israel Public 
Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. With such influential backing, 
it is understandable that the Agency for International Develop- 
ment would be appropriating such large sums to institutions 
in the State of Israel, even though its dedication to these 
goals might lead some Americans to think that AID stands 
for the "Agency for Israeli Development." Nevertheless, 
Asher denied that AIPAC had any part in obtaining these 
multi-million dollar appropriations for his ideological home- 

Several Congressmen have called for a review of these 
appropriations, not from excessive zeal in protecting the Amer- 
ican taxpayer from such outrageous exploitation on behalf 
of a foreign theocratic power, but from fear that, as AID 
becomes more identified in the public mind as an agency of 
AIPAC and other Zionist lobbies in Washington, it could 
endanger their multitudinous other pork barrel projects, public 
revulsion against such wholesale raiding of the U.S. Treasury 
leading to cutbacks in many other government funded opera- 

Chapter 15 

MuUins On Equity 

The law merchant exists primarily to assure equitable deal- 
ings in commerce. Or so we are told. In fact, the law merchant 
exists to subvert all other legal systems in the world, and all 
governments. It is primarily an instrumentality of plunder. 

Frederic Bastiat writes, in "The Law," 

"Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number 
of ways; hence, there are an infinite number of plans for 
organizing it. Tariffs, protection, bonuses, subsidies, incen- 
tives, the right to employment, the progressive income, tax, 
free education, the right to profit, the right to wages, the 
right to relief, the right to the tools of production, interest 
free credit, etc. etc. And it is the aggregate of all these plans 
in respect to what they have in common, legal plunder, that 
goes under the name of SOCIALISM." 

Communism's offer to "redistribute the wealth" is the ulti- 
mate in political demogoguery. In "The World Order," the 
present writer traced the origin of Communism to international 
bankers who were embarked upon a universal program of 



"levelling," that is, of reducing all things to a single manage- 
able standard. Former Secretary of the Treasury William Simon 
writes that "The redistribution of wealth from the productive 
citizen has become the principal government activity." Of 
course the "redistribution" of wealth means taking it from 
producers and giving it to non-producers, in order to buy 
the political support of the nonproductive element of society. 
Samuel Adams, one of the Founding Fathers, wrote, "The 
Utopian scheme of leveling, and a community of goods, are. 
... in our government, unconstitutional." 

Adams pinpoints the fundamental problem in America to- 
day, that the law merchant and its communistic program of 
redistribution and leveling are forbidden by our Constitution; 
the syndicalists are therefore dedicated to removing and de- 
stroying the Constitution as the principal obstacle in their 
path. This is why the battle now comes to a head in American 
courts; the law merchant has insidiously wreaked its will for 
many years, and it is finally exposed as an alien fraud and 
the final subverter of the legal system which was guaranteed 
to the American people by our Constitution. 

In the Oxford English Dictionary, we find the law merchant 
defined under "1856 H.Broome. Conunon Law. Lord Camp- 
bell remarks that the general lien of bankers is part of the 
law merchant, (lex merca^oria)." 

Now, this seems iimocuous enough. A banker may be justi- 
fied in obtaining a lien to protect his loan, or his interest. In 
practice, however, this means that the ability of the central 
bank to issue and create money creates a maelstrom which 
inevitably draws all property and all persons into its suction; 
it creates a lien on everything within the state. It is now 


widely believed that oixr central bank, the Federal Reserve 
System, holds at the present time a lien on all property in 
the United States. This means that there really is no personal 
property, and that therefore we have arrived at the Communist 
ideal, in which private individuals own nothing. 

Black's Law Dictionary defines lex mercatoria, the law 
merchant, as part of the common law. It may be present in 
our courts, but not as the common law. It is the antithesis 
of the common law, because it is the vehicle of equity. The 
pernicious presence of equity in our legal system is a hoary 
relic of Oriental despotism, of autarchy, and of the abuses 
of unbridled power and the loss of individual rights. Equity 
is the Star Chamber of the Middle Ages, and the legal system 
of Babylonian absolute power; it is also the cult of Baal, the 
legacy of Nimrod, and the personification of the stealthy Ma- 
sonic power. It is not accidental that the law merchant is 
enshrined in the Masonic rites; in the Ancient and Accepted 
Rite, the 31st degree is closely associated with equity; as is 
the 16th degree, the Princes of Jerusalem. It also is accepted 
as the Grand Defender, the 31st degree of the Ancient and 
Primitive Rite. 

To the average citizen, the law merchant simply means 
the original principles of commerce, the law of negotiable 
instruments, contracts, partnership and trademarks. There is 
nothing sinister in these precepts. The law merchant contem- 
plates good faith and credit among those dealing in commerce; 
again, there is no quarrel with such precepts. The Oxford 
English Dictionary defines a contract as "to enter mutual 
obligations, from Latin contractus, or agreement; an agreement 
enforceable by law, an agreement which affects a transfer of 


property, a conveyance. . . . 1588. A.King tr. Canisius Ca- 
tech 39, All unlauchful . . . usurping of othir mens geir be 
theft . . . usurie, inust winning, decept and other contracts." 

The law merchant upholds agreements between contracting 
parties. This too is acceptable; if a disagreement over the 
terms develops, it can be settled in a court. However, Black- 
stone developed the theory that court judgments themselves 
become "Specialties," contracts of the highest sort. The judg- 
ment of the court itself, in issuing an Order of Execution 
for the forcible payment of a judgment, creates a special "con- 
tract" which then must be fulfilled. It has been said that 
law looks to the past, but equity looks for the future. What 
this means is that law is that fixed understanding, developed 
by our traditions, which guides us, while equity looks to the 
future and a managed economy which is actually a return to 
the darkest period of man's history, the era of absolute despo- 
tism. Equity, or chancery, as it was known in the Middle 
Ages, stems from the duties of the secretaries (that is, secret 
emissaries), of the emperor. To give them authority to carry 
out his wishes, the emperor made them chancellors, that is, 
cancellors of sins to those who were favored by the emperor, 
from whence came the designation, chancery, and chancery 

From its inception, chancery court proceedings were 
shrouded in secrecy and overshadowed by conspiratorial 
forces. Because of their dictatorial nature, they were also 
known as "Star Chamber" courts, a term which originated 
after WilUam the Conqueror invaded England. From J. R. 
Green's "Short History of England," we learn that 

"A royal justiciary secured law to the Jewish merchant, 


who had no standing ground in the local courts; his bonds 
were deposited for safety in a chamber of the royal palace 
at Westminster, which from their Hebrew name of 'starrs' 
gained the title of the Star-Chamber. The famous Star-Chamber 
court system of England came from this arrangement." 

Under the Federal Reserve System and its collection agency, 
the Internal Revenue System, the United States has now re- 
turned to a feudal system of the Middle Ages. The IRS origi- 
nated in Italy as the Black Hand, which carried out demands 
for extortion for the Princes of the Black Nobility. Under 
our present feudal system, we live on the "lord's land" as 
"villeins," having title to nothing, and remaining as tenants 
at the lord's pleasure. The "lord," of course, is the central 
banker, who exercise control through the Federal Reserve 
System. It was not accidental that the secret conclave which 
drafted the Federal Reserve Act met clandestinely at Jekyl 
Island Ga. , a millionaires retreat, whose members at that time 
controlled one-fourth of all the wealth of the world (Secrets 
of the Federal Reserve, by Eustace MuUins). The IRS maintains 
an Inquisition which was originally developed by the Jesuits 
in Spain; this inquisition pays a tithe to informants, and is 
seldom countermanded by the legal system, which exists 
merely to enforce its demands. 

The central bank itself is the ultimate corporation, the final 
weapon of the conspiratorial Black Nobility and their World 
Order. Chief Justice Marshall noted in the famous case of 
Dartmouth v. Woodward: "a corporation is an artificial being, 
invisibly intangible, and existing only in contemplation of 
law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those 
properties which the charter of its creation confer upon it." 


Corporations were well known in Roman law, and were copied 
from the laws of Solon. They were private companies which 
were entitled to function as long as they did nothing contrary 
to the public law. The fundamental problem presented by 
corporations is that corporations and free persons cannot co- 
exist in the same nation. The Constitution was written for 
free individuals, each being one person; the corporation cannot 
be one person, but is an aggregate person. The corporation 
is something which has attained immortality, something which 
is denied to all free individuals. The corporation ordains perpet- 
ual succession; it can be sued and it can sue; it can purchase 
gold, lands, and chattels; it can have a common seal; and it 
can make bylaws and appoint or remove members. 

Because a corporation is not a person, it cannot have citizen- 
ship in a nation, or exhibit loyalty to a nation. A corporation 
therefore has no national loyalties, or any allegiance to national 
boundaries. However, the fundamental problem of the corpora- 
tion is that because it is not a person and because it can go 
to court to sue or to be sued, this creates a situation in which 
legal positivism develops as a logical outgrowth of social 
activism, the Holmesian concept of law. As Roscoe Pound 
wrote, "There are no objective, God-given standards of law; 
since God is not the author of law, the author of law must 
be men." This is the dominant theory of our legal system — 
God has nothing to do with the law — ^the Ten Conmiandments 
were never delivered — ^and the law is no longer concerned 
with persons, except as they come into conflict with the non- 
person of the international law merchant — ^the corporation. 
When an American citizen goes into court, he arrives there 
as a creature of God and as a beneficiary of the Constitution. 


He is met by the mercenaries of the law merchant, who function 
solely to enforce the admiralty court procedures of the non- 
person, the corporation, as epitomized by the ultimate corpora- 
tion, the world central bank, against that American person. 
It is this fundamental conflict which has never been stated 
in the court. The corporation's legal representatives, the judges 
and the lawyers, are aware of who they represent, but they 
never inform the citizen that they are functioning on the princi- 
ples of the law merchant, while the citizen expects to be 
defended under the principles of the Constitution. The re- 
spected legal scholar, Bruce Fein, states, "It is very disturbing 
if you have a secret law that is known only to the judge or 
the government." Washington Post, April 18, 1989. The entire 
purpose of this work is to inform you, the American citizen, 
of the existence of this secret law. Thus it is no longer a 
secret, and you can mount an adequate defense. 

The basic problem of the law merchant is that the free 
bom individual, as a creature of God, comes into court to 
defy the corporation, a non-person which has been artificially 
created by the Black Nobility as a creature of Satan, and as 
upheld by ancient Oriental despotism, typified by the Babylo- 
nian monetary and court system. Sanford Levinson's book, 
"Constitutional Faith" treads gingerly around this problem. 
As a present day advocate of the latest version of Holmesian 
social activism in the legal system, Levinson treats the concept 
of "post-modernist thought. " As described by Levinson, post- 
modernist legal thought is inspired by the anti-rationalist phi- 
losophies of Nietzsche and Heidegger, and by more recent 
"deconstructionist" epigones, Derrida, Foucault, Barthes, de 
Man and Richard Rorty. "Constitutional Faith" is intended 


as the final epitaph for constitutional traditions in our legal 
system, as Levinson intones, ' 'The death of 'constitutionalism' 
may be the central event of our time, just as the death of 
God was that of the past century (and for much the same 

In fact, the "death of God" was the desperate philosophical 
attempt of the corporationists to deny a God which had played 
no part in the creation of their corporation; the "death of 
the Constitution" will prove to be as much of a shibboleth. 
Levinson defines constitutionalism as a misguided faith in 
"timeless moral norms"; that is, law as a fixed force as it 
is defined in its most ancient understanding, and law as a 
moral force emanating from the Presence and Power of God. 
Levinson tells us that "Popular sovereignty as a motif empha- 
sizing the energy and moral authority of will (and willful 
desire) rather than the constraints of a common moral order 
to which the will was bound to submit, has become the view 
emphasized today at most major law schools." Is this surpris- 
ing? The law schools train students to uphold the law merchant, 
and to subvert the Constitution. "Popular sovereignty" repre- 
sents the sovereignty of the individual as a creature of God; 
it will always be the enemy of the corporation. Levinson 
tells us that "Law is stripped of any moral anchoring . . . 
political institutions thus become the forum for the triumph 
of the will." Levinson evokes "political visions of a civil 
religious persuasion" in which "it is doubtful that logical 
argumentation plays a crucial role. ' ' He creates new philosoph- 
ical substantiation for the Harvard School of "deconstruction- 
ism' ' which maintains the view of legalism as a Marxist weapon 
to combat "bourgeois society and its oppression of the 


masses." Levinson apparently believes in the nineteenth cen- 
tury concept of Communism as a great wind which will blow 
away all the outmoded trappings of the old bourgeois society, 
leaving in its place a community lacking in ornamentation, 
with clean bright buildings which have little or no furnishings, 
in short, a hospital room or a jail cell, as the ideal home of 
the future. Levinson declares that "Social life as we know 
it is being challenged and may even be dissolving in an ever- 
greater Heraclitean flux." Levinson paints a scenario of the 
Supreme Court's participation in a "constitutional abolition 
of private property in the name of a proletarian dictatorship" 
as an imaginary development; in fact, he describes just what 
the Supreme Court has been doing for years, gradually expro- 
priating the private property of the American people, and 
turning it over to the world corporation through our Federal 
Reserve System. This program can be overturned; we have 
the weapons; we can go into court and challenge the law 
merchant because we are individual creatures of God who are 
protected by the Constitution as our inheritance of God's law. 
Not only is the corporation against God, as a nonperson 
created to subvert God's Presence on this earth; it is also 
the antithesis of God's law as the national will. The corporation 
is international, and functions throughout the world as admi- 
ralty or maritime law. Admiralty jurisdiction extends over 
land and sea, beyond all national boundaries. The corporation 
itself is a violation of the Constitution, because each corpora- 
tion in practice becomes a New State. An entity which exercises 
authority in more than one state, the corporation itself becomes 
a state. As chartered by the government, the corporation be- 
comes an arm of the government which is not only multi- 


state; it is also multi-national. Thus, a New York corporation 
exercises authority in Virginia, or in China. It also creates 
money, which is a function of state sovereignty. Art. IV sec 
3 of the Constitution says, "no new State shall be formed 
or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State." The 
corporation sets up new States as "Districts" or federal opera- 
tions of the admiralty courts. Thus the Federal Reserve System 
divides the United States into Federal Reserve Districts; the 
Internal Revenue Service divides the United States into Dis- 
tricts; the legal system divides the United States into areas 
of "U.S. District Courts"; and each corporation divides the 
United States into its own sales districts, manufacturing dis- 
tricts, and districts of opportunity. 

Because of the existence of the corporations, the law mer- 
chant, or marine law, is not part of the law of any particular 
country, but is part of the law of all nations. A bottomry 
bond may be issued in London, as a loan on a ship and its 
freight, or as a respondentia bon§is, a loan on pledge of the 
cargo. This itself is not only a security, or adhesion, contract; 
the loan or mortgage becomes a security in itself, or new 
money, which may be traded, discounted, or sold as a "secu- 
rity"; hence our bonds and shares sold on Wall Street. The 
Constitution, Art. VI, states that "the Constitution . , . shall 
be the supreme law of the land," but Statute 1, Sec. 9, p. 
77, line 26, 1st Session of Congress Sept. 24, 1789, says, 
"And the trial of issues in fact in the district courts, in all 
causes except in civil causes of admiralty and maritime jiuisdic- 
tion, shall be by jury." 

Thus we are to have jury trial, except in admiralty cases. 
How does this square with the fact that we now have admiralty 


procedures in our courts? Quite easily. We can still have a 
jury, but the jury is nullified by the judge's instructions to 
the jury, which are straight from the law merchant. Thus 
the common law meets the maritime-admiralty law in our 
courts and is soundly defeated. Admiralty comes into the 
nation by the power of contract. We find that 

"The Admiralty court is a maritime court instituted for 
the purpose of the laws of the seas. There seems to be ground, 
therefore, for restraining jurisdiction, in some measure, within 
the limit of the grant of the commercial power; which would 
confine it, in cases of contracts, to those concerning navigation 
and trade of the country upon the high seas and tide-waters 
with foreign countries. ..." New Jersey Steam Nav Co v. 
Merchants Bank, 6 How 392 (1848). 

It is known that most insurance is a tontine scheme, and 
is therefore forbidden by law. Although insurance is basically 
a private enterprise rather than government, when the govern- 
ment became a corporation (National Recovery Act etc. in 
the FDR administration), the government then became in- 
volved in private and commercial enterprise. The commerce 
clause Art I. sec. 8, which gives Congress the power to regulate 
conunerce between the States, also invokes admiralty law as 
"the Law of Nations). ... on Land and Water." Yet the 
1st Continental Congress itself had entered a complaint against 
England "which . . . extend the powers of the Admiralty 
courts beyond their ancient limits." When the government 
embarked on its nationwide tontine scheme, the Social Security 
Administration and its accompanying "insmrance policies," 
the courts of the nation were thereby converted into Admiralty 
courts. "A policy of insurance is a maritime contract, and 


therefore of admiralty jurisdiction." De Lovio v. Boit, 7 
Fcd.Chs. No 3.7766 (1815). 

Title 28, use sec 1333, "Admiralty, maritime and prize 
cases; The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclu- 
sive of the courts of the United States, of: (i). Any civil 
case or admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors 
in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise 
entitled." And what are these remedies? The Fed. Statutes 
Anno. V 9, p. 88, says, "... saving to suitors in all cases, 
the right of a common law remedy, where common law is 
competent to give it" Home Ins Co v. North Packet Co., 
31 Ia.242 (1871). 

However, an American citizen's claim to common law citi- 
zenship is thought by some authorities to be compromised 
by Social Security (FICA) subjecting of said citizen's persona 
to the maritime jurisdiction of the U.S. District courts through 
an insurance claim: ' 'The Court will not pass upon the constitu- 
tionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed 
himself of its benefits." Gt Falls Mfg Co v. Atty Gen. 124 
U.S. 581. Thus the citizen who seeks common law remedy 
may be forced against his will into an equity jurisdiction 
through the "contract" of the Social Security Ponzi scheme, 
on the grounds that equity law carries out the law of contract, 
or the law merchant. What, then, is its effect on the rights, 
privileges and immunities guaranteed a citizen by the protection 
of the Constitution of the United States? Many persons have 
been stating their belief that anyone participating in this equity 
contract or a similar government Ponzi scheme thereby loses 
those rights, privileges and immunities. In so stating, they 
are merely echoing the claims of the equity courts themselves. 


However, it is only natural to claim that your brand is right, 
because this is your claim to power, and your claim to your 
share of the market. The Federal Laws of Civil Procedure 
themselves are merely codes of equity. 

Thus we are told that a citizen of the United States, that 
is to say, of a State of the United States (without getting 
into the present inquiry as to whether there are not actually 
two separate United States at this time), who handles a Federal 
Reserve note, or has a driver's license, or has a Social Security 
number, has thereby entered into an equity contract with the 
government, and have thereby lost the rights, privileges and 
immunities as a citizen of the United States. Certainly this 
is a most pernicious doctrine. Not only does it ignore the 
law of contract itself — a contract must stipulate an offering, 
a consideration and an acceptance of the parties, whereas 
those who teach this doctrine merely focus on the acceptance — 
the acceptance of a number, or of a stipend from the insurance 
scheme — ^but where is the offering? Where is the consideration 
of the parties detailed? Such a claim could be substantiated 
only if the citizen has executed a form and signed it, as follows, 

"I, , bom a citizen of the United 

States and presently enjoying the rights, privileges and immuni- 
ties thereby, do, in order to obtain a Social Security number 
(or birth certificate, or driver's license), ^ knowingly and 
willingly renounce said rights, privileges and immunities." 
This is a contract. Anything less is not a contract. To claim 
that there are hidden codes, secret agreements and carefully 
disguised meanings, none of which are spelled out, in the 
act of obtaining a Social Security number etc. is to offend 
the law of contract. 


As for the handling of a Federal Reserve note, a promise 
to pay, or promissory note against the citizens of the United 
States, the handling of such a note actually opens the door 
for the citizen to sue the Federal Reserve System for conspir- 
acy. The Federal Reserve Act was written as a conspiracy, 
enacted into law as a conspiracy, and still functions today 
as a secret conspiracy whose deliberations are forbidden to 
the public, and to the Congress of the United States! (Secrets 
of the Federal Reserve, by Eustace MuUins). 

We do not wish to gloss over the fact that thousands of 
American citizens are presently languishing in our government 
concentration camps, having been convicted of some equity 
violation of said alleged contracts. However, these prisoners 
were convicted of having challenged the totality of equity 
jurisdiction, which is assigned the duty of protecting every 
aspect of the corporation central bank's operations; these pris- 
oners have challenged Marxism, the supreme authority of 
the state as commissioned by the corporation. These prisoners, 
as we have previously stated, were convicted on an "informa- 
tion" of having violated a court injunctive order as an overt 
act. They were convicted and sentenced in violation of the 
Constitution, and can be freed only by a Constitutional Revolu- 

Equity law cannot challenge or supersede Constitutional 
law; it does bypass it, refusing to confront what began as 
God's law. His Covenant or contract, codified in the Bible 
as an Affidavit from God, that is, with the three and a half 
million Israelites, from Jacob only, and continued in the 
Twelve Tables of Roman Law . By 900 B . C . , as the Canaanites , 
who now called themselves Phoenicians (later Venetians, 


which developed into the Black Nobility), a second form of 
law, set up by the Phoenician international traders for their 
own convenience and purposes, appeared on the Isle of Rhodes. 
This second form of law became known as the law merchant, 
our present law of contract. This form of law constitutes the 
statutory civil law of the United States. Meanwhile, God's 
Covenant persisted as the English conmion law, which Alfred 
the Great codified as Alfred's Dooms, in 872 A.D. , the continu- 
ation of His Contract with the people of Jacob, or Israel. It 
was known as the common law of England, not because it 
was a law for the common people, but because it was common 
to all people, rich and poor alike. 

William Avery correctly states that the first defense of an 
American citizen who is charged with a violation of equity 
law is "inability to perform." You are charged with failure 
to deliver when you were never informed that you should 
deliver. Li fact, the charge is "stand and deliver," the ancient 
cry of the English highwayman. If a policeman tells you he 
is going to give you a ticket for parking in a No Parking 
Zone, and you reply that you didn't see the sign, he charges 
you anyway, because you are pleading a failure of vision. 
When the state charges you with failure to perform under 
equity law, such as failiu-e to pay a "tax," your response is 
that you are unable to perform because you were not informed 
of the obligation. Some citizens have been requesting that 
the IRS send them "a letter of delegation of authority," that 
is, a letter from their superior delegating to them the authority 
to conduct an audit or to investigate you. Usually, the agents 
either refuse to produce such a letter or are unable to obtain 
one from their superior. Should they actually produce such 


a letter, the next step would be to demand a copy of the 
contract under whose provisions you are being charged with 
failure to perform, with itemized claims of whatever you have 
failed to deliver. The conventional response of the IRS agent 
has been to cite some provision of the IRS code. However, 
this does not itemize what you have failed to deliver, nor 
does your 1040 form, if you have filed one, itemize such 
information, since it contains what you have declared, not 
what they claim you didn't declare. The 1040 form itself is 
really an estimate; in equity, it is difficult to hold anyone to 
the amounts of an estimate, and under Constitutional law, it 
is absolutely inadequate. 

The 1040 form itself is a listing of promissory notes, that 
is, of promises to pay, the Federal Reserve notes. This is 
interest-bearing currency which is only paper, and which is 
backed only by paper bonds, even though it claims to be 
backed by the faith and credit of the Government of the United 
States, or the people of the United States. This is paper issued 
against interest bearing "government" bonds held by the pri- 
vately owned Federal Reserve System. This System, like many 
other economic entities which have been created under express 
authority of equity jurisdiction rather than under Constitutional 
law, is actually a criminal syndicalist operation. As such, it 
works closely with other criminal syndicalist operations in 
the United States, such as the Rockefeller Foundation and 
the other major tax-exempt foundations, and other monetary 
schemes chartered under equity law. 

American citizens who are charged with "violations" in 
our equity courts are usually faced with the uphill task of 
defending themselves against vague claims that they have 


' 'failed' ' to cooperate in one or more of these criminal syndical- 
ist operations. Because the IRS is merely a collection agency 
for the Federal Reserve System, an IRS charge is based on 
your "inability to perform" some task allotted to you by 
the Federal Reserve System. The proper defense here is that 
no American citizen who is a law abiding person can fulfill 
any performance demanded by a criminal syndicalist operation 
without becoming a criminal himself. Thus, tax analysts have 
stated for years that no American can file a 1040 form without 
committing a criminal act. Also, our citizens are often charged, 
under equity, with "willful failure" to become a criminal. 
A criminal syndicalist operation is always disturbed by any 
person existing within its sphere of operations who has not 
yet become a criminal himself. The goal of any criminal system 
is that everyone must become a criminal. The very nature of 
"majority rule" demands that a small minority of non-crimi- 
nals residing within an area which has a large, active majority 
of criminals is willfully failing to conform, and that they 
must give in to the majority and join in the criminal operations. 
However, the principle of majority rule applies only to a 
lawful government, not to a criminal one. If the citizens resid- 
ing within a criminal sphere of influence refuse to collaborate 
with "the system," they must rely upon common law princi- 
ples to protect them from the exigencies of equity law. 

The real purpose of equity law is to convert equities or 
financial assets into debt, and to deprive holders of real property 
of their lawful possessions through the principle of legal plun- 
der, by forcing them to accept a less valuable or worthless 
substitute in exchange for their real property. At its inception, 
the law of contract was developed to protect the interests of 


parties engaged in trading endeavours, so as to make certain 
that they would receive proper payment. Each party was in- 
formed of the offering and the consideration, and accepted 
the requirements. Because of the international nature of trade, 
the traders often verged upon piracy, or upon some form of 
government "cooperation" to carry on their trading activities. 
This might be as temporary as the bribery of officials, or it 
might engage other government powers, such as the deploy- 
ment of armies or navies, and most particularly, the use of 
the courts to implement their programs. Thus equity became 
synonymous, early on, with crime, particularly as it applied 
to international operations. 

This seems ^itithetical, because the original meaning of 
"equity" was fairness. An equitable contract was one which 
was equally fair to both parties. Equity in law was intended 
to mean absolute equality under the law. In practice, equity, 
as the outgrowth of chancery, or the emperor's chancellors, 
became the vehicle for the wielding of influence and power, 
as well as legalized theft. The worldwide tendency towards 
socialism would not have been possible without the illegal 
profits conferred by equity decisions. The criminal syndicalism 
of such operations as the Federal Reserve System and the 
Rockefeller Foundation has always demanded more and more 
government controls, and a corresponding decrease in individ- 
ual liberties. 

Thus we find that criminal syndicalism never considers itself 
safe until it has converted the government into the vehicle 
for its criminal syndicalist operations; that is, the govemment 
becomes the Great Satan, the focus and the center of criminal 
operations. How does this work in actual practice? You may 


have a small business which you wish to expand. You advertise 
for workers, and you hire the most likely applicant. However, 
the government notifies you that its regulations require that 
you hire a handicapped lesbian mulatto whose origins should 
be defined as being one-third black, one-third Hispanic, and 
one-third Jewish. The government then notifies you that you 
have failed to fulfill this requirement, which means that you 
must now undergo a lengthy prosecution, you must hire a 
person fulfilling the requirements of the government regulation, 
and you must also pay her a penalty of $200,000, plus fines 
and other penalties. You are now bankrupt, and your business 
is closed. Such travesties are inevitable because the government 
has set up conditions which no one can meet and still stay 
in business. Second, your bankruptcy means that your business 
has been stolen from you by anyone with funds, a bank or a 
broker. Third, the government ensures that no individual will 
be able to open and operate an independent business under 
the conditions which have been set up. 

These conditions originated because of Congressional con- 
cerns for "compassion" and "caring," showing a commend- 
able dedication to the handicapped, the minorities and the 
deprived. In effect, government socialism as dictated by 
government social activists now lays down the conditions, 
and the only conditions, under which an American business 
can operate. Then we hear recriminations because we can 
no longer compete in the world economy with nations such 
as Japan, and Korea, which do not have such restrictions on 
their business operations. A welcome development for the 
international bankers was that the United States, because it 
could not compete, began to accrue an enormous deficit and 


an unpayable debt, on which it now pays huge interest. Japan 
now owns one-third of our national debt, and is collecting 
the interest. Does anyone believe it is accidental that our 
economy has been destroyed, and that we are now at the 
mercy of Japan, a nation which we defeated in World War 
n, and which may now be exacting its revenge? Whether 
Japan has devised this program or not, the fact is that it 
could not have taken place without the dictates of equity law. 
As James J. Kilpatrick wrote in the Washington Post, Jan. 
14, 1989, commenting on "the right to vote freely for legisla- 
tors," "Over the past thirty or forty years both Congress 
and the federal courts hundreds of times have ordered legisla- 
tors to vote in particular ways or suffer the consequences. 
Congress has conditioned the grant of federal funds upon 
the enactment of specific state or local legislation. These condi- 
tions center on coercion to pass bills concerning speed limits, 
rights of homosexuals, AIDS patients, minority rights etc." 

Under the color of "a law," that is, the legal enforcement 
of equity contracts in favor of minorities or other special 
interest groups who are pawns in the drive for world socialist 
power, equity, originally the fairness doctrine, has been con- 
verted into an instrument of debt creation, legalized monopoly, 
financial theft, and the imposition of tyrannical strictures upon 
all citizens of the United States. 

Consider the claims that are now made by equity law; that 
a check is a maritime contract, and that its use either as a 
writer or recipient places you under the jurisdiction of admiralty 
law; that a marriage license or a birth certificate gives title 
of your life to the state; that the Social Security number estab- 
lishes an irrevocable contract with the state to pay income 


tax; that a debt can be paid, but not discharged, under equity 
law. Who is secretly responsible for the fastening of such 
dictatorial manifestoes upon the people of the United States? 
We have akeady mentioned the crucial dates, 1688, 1694, 
and 1714. When King George HI, spurred on by the demands 
of the stockholders of the Bank of England, began to lay 
unconscionable additional taxes upon the American colonists, 
they responded with the Declaration of the First Continental 
Congress, May 14, 1774, "the British Parliament, claiming 
a power of right to bind the American people by statute in 
all cases whatsoever, hath, in some acts expressly imposed 
taxes upon them, and in others, under various pretexts but 
in fact for the purpose of raising revenue, hath imposed rates 
and duties payable in these colonies. . . . which. . . . extend 
the powers of the Admiralty courts beyond their ancient limits, 
deprive the American subjects of trial by jury . . . and are 
subversive of American rights." 

Note that the Continental Congress still referred to the colo- 
nists as "subjects," and, in a sentiment common to most 
Americans of that time, maintained that they were still loyal 
subjects of the Crown, who were finding it difficult to exist 
under the stringent conditions being imposed by the King. It 
is important to remember that the British people, despite the 
great profits which were being raked in by the stockholders 
of the Bank of England, did not themselves benefit from these 
profits. The lot of the average Briton, prior to the Revolutionary 
War, was much worse than that of the average colonist. Nor 
were the Britons greatly disposed to fight the Americans; King 
George III had to make a deal with a German prince, the 
Elector of Hesse, to obtain mercenary soldiers who would 


fight the colonists, a contract which became the basis of the 
Rothschild fortune. 

Much of the world's commerce has been conducted on 
the principle of a fair trade, that is, the exchange of a substance 
for a substance. If the party had no substance to trade, then 
he had to make payment in coin. The sale itself is commerce, 
which is public business in motion through negotiable instru- 
ments of exchange, rather than a conmion law transaction. 
It was this existence of trade itself as an entity which was 
not covered by the common law, which gave rise to the body 
of the law merchant, as an instrument for governing trade. 
Those engaged in trade found that debts were extinguished 
by the delivery of goods and services, or by paper representing 
such goods and services. It was found that extinguishing debt 
deprived the debt holder of the power and appertinent influence 
which accompanied the continued holding of the debt. Conse- 
quently, for centuries the law merchant has moved continu- 
ously towards the creation of inextinguishable debt, which, 
in turn, confers inextinguishable power, a goal of the Canaan- 
ites or Black Nobility. Thus the Federal Reserve System issues 
a currency which is based upon government bonds, using 
the money and credit of the people of the United States, and 
creating debt or monetizing debt as a private corporation. 
As the owner of the negotiable instrument of exchange, the 
Federal Reserve becomes the "owner" of all property in any 
transactions in which negotiable instruments of exchange are 
used. However, the Federal Reserve wisely does not take 
actual possession, allowing the purchaser to use the property, 
in the mistaken belief that he is now the actual owner. The 
Federal Reserve reserves the power to call in its property 


whenever it wishes to do so, as a final measure of control, 
or as a step in the carrying out of other programs. 

The equity courts function to administer "a law" as instru- 
mentalities of the criminal syndicates which operate under 
their jurisdiction within the United States. This is defined in 
sec. 9. "The district courts (federal courts) as courts of admi- 
ralty and as courts of equity, shall be deemed always open 
for the purpose of filing and any pleading, of issuing and 
returning mesne and final process, and of making and directing 
all interlocutory motions, orders, rules and other proceedings 
preparatory to the hearing, upon their merits, of all cases 
pending therein." 36 Stat. 1088 (1911). 

Under the equity, or admiralty law, a citizen of the United 
States who has received any "benefit" from a government 
program thereby is said to "lose" his constitutional rights! 
Legal precedent for this equity ruling is found in the decision 
of Great Falls Mfg Co. v. Atty Gen. 124 U.S. 581, "The 
Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a stamte at 
the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits." 
Also cited by Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co. 244 U.S. 
407, 411-12; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast 
Constr. Co. 260 U.S. 469; Alexander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 
288,346 (1935). 

Thus, anyone who has "benefitted from such government 
program" not only is denied the right to challenge it in court, 
but also loses his Constitutional right to defend himself from 
further government action. This is the basis for imprisoning 
numerous American citizens who have "failed" to handle 
the Federal Reserve scrip as prescribed by equity law. 

The ratification of the Constitution of the United States 


meant that the people chose this instrument to defend their 
rights. Admiralty law, like the King's writ, ended at the saltwa- 
ter mark; the land was under the jurisdiction of Constitutional 
principles. However, this principle was overthrown in 1838. 
"When the doctrine was held that the admiralty jurisdiction 
in cases purely dependent upon the locality of the act done 
was limited to the sea and to tide waters as far as the tide 
flows, and that it did not reach beyond the high water mark, 
it was said that mixed cases do arise, and indeed do often 
arise, where the acts and services are of a mixed nature, as 
where salvage services are performed partly on tide waters, 
and partly on the shore, for the preservation of the property 
saved, in which the admiralty jurisdiction has been constantly 
exercised to the extent of decreeing salvage." U.S. v. Combs, 
12 Pet 75 (1838). The performance of mixed services was 
eventually interpreted in equity that the Federal Reserve System 
could "salvage" its flood of paper money, backed by nothing 
more than paper bonds, with which it had inundated the United 
States! This salvage operation had to be continuous, as the 
flood of ' 'new' ' money was continuous, in order for the System 
to maintain its profits and its influence over the economy. 
Consequently, when the Federal Reserve Act was enacted 
into law by Congress in 1913, during that same year, the 
16th Amendment to the Constitution was enacted to legally 
authorize the Federal Reserve's salvage operation, in which 
a new unit of the criminal syndicate, the Internal Revenue 
Service, was created as an essential salvage service to enforce 
the admiralty principles of salvage upon all the people of 
the United States. 
The equity court remains the linchpin of the criminal syndi- 


calist movement throughout the United States, because the 
equity court is the court of conspiracy; it is the court of legalized 
theft and plunder; and it is the court of monopoly. In 1890, 
the monopolists enacted the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to protect 
their monopohes by establishing conditions which made it 
illegal for anyone to set up a competing business. The Act 
states that "Every contract, combination, in the form of trust 
or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce 
among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby 
declared to be illegal." Henceforth, anyone whose business 
operations presented a threat to the monopolists could be con- 
victed of "illegal restraint of trade." The monopolists had 
now enshrined their monopolies as creatures of the state, or 
state trusts, as in their later creation, Soviet Russia. The created 
corporations had now taken over their creator, the State. The 
Sherman Act also extended greater controls over every citizen, 
by making every citizen a merchant, because it established 
controls making citizens liable for illegal restraint of trade 
for engaging in any transaction which was not controlled by 
the manufacturing monopolies. Citizens are also considered 
merchants under the commerce clause of the Constitution. 
The 1842 decision in Swift v. Tyson declared that mercantile 
law is now the common law of the United States. The Interstate 
Commerce Act of 1887 extended the power of the monopolies 
to pervert the processes of government to their private pur- 
poses, as was later finalized in the Sherman Act. Justice Story 
declared in Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters 19, "The law respecting 
negotiable instruments may be truly declared in the language 
of Cicero, adopted by Lord Mansfield in Luke v. Lyde, (2 
Burr R. 883-887) to be in great measure not the law of a 


single country only, but of the commercial world. . . . It is 
observable that the law merchant and the maritime law are 
not generally distinguished from each other, but are frequently 
used indiscriminately. The only real difference is in the sanc- 
tion. When viewed as a part of the municipal law the rules 
are called the law merchant; when regarded from the standpoint 
of international law, the same rules are the law maritime." 

It was necessary to impose the admiralty law on the citizens 
of the United States, because the income tax cannot exist 
under common law; income tax assessments and judgments 
are enforced upon statutes in equity by summary judgments 
of the executive, or writs of assistance. The income tax is 
enforced as a tax on a franchise for doing business under 
the law merchant. A general income tax would be a direct 
tax on property. The 16th Amendment estabUshes a tax on a 
franchise, the privilege of doing business in a corporate capac- 
ity, as well as the privilege of perpetual existence, perpetual 
succession, and limited liability for debts under the law; that 
is, the 16th Amendment converts private citizens of the United 
States into corporations. A natural person, who is not a corpora- 
tion, cannot be subjected to the regulations of the Internal 
Revenue Service, nor can they be made to inform upon them- 
selves by the IRS. 

In Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Peters 659, we find that "It is 
clear there can be no common law of the United States. . . . 
The judicial decisions, the usages and customs of the respective 
states, must determine how far the common law has been 
adopted and sanctioned in each." 

The FRS and IRS tax scheme was grounded in the commerce 
clause, Art. 1, Sec l.Cl 3, which allows Congress to "regulate 


commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, 
and with the Indian tribes." The Supreme Court then held, 
in Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824, that commerce "comprehends 
traffic, trade, navigation, communications, the transit of per- 
sons, and the transmission of messages by telegraph — indeed, 
every species of conmiercial intercourse." 

This was later expanded by the United Nations Treaty of 
1945, under which every human on earth has become a "mer- 
chant" by partaking in any commercial transaction under the 
law merchant, a strictly voluntary law and unwritten, as well 
as the law of negotiable instruments, insurance, sales, etc. 
The person becomes a "merchant" by accepting bills of ex- 
change as "money." The Federal Reserve notes issues of 
1963, and 1969, were then legalized as "lawful tender" on 
March 18, 1968, as well as promissory notes or irredeemable 
perpetual annuity bonds for government securities, and for 

Sir Edward Coke stated that ' 'A corporation is a body politic 
established by prescription, by letter of patent, or by Act of 
Parliament:" In the U.S., this became "by Act of Congress 
in the United States, such as the establishment of the Federal 
Reserve System in 1913. However, such corporations were 
created in violation of the Supreme Court precedents, such 
as Osbom v. the U.S. Bank, 9 Wheaton, 859, 860, in which 
the Supreme Court admitted that Congress could not create 
a corporation for its own sake, "or for private purposes." 
The Federal Reserve System was created for private stockhold- 
ers, but was disguised by a ' 'quasi-public' ' intent. Its ' 'profits" 
were to be paid to the U.S. Treasury. In fact, the owners of 
Federal Reserve bank stock were less interested in the sums 


earned by the System than in the control which the Act con- 
ferred upon those stockholders, the control of the money and 
credit of the American people. They now exercise control of 
the daily quantity of money and the price of money throughout 
the United States. This power gives them the opportunity to 
make enormous profits in stock issues, market operations, 
and other monetary operations. 

Thomas Jefferson foresaw these abuses in his powerful argu- 
ment raised against the first Bank of the United States. As a 
sleeper agent of the Bank of England and the Rothschild inter- 
ests, Alexander Hamilton had delivered an extensive argument 
on Feb. 23, 1791, declaring that "the right of erecting corpora- 
tions is one inherent in, and inseparable from, the idea of 
sovereign power. . . . that the power to erect corporations 
is not to be considered an independent or substantive power, 
but as an incidental and auxiliary one, and was therefore 
more properly left to implication than expressly granted. . . . 
that the incorporation of a bank is a constitutional measure." 

However, Jefferson had delivered a more detailed argument 
on Feb. 16, 1791: "The bill for establishing a national bank 
in 1791, undertakes, among other things — 1. To form the 
subscribers into a corporation. 2. To enable them, in their 
corporate capacities, to receive grants of land; and so far, is 
against the laws of mortmain. 3. To make alien subscribers 
capable of holding lands; and so far is against the laws of 
alienage. 4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a propri- 
etor, to a certain line of successors; and, so far, changes the 
course of descents. 5. To put the lands out of the reach of 
forfeiture, or escheat; and so far, is against the laws of forfeiture 
and escheat. 6. To transmit personal chattels to successors 


in a certain line; and so far, is against the laws of distribution. 
7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking, 
under the national authority; and, so far, is against the laws 
of monopoly. 8. To communicate to them a power to make 
laws paramount to the laws of the states; for so they must 
be construed, to protect the institution from the control of 
the state legislatures; and so probably they will be construed. 
. . . The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed 
by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the 
United States by the Constitution." 

The struggle to foist upon the people of the United States 
a national, or central, bank, to be operated for the benefit of 
alien interests, is the untold story of the 19th century. In 
1 9 1 3 , the financiers finally achieved their goal by the enactment 
of the Federal Reserve Act. The central bank, a machine to 
create perpetual and inextinguishable debt, was now in place. 
Today, 12 U.S. Code 412 allows currency to come into circula- 
tion on the basis of U.S. debt obligations, that is, government 
bonds which have been issued by the private stockholders of 
the Federal Reserve System. This law was scheduled to sunset 
on July 30, 1945, during World War II at the close of the 
business day. Just before that hour, a measure was passed 
to allow the United States to assume U.S. debt obligations 
in perpetuity. However, in their haste, the manipulators over- 
looked the loophole which allows alternative means of issuing 
currency, including 12 USC 347c. This establishes the legal 
basis for issuing credit cards, for redeemable coupons, food 
stamps, and such currency as the American Express Co. notes, 
and other company notes. Under the Federal Reserve monop- 
oly, fractional pieces of credit are turned into circulating media. 


Since 1913, the Federal Reserve System and the IRS have 
formed a universal debt-credit franchise, in which private indi- 
viduals are compelled to inform upon themselves as "mer- 
chants." Forced withholding from wages began on July 1, 
1943. In 1945, the United Nations Treaty turned all U.S. 
courts into trading pits, and courts of the staple, because of 
the merchant practice. Under the courts of the staple, merchants 
had met under the protection of the crown to implement their 
own law among their own members. The Magna Carta had 
given merchants, in Article 48, the right "to buy and sell, 
according to their ancient customs, among themselves. ' ' Every 
private individual has the right to contract upon his services, 
talents, labor and endeavours, and to profit therefrom; he 
can then be assessed a direct tax, but he cannot be compelled 
to inform on himself, imder the protection of the 4th and 
5th Amendments to the Constitution. The courts of the staple, 
as the District of Columbia equity courts are now known 
and positioned throughout the United States, enforce the mer- 
chants' law on all private citizens. The conspirators then en- 
acted the 25th Amendment to the Constitution in order to 
set up the presidency of the United States as a chancellorship 
in executive equity, controlled by the corporation America, 
and its directors. 

HJR 192 further legitimized the Federal Reserve monopoly 
by making Federal Reserve bank credit legal tender. A Treasury 
note of 1890, before the enactment of the Federal Reserve 
Act, read ' 'This note is legal tender at its face value in payment 
of debts public and private except when otherwise stipulated 
in the contract." This was phrased to include the possibility 
that the contract might stipulate payment in gold, silver, or 


other payment. The Federal Reserve note now reads, "This 
note is legal tender for all debts public and private." This 
establishes its function to pay the United States debt owed 
to the bankers, which makes all such notes promissory notes 
intended to continue payments on the bank-created and inextin- 
guishable debt. However, it is made clear that the Federal 
Reserve notes are only for the payment of debt, and thus 
can be superseded by money intended for any other purpose. 

Harvard professor Barry Fell wrote a book, "America B.C. " 
which contains a picture of the Bourne Stone, found in Massa- 
chusetts, which in effect annexes the land to Hanno, a Suffete 
of Carthage. A similar stone was found in South America. 
As was pointed out in "The Curse of Canaan,*' by Eustace 
MuUins, the Carthaginians were the Phoenicians, who had 
changed their name from Canaanites, and who became the 
Black Nobility which has foisted their monetary schemes upon 
the world. Thus the Bourne Stone may be the secret deed 
by which the Canaanites have laid claim to the title of all 
property in the Americas, and which the equity courts are 
now acting to uphold. Law is grounded in or derived from 
guaranteed allodial land titles. Equity is the enforcement of 
"natural rights" not necessarily found in common law. Law 
deals in substance; equity deals in the potentiality of the sub- 
stance. If an existing title is the basis for the present practice 
of equity law, then the person not informed of such allodial 
title cannot obtain a fair and impartial hearing. 

Until 1913, "lawful money" was based on whatever com- 
prised the reserves of a National Bank, gold, silver, gold or 
silver certificates, Treasury Notes, and U.S. Notes. The Fed- 
eral Reserve Act allowed banks to count commercial paper 


as bank reserves , and thereby changed the basis of our monetary 
system. HJR 192 legitimized the process by making Federal 
Reserve bank credit legal tender, and by substituting the lan- 
guage governing payment of debt. "Payment of debt" was 
altered into a new phrase, "discharge of obligation." Hence- 
forth, debts could be paid, but they could not be discharged. 
They could not be legally held to be paid, because they had 
not; they were merely exchanged for other forms of debt. 
One banker exposed the scheme by stating, "If one bill of 
exchange goes through and in fact is paid with a cashier's 
check, the ball game is over for Federal-type banking." Such 
a payment would put the lenders of credit out of business. 
A specter is indeed haunting American business, but it is 
not the famed specter of Communism; it is the specter that 
someone may someday pay a debt. 

American citizens remain uninformed of the difference be- 
tween the payment at law, and discharge at Equity, and, even 
more important, the difference between voluntary payment 
at Law, and compelled performance in Equity. Payment at 
Law means meeting the requirements of the rights, privileges 
and immunities accruing to a citizen of the United States as 
guaranteed by the Constitution. Discharge at Equity, or com- 
pelled performance in Equity means that court orders are issued 
for compelled performance in equity against citizens of the 
United States by judges and lawyers, who maintain an active 
alliance with the limited liability corporations through the 
American Bar Association. The fractional reserve banking 
corporations thus grant Titles of Nobility, in violation of the 
Constitution, by ordering Bills of Attainders against U.S. citi- 
zens, which is also forbidden by the Constitution. This unholy 


alliance has resulted in the looting of the American people 
by international interests, through mergers, acquisitions, lever- 
aged buyouts, and management buyouts. This process was 
made possible by the ascension of Lord Mansfield as Chief 
Justice of the Kings Bench in 1756. Lord Mansfield trans- 
formed the Civil Law by allowing it to supersede the common 
law. Actions of assumpsit for debt now became equitable 
action. Lord Mansfield began denying trial by jury on writs 
of assistance, a procedure which forced the colonists into 
open rebellion. 

The investment banking house which launched the present 
tidal wave of buyouts is Drexel, Bumham Lambert of New 
York. This firm, now known as the king of junk bonds, is 
the New York representative of the Rothschild Bank, Banque 
Bruxelles Lambert of Brussels. The Lambert of this firm, 
Baron Lambert, is the Belgian branch of the Rothschild family. 
Because of this firm's influence, Brussels is now the capital 
of the world. NATO is headquartered there, as is the World 
Computer Network, another Rothschild enterprise. Lord Car- 
rington, the head of NATO, is also a member of the Rothschild 
family. The first Lord Carrington was Archibald Primrose; 
his son. Viscount Rosebery, married Hannah Rothschild, 
daughter of Mayer Rothschild. The present Lord Carrington 
is not only director of Rio Tinto Zinc, one of the three firms 
which comprise the base of the Rothschild fortune; he is also 
a director of Hambros Bank. During World War II, Sir Charles 
Hambro was the director of Britain's Secret Intelligence Ser- 
vice; in that capacity, he supervised the organization of its 
American branch, the OSS, which is now known as the CIA. 

In 1982, Lord Carrington merged his business interests with 


those of Henry Kissinger, in Kissinger Associates. Lord Car- 
rington's cousin, David Colville, became the first partner of 
N. M. Rothschilds Sons, London, who was not an immediate 
member of the Rothschild family. Kissinger Associates fur- 
nished the backbone of the Reagan and Bush cabinets. Presi- 
dent Bush has named Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, of Kissinger 
Associates, to the critical National Security Council, and Law- 
rence Eagleburger, president of Kissinger Associates, to the 
post of Deputy Secretary of Defense. 

Because of Bush's close ties with the Bank of England 
through his family banking house, Brown Bros. Harriman, 
Bush was named head of the CIA. The recent imbroglio over 
the appointment of Sen. John Tower as Secretary of Defense, 
for which he was defeated, hinged upon the fear that Kissinger 
Associates might not be able to control Tower. They envisioned 
a scenario in which Tower would spend his time in night 
clubs, living up to Dryden's dictum that "None but the brave 
deserve the fair," but at the last minute changed their minds 
in favor of a more malleable choice. 

Drexel Bumham Lambert waged a three year battle to take 
over the major American corporations for the Rothschild inter- 
ests from 1985 to 1988, when a $650 million fine was levied 
against the firm for illegal activities in stock trading. During 
this period, some $300 billion in stock was retired through 
mergers. During the same period, corporate debt in the United 
States increased by $360 billion, meaning that these firms 
must be paying some $36 billion a year to the creators of 
inextinguishable debt in interest payments, which effectively 
removes them from the burden of paying taxes on their corpo- 
rate income. Such Rothschild operations have produced huge 


government deficits, reduced the status of the United States 
to that of a Balkan republic, and ranked the nation as a Third 
World Banana Republic in the international order. Now the 
United States faces a bleak future as a bankrupt nation, whose 
people are being informed they must "make sacrifices," while 
they face increased taxation, inflation, and food and fuel crises. 
These pressures will result in (and are probably intended to) 
force a rebellion, with military dictatorship and civil war in 
the United States before the criminal syndicalists are finally 
brought to justice. 

These developments are inherent in the nature of the prob- 
lems which we face. The Erie Raikoad decision of 1938 took 
the law merchant out of the conmion law (nullifying the 7th 
Amendment) and put it into Equity to be "judicially noticed" 
in any jurisdiction. The Law Merchant is Summary Judgment, 
whereas the Law of Nature is, in the final analysis, the law 
of tooth and claw. "Law" means the Law of the State; the 
Rules of Equity are the Law Merchant. The Federal Reserve 
notes are intended to, and are so doing, confiscate in equity, 
through summary judgment, all private landed property by 
the agents of the international commercial interests. Although 
no federal law can outlaw the cash basis of the law imposed 
on the States by Art. I, sec. 10, and the federal government 
cannot touch allodial land titles in the states, this is being 
circumvented by the inherent profit in the Federal Reserve 
notes; they discriminate against real property, because real 
property is not personalty— (chose-in-action). They discrimi- 
nate against holders of allodial land titles in favor of the 
merchants and merchant bankers because of the ten to one, 
to sixteen to one, return on bank deposits. Thus equitable 


paper is worth from ten to sixteen times as much as real 
property or substance, and in time will swallow up, or "buy" 
all allodial land. Thus our law, which is grounded in or derived 
from allodial land titles, is thereby subverted by the financiers 
and their international conspiracy, as executed through equity 
courts, the courts of conspiracy. 

American citizens are brought before these courts of conspir- 
acy, their rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed them 
by the Constitution are duly denied, and they are tried and 
sentenced as Artificial Persons, or corporations. When they 
claim to be real, when they claim to exist, they affront the 
equity court, and face further imprisonment for their "con- 
tempt." Although the court sentences the Artificial Person, 
it is the real American citizen who is subsequently carted 
off to prison. 

Because equity law has as its goal the creation of inextin- 
guishable debt, and the subsequent transferring of all real 
property from its legal allodial possessors to Artificial Entities, 
which have been created by the state, who are primarily bank- 
ing corporations, debt has assumed a major role in equity 
law. Thus we find in the 14th Amendment not merely the 
enshrinement of public debt, as an entity whose very existence 
cannot be questioned, but also the defining of "unacceptable 
debt," that is, debt incurred by any entity which has not 
been chartered by the state, or which is seen as inimical to 
the state. The 14th Amendment states, in that capacity, "The 
validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized 
by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions 
and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebel- 
lion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States 


nor any state shall assume or pay any debt obligation incurred 
in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, 
or any claim for loss or emancipation of any slave; but all 
such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and 

Thus the public debt of the United States is placed on a 
pedestal, beyond attack, but the obligations of the southern 
states, incurred as the result of the states battling for their 
rights against the international power of the criminal syndical- 
ists, "shall be held illegal and void." 

The public debt today consists of bookkeeping entries in 
the ledgers of the Federal Reserve System; those who purchase 
Treasury bills do not receive so much as a flimsy piece of 
paper; instead, the purchase exists only as a blip on a computer 
screen. The 14th Amendment thus requires that the blip on 
the computer screen shall not be questioned, nor the right of 
the Federal Reserve System to issue government bonds as 
Lord Rothschild's magical money-making machine. Because 
the 14th Amendment was enacted under martial law, it has 
had no validity since 1878, when martial law was ended in 
the southern states, and Federal troops were withdrawn. Martial 
law is supreme, and overrides all state and local governments, 
but only during the period of military occupation. The 14th 
Amendment was ratified in 1868, ten years before martial 
law was ended in the southern states. The 14th Amendment 
can only be valid if it is maintained that the entire United 
States is still under martial law. This is not legal pettifogging; 
it is a serious legal question, which must be resolved in the 
courts. The federal, or equity, district courts might have little 
difficulty with this problem; they could simply declare that 


the states are only legal fictions, which exist at the pleasure 
of the federal entity, just as the citizens of the several states, 
through Social Security law and income tax regulations, have 
been transformed into Artificial Persons. 

The scrip issued by the privately owned Federal Reserve 
Banks, functioning as colonial banks under the aegis of the 
Bank of England, has been variously described as ' 'Communist 
slave scrip," "beggar's alms," or as stock certificates in a 
joint stock company. It may be all three. "Scrip," in Old 
French dialect, meant the bag for alms which was publicly 
carried by pilgrims or beggars. Scrip, in its general derivations, 
is usually a derogatory term, carrying a connotation of scoffing 
or jeering. In 1676, C. Hatton wrote, in Hatton's Chronicles, 
"I punish myself yet I may revenge myself upon you for 
your little scrips of paper." By 1820, scrip had become a 
term for a stock certificate, when G. Carey wrote in his ' 'Guide 
to Public Funds," "When the loan is in progress. ... the 
separate parts are called Scrip." In its 1828 edition, Webster's 
Dictionary defines scrip as "A certificate of stock subscribed 
to buy a bank or other company , . . or of a share of other 
joint property, is called in America a scrip." The Federal 
Reserve notes issued by the private stockholders of the twelve 
Federal Reserve Banks were used to finance the Bolshevik 
Revolution in Russia in 1917, and were further used to maintain 
the Soviet Government since that time. In 1918, at a time 
when the Bolshevik govenmient was akeady bankrupt, three 
directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York came to 
their rescue; George Foster Peabody, William Boyce Thomp- 
son, and William Laurence Sanders. Sanders was also the 
chairman of the business equipment firm, IngersoU Rand. 


Thompson had also pledged one million dollars of his personal 
funds to spread Bolshevik propaganda in the United States. 
Because Federal Reserve notes have served as the mainstay 
of the Soviet Government since 1918, it is proper to term 
them "Communist slave scrip"; it is also issued to the slaves 
in the United States. 

Walt Mann has written of the 14th Amendment that it is 
the legal basis of the injunctive power which the government 
has used against our citizens since 1868. It lays down an 
injunction against questioning the validity of the public debt. 
Our citizens are then sentenced for violating injunctive orders 
which stem from this as a basic injunction. This sentencing 
power also stems from the admiralty court procedure. Because 
the 14th Amendment stems from martial law, and admiralty 
procedures also are based upon martial law, the power of 
the captain to command a military ship of the line while it 
is at sea, the judge of the equity court functions as a military 
conunander, exercising the power of martial law over citizens 
of the United States. 

It is this power which brings into question the claim that 
participating in a contract volunteers oneself into admiralty 
jurisdiction. However, this jurisdiction violates the right, privi- 
leges and immunities which are guaranteed us by the Constitu- 
tion. Martial law may be the pretext by which these guarantees 
have been suspended. We find the Admiralty Comt defined 
as follows: 

"The Admiralty Court is a maritime court instituted for 
the purpose of administering the law of the seas. There seems 
to be grounds, therefore, for restraining jiuisdiction, in some 
measure, within the limit of the grant of the commercial power, 


which would confine it, in cases of contracts, to those concern- 
ing trade and navigation of the country upon the high seas 
and tide- waters with foreign countries. N.J. Steam Nav Co 
V. Mchts Bank, 6 How 392 (1848). 

The fixing of Admiralty jurisdiction in the United States 
is said to lie in the commerce clause. Art. I, sec. 8, "The 
Congress shall have Power. ... To regulate commerce with 
foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the 
Indian tribes." In effect, this separates Admiralty jurisdiction 
from internal jurisdiction. The federal courts overcame that 
distinction by becoming courts of equity. The problem with 
the Social Security system is that it poses as an insurance 
policy, but collects its premiums through the compulsory taxing 
process. The forced payment of said insurance premium vio- 
lates the following precept: "The individual, unlike the corpo- 
ration, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. 
The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence 
and charter powers to the state, but the individual's right to 
live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment 
of which an Excise cannot be imposed." Redfield v. Fisher, 
292 P 813, p. 819 (1930). 

Construction of the term "natural right" as opposed to 
the employment of the Law Merchant against citizens of the 
United States may be clarified by the following excerpt from 
Colin Blackburn's "Contract of Sale," published by T & W 
Johnson, Phil. 1847: 

There is no part of the history or English law more 
obscure than that connected with the common maxim 
that the Law Merchant is part of the law of the land. 


In the earlier times it was not a part of the common 
law as it is now, but administered in its own courts 
in the staple, or else in the Star Chamber. The Chancel- 
lor, in the 13 Edw. 4, 9, declares his view of the 
law thus: "This suit is brought by an alien merchant 
who is come by safe conduct here, and he is not bound 
to sue by the law of the land, to abide the trial of 
twelve men, and other forms of the law of the land; 
but he ought to sue here (in the Star Chamber) and 
it shall be determined by the law of nature in Chancery, 
and he may sue from hour to hour for the dispatch 
of merchants; and he said further that a merchant is 
not bound by statutes, where the statutes are introduc- 
tiva novae legis; but if they are declarativa antiqui 
juris (that is to say of nature &c). And since they 
have come into the kingdom, the king has jurisdiction 
over them to administer justice, but that shall be secun- 
dum legem naturae, which is called by some the Law 
Merchant, which is the law universal of the world." 
And the justices being called on, certified that the 
goods of this plaintiff were not forfeited to the crown 
as a waif (though those of a subject would have been) 
because he was an alien merchant. It is obvious that 
at that time the law merchant was a thing distinct 
from the common law. This accounts for the very 
remarkable fact that there is no mention whatever of 
bills of exchange, or other mercantile customs in our 
early books; not that they did not exist, but that they 
were tried in the staple, and therefore were not men- 
tioned in the books of the common law; just as the 


matters over which the Courts of Admiralty, or Ecclesi- 
astical Courts, have exclusive jurisdiction, are at this 
day never treated as part of the common law. But as 
the courts of the staple decayed away, and the foreign 
merchants ceased to live subject to a peculiar law, 
those parts of the law merchant which differed from 
the common law either fell into disuse, or were adopted 
into the common law as the custom of merchants, 
and after a time began to appear in the books of common 
law. How this great change was brought about does 
not appear; but though bills of exchange were in com- 
mon use among merchants in the 13th century; the 
first mention of one in an English report is in Cro. 
Jac, in the beginning of the 17th century; and though 
the right of rei vindicatio must have prevailed in the 
continent from the time of the revival of the Civil 
Law, the first mention of it in our books is as late as 
1690. It seems quite impossible that such matters 
should not have been the subject of litigation in some 
shape or other in England for centuries before those 

Blackstone, whom internationalists prefer to quote 
over Lord Coke, classified the Law Merchant as one 
of the "customs" of England, and so a part of the 
common law; but it is not properly a custom, as it is 
not restricted to a single community, and is not the 
municipal law of a single country, but regulated com- 
mercial contracts in all civilized countries. The body 
of mercantile usages which compose this branch of 


law, having no dependence upon locality, does not 
need to be established by witnesses, but judges are 
bound to take official notice of it. The principal 
branches of the law merchant are the law of shipping, 
the law of marine insurance, the law of sales, and 
the law of bills and notes. The feudal law, which 
grew up in a time when property consisted chiefly of 
land upon whose alienation great restraints were laid, 
was found inadequate for the needs of the mercantile 
classes who were coming into prominence. The coiuls, 
when commercial contracts were brought before them, 
adopted from merchants the rules which regulated their 
business dealings and made them rules of law. Many 
of these rules were in direct contradiction to the com- 
mon law. Magna Charta contained a special provision 
guaranteeing to merchants, among other things, the 
right "to buy and sell according to their ancient cus- 
toms," and many later statutes were enacted for their 
special protection. As the custom of merchants began 
to encroach upon the common law, there was a deter- 
mined effort on the part of lawyers to resist it. It 
was attempted to make the custom of merchants a 
particular custom, peculiar to a single community, 
and not a part of the law of the land. It was finally 
decided in the reign of James I (1603-1625) to be a 
part of the law of the realm. An attempt was then 
made to restrict the application of the law merchant 
to persons who were actually merchants, but the courts, 
after considerable variance, held that it applied to the 
same contracts between parties and merchants. 


We quote further from The American Universal Cyclopae- 
dia, on Mercantile Law, v. IX NY 1884, S. W. Green's 

Mercantile law is the only branch of municipal law 
which, from the necessity of the case, is similar, and 
in many respects identical, in all the civilized and 
trading countries of the world. In determining the rela- 
tions of the family, the church, and the state, each 
nation is guided by its own peculiarities of race, of 
historical tradition, of climate, and numberless other 
curcumstances which are almost wholly unaffected by 
the conditions of society in the neighboring states. 
But when the arrangements for buying, selling, and 
transmitting commodities from state to state alone are 
in question, all men are very much in the same position. 
The single object of all is that the transaction may 
be effected in such a manner as to avoid what in every 
case must be sources of loss to somebody, and by 
which no one is ultimately a gainer — ^viz., disputes 
and delay. At a very early period in the trading history 
of modem Europe, it was found that the only method 
by which these objects could be attained as by establish- 
ing a common understanding on all the leading points 
of mercantile, and more particularly of maritime law. 
This was effected by the establishment of those mari- 
time codes, of which the most famous, though not 
the earliest, was the Consolato del Mare. It is some- 
times spoken of as a collection of maritime laws of 
Barcelona, but it would seem rather to have been a 


compilation of the laws and trading customs of various 
Italian cities — ^Venice, Pisa, Genoa, and Amalfi, to- 
gether with those of the cities with which they chiefly 
traded — ^Barcelona, Marseilles, and the like. That it 
was published at Barcelona towards the end of the 
13th century, or the beginning of the 14th, in the 
Catalonian dialect, is no proof that it originated in 
Spain, and the probability is that it is of Italian origin. 
As commerce extended itself to the northwestern coasts 
of Europe, similar codes appeared. There was the Gui- 
don de la Mer, the Roles d'Oleron, the Usages de 
Damme, and most important of all the ordinances of 
the great Hanseatic League (Deutsche Hansabund). 
As the central people of Europe, the French early 
became distinguished as cultivators of maritime law, 
and one of the most important contributions that ever 
was made to it was the famous ordonnance of 1681, 
which formed part of the ambitious and in many re- 
spects successful legislation and codification of Louis 
XIV. All these earlier attempts at general mercantile 
legislation were founded, as a matter of course, on 
the Roman Civil Law, or rather on what that system 
had borrowed from the laws which regulated the inter- 
course of the trading communities of Greece, perhaps 
Phoenicia and Carthage, and which had been reduced 
to a system by the Rhodians. 

From the intimate relations which subsisted between 
Scotland and the continent of Europe, the lawyers of 
Scotland became early acquainted with the commercial 


arrangements of the continental states; and to this cause 
is said to be ascribed the fact that down to the period 
when the affairs of Scotland were thrown into confusion 
by the rebellions of 1715 and 1745, mercantile law 
was cultivated in Scotland with much care and success. 
The work of Lord Stair, the greatest of all the legal 
writers of Scotland, is particularly valuable in this 

The role of the government in functioning with the individual 
is proscribed by the principle of joint tenancy, according to 
the following excerpt from John William Smith's "Mercantile 

For the most distinguishing incident of joint tenancy 
is the jus accrescendi, by which, when one joint tenant 
dies, his interest is not transmitted to his heirs, in 
the case of descendible property, nor to his personal 
representatives, in the case of personal effects or chat- 
tels, but vests in the survivor or survivors; this right 
of survivorship being admitted equally in regard to 
personal chattels, as in estates of every denomination. 
Now if stock in trade were subject to the same claim, 
one of two evels might ensue: either the family of a 
deceased partner might be left destitute; or men's fear 
of employing a considerable part of their property in 
these undertakings might check the spirit of commerce. 
It is therefore, the established law of merchants, that 
among them joint tenancy and survivorship do not 
prevail. (Co. Li. 182a; Snon. 2 Browne. 99; Anon. 


Noy. 55; Hall v. Huffam, 2 Lev, 188; Annand v, Honi- 
wood, 2 Ch. C. 129). 

This right of survivorship Sir William Blackstone 
apprehends to be the reason why neither the king nor 
any corporation can be a joint tenant with a private 
person. (2 Coram. 184). But the rule is more extensive: 
for two corporations cannot be joint tenants together 
(Litt. s. 296; Co. Li. 189b, 190a). 

The citizen's defense in an admiralty court begins with 
his denial that he is under martial law, or that the punitive 
injunctive power of the 14th Amendment, which is founded 
on martial law, can be applied to him. Because the admiralty 
court powers derive from the captain of the ship being given 
the power of an admiral (there not being enough admirals to 
place one on every ship), the captain then functions under 
the military power of the King of England. The captain's 
authority extends to the passing and imposition of a death 
sentence, as was frequently carried out in death by keelhauling. 
The offending sailor was dragged under the ship until he had 
been drowned or torn into pieces by the knife-like barnacles 
growing on the ship's bottom. 

There are only two criminal jurisdictions: comraon law juris- 
diction and international jurisdiction. How did it come to 
pass that the citizen of the United States could be held to 
appear under an international jurisdiction? In 1938, because 
of the enormous debt which President Franklin D. Roosevelt 
had borrowed from international bankers, to finance his New 
Deal, the common law, which does not compel performance, 
was merged with equity procedures, which do compel perfor- 


mance. However, the criminal syndicalists discovered that 
equity compelled performance has no criminal penalty, but 
only civil. No jail sentence can be handed down. This was 
remedied by bringing in the admiralty court procedures, with 
their power of life or death sentencing. This was made possible 
by the claim that the debt, owed to international bankers, 
thus became an international contract. A contract made under 
the law of nations brings the nation under international law. 
Because of this development, since 1938, the Congress could 
pass no more "Public Laws." Instead, they now pass "Public 
Policy Statutes," which are measures designed to bring relief 
to the nation's international creditors. Because Congress no 
longer passes "Public Laws," they have done away with 
the common law; all laws passed by Congress are now in 
equity, and conferring equity jurisdiction. Thus the federal 
district courts function only as equity courts under equity 
Rules of Procedure, which are nevertheless published under 
the title, "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." 

Congress, prior to 1939, had also passed private laws, as 
opposed to Public Laws. In 1913, the income tax amendment 
and the Federal Reserve Act were passed as private laws. 
The federal agents are aware of the difference, although they 
usually refuse to inform the citizen of this significant factor. 
Title 28 use is public law, but the IRS operates under Title 
26, which is private law, a contract between you and the 
United States. The corporation excise tax of 1909 became 
the income tax law of 1913 under the commerce clause of 
the Constitution, maintaining that the citizen was using corpo- 
rate paper in an equitable manner, creating a contract consider- 
ation. However, no constitutional right is applicable to the 


filing of an income tax. In tax matters and other government 
prosecutions, the federal judges are informed that the defendant 
is a juristic person bankrupt under the terms of the international 
contractual obligations, and take silent judicial notice of this 
fact. Citizens are held and charged because of the default on 
an international contract and its incumbent obligations. 

The citizen's defense in this equity procedure, in which 
he faces admiralty court punishment, is that he must state at 
his arraignment, after the court asks, "Do you understand 
the charge?" The defendant then answers "No." Under the 
6th Amendment he now has the right to ask both the nature 
and the cause of the accusation. The defendant then states, 
"Let the record of this court show that this is a criminal 
action." The defendant must make this plain, because the 
defense of a civil action is different from defense of a criminal 
charge. If the court does not respond fully, the defendant 
then states, ' 'Let the record of this court show that the defendant 
asked the nature and the cause of the accusation under his 
right as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, and that the court 
has failed to inform the defendant of secret jurisdiction which 
is known only to licensed attorneys." 

The defendant must make this point because of the fact 
that both the state and local chapters of the American Bar 
Association and the International Bar Association are under 
the direction and control of the international bankers. They 
must maintain this control in order to continue to use equity 
jurisdiction to enforce the collection of their international debts. 

The judge will then state that the defendant is to be tried 
under statutory jurisdiction. The defendant will then request 
that he be furnished a copy of the rules of criminal procedure 


under statutory jurisdiction. The court cannot comply, because 
there are no such rules. 

Having made this point, the defendant will then request 
the court to state whether it is operating under admiralty juris- 
diction. Because no American court will admit that it is actually 
operating under admiralty jiuisdiction, this should be sufificient 
to win a dismissal, because the court cannot proceed until 
an admission is made, or a denial, that the court is operating 
under admiralty procedures. The defendant should then state, 
"Let the record of this court show that it is a criminal court 
which is operating under an admiralty judge." 

American courts cannot convict under admiralty jurisdiction 
unless a valid international contract is in existence, and unless 
a copy of said contract can be brought into the court. The 
court faces the task of proving whether the defendant is a 
party obligated under such contract. The court must prove 
jurisdiction by proving an interest in the debt, and must prove 
it is a valid contract. No court can enforce an invalid contract, 
which means that the validity of the contract must be proven 
beyond a shadow of a doubt. The defendant must challenge 
the validity of the contract, because the law merchant code 
establishes the difference between a valid and an invalid con- 
tract; the invalid contract cannot be enforced. The defendant 
is actually being charged under the terms of a debt which 
was created by a bank and which therefore has no substance. 
Law is concerned with substance. To be convicted at law, 
the defendant must be shown to have been concerned with a 
matter of substance. The bank now has no interest in substance, 
and substance must be proved if the contract is to be enforced. 
The admiralty jurisdiction under which American courts try 


defendants is maintained by silent judicial notice. Once the 
issue of admiralty jurisdiction is brought into the open, it is 
no longer a secret, and the judge can no longer operate under 
the secret code which he maintains with his fellow members 
of the bar association, the prosecutor as well as the defense 
attorneys, licensed members of the bar, who appear before 
him. Because he is participating in a secret jurisdiction, the 
judge assumes judicial immunity to protect himself in the 
admiralty court. Under the Constitution, he has taken an oath 
to uphold the Constitution, which is binding upon him in a 
common law court, but which is not binding in the admiralty 
court; hence the doctrine of judicial immunity behind which 
the judges exercise their equity and admiralty procedures. 


Chapter 16 

Our Legal Future 

The reader may have noted in the samples of legal briefs 
reprinted in the foregoing pages, that there were no references 
to admkalty law. I did cite sources on chancery and equity 
law, but during the forty years that I was representing myself 
in American courts, I had not yet researched the cause of 
our legal dilemma, that our Constitutional courts, as authorized 
in the Constitution, had stealthily been replaced by equity 
courts operating on the stem military principles of admiralty 
punishment. That I managed to survive in these courts without 
the protection of the knowledge which is freely offered in 
this work, is less likely due to the benevolence of the judges 
and lawyers, as it is to their constant fear that in my ongoing 
and continuous legal researches in preparing my briefs, I would 
discover their guilty secret. I could then have mounted a serious 
challenge to their secret fraternal power. The one time that 
the Masonic connection was mentioned during a lawsuit in 
which I was engaged, the judge beat a hasty retreat, and 



immediately granted my motion. Even that connection was 
cited, not by myself, but by one of my supporters. This indi- 
cates the vulnerability of those who have conspired to oppress 
and deceive us. 

When an American citizen goes into court, he can say, as 
Christ said in Luke 22:53, "this is your hour, and the power 
of darkness." We are on the verge of dispelling the power 
of darkness in our courts. We must now turn on the lights 
full force, and see hordes of cockroaches scuttling frantically 
towards a dark comer. There are a number of encouraging 
developments throughout the United States; first, a growing 
awareness of the absolute corruption of the legal process; 
two, there is little that most lawyers will do for you except 
to take your money; and, three, your awareness of the true 
condition of the legal morass is your best protection. I often 
tell my audiences, "Go into any American prison, and look 
down the rows of cells. In each of those cells sits a prisoner; 
and each of those prisoners had a lawyer; and each of those 
prisoners paid a lawyer." 

Several television documentaries have exposed the frantic 
efforts of the legal profession to halt the growing tendency 
of Americans to use paralegals for routine legal documents, 
such as deeds and wills. 

In Louisiana and Florida, paralegals have been arrested 
and their offices closed down, because they tried to help citizens 
caught in the spider's web of legal procedures. The statutes 
are vague about "the practice of law"; it is generally inter- 
preted as forbidding persons who have not been granted a 
license to practice law from representing anyone in court. 


However, the paralegals who were arrested and fined never 
represented anyone in court. Instead, they presented a threat 
to the lucrative aspects of the legal monopoly, in which legal 
secretaries do all the work of preparing wills, deeds, and 
other documents, but the lawyer charges the full lawyer's 
fee for the work which is done by unlicensed members of 
his staff. 

One of the organizations which continues to do important 
groundbreaking work in exposing the legal monopoly is HALT. 
Based in Washington, D.C., HELP ABOLISH LEGAL TYR- 
ANNY notes that "Our 150,000-plus members are desperate 
for reliable, no-nonsense information. ... the national move- 
ment that's afoot to do away with the unnecessary lawyer- 
monopoly that keeps those prices unconscionably high. As 
the only national nonprofit group that represents the users of 
our legal system, HALT has been leading that movement. 
From Maine to California, citizens are demanding and winning 
more do-it-yourself forms, streamlined and simplified proce- 
dures, and — ^above all — a free market in which to shop for 
legal help. . . . The estimated 100 million Americans whose 
legal services now go unserved deserve nothing less. ' ' Richard 
Hebert, Communications Director, HALT, an organization 
of Americans for Legal Reform, Washington, D.C. Letter 
to Wall Sti-eet Journal, May 18, 1989. 

It is certainly important that Americans should no longer 
be gouged for such everyday legal forms as deeds and wills. 
It is even more important that every American should know 
just what is going on in our comts. We must be aware of 
what has happened to our legal guarantees which were written 
down in our Constitution. We must be able to challenge the 


stealthy takeover of our judicial system by furtive conspirators, 
hiding behind the international allegiances of the law merchant, 
the Star Chamber procedures of the equity courts, and the 
secret fraternal associations which dictate judicial decisions 
diabolically opposed to the interests of our citizens and our