• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

December 12, 2009 Rod Class

H: We have a copy of the LOMAR and I will send it to you as text so that you can do things to it. I want to thank John as he took the pdf and made it into a regular doc.

..? Is it going to be available to the group.

H: The whole thing is a summarization of Rod’ stuff, and Rod needs to look at it and have it be in a form that he can either correct or add to. But, yes, we can make it available and I will try and get posted on rayservers.com as a document that people can then manipulate.

R: When I first did this, I had someone working with me to help me do it out. Nobody in this country has ever done this. This is technically the first for us to come out and do this, when we did in 2007. The one we had in 2002, we turned it back in to Judiciary Committee in 2007, on the House and Senate side. The one we did in 2008, Marie and I did it while we were in DC. If you even go through laws and go through their paperwork, you have typos all through their paperwork too.

With what we are doing, when we first started this, it was basically a bet that it could not be done. I did it.

The second one was the fact that we actually went into the Judiciary Committee on the House and Senate side and talked with them. We explained the crux of the matter, we laid it out for them. We handed them the documentation, back in 2007. They sat on it and really did not do anything. Then they came out with House Rule 660 where they went back in and tried to give themselves immunity for what they are doing.

What we are dealing with here is that we have the lawyers that are in control of so much of this stuff. It is like I am bringing out in the paperwork what I brought out last night on AIB radio. If you really, truly, get into the Constitution, under Article 1, Section 6, it talks about the House of Representatives, the Congressmen. They are immune from the rest except if they commit a felony, if they are taking bribes, or an act of treason. The moment they get paid off by a lobbyist, that is a bribe, a felony – that’s an act of treason because now they are working against the people.

If you get into Article 2, Section 4, it talks about the President, Vice-President, and civil officers. They cannot commit crimes and it lists them. In Article 3, Section 1, it talks about these judges being on good behavior. If you start looking at all of this, and these judges are claiming immunity --- no, you do not have immunity because Title 18, under Civil Rights Violation, Obstruction of Justice, there are penalties for these people when they do that. In Title 42, is the section on how we will go back and bust them on it.

Where they are getting their immunity, where they are abusing it, is whenever the Bar Association created the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946, under Senate Bill 7, 60 stat. 237. What this was originally designed for, and we talked about this several months ago when we got into the Administrative Procedures stuff, when they created the Administrative Procedures Act, it had one function, supposedly. That function was to be able to address administrative abuse, whether it was with Child Services, Dept. of Motor Vehicles, IRS, Dept of Justice, FBI – it did not make a bit of difference. It was an administrative setup that the people were supposed to be able to go in, pull an administrative hearing, talk to the arbitrator who was the Administrative Judge, lay out the evidence of the corruption and wrongdoing. The other side was supposed to come as the defendant, never as the plaintiff. You would put forth your evidence, show where the errors are, show where the abuse is, and then the Administrative Judge was to say: “Okay, you are right; you are showing the evidence; you are showing the proof of the abuse. On our side, we now have to change our policy because we are showing errors and abuse on our side”. This is where the Administrative Judge was supposed to have the immunity that he could go to Child Services, IRS, the DOJ, FBI –whatever department was involved—and say that the people proved their case. Here are the laws, the statutes, supreme court case rulings. You have to change your policy. This judge was supposed to be absolutely immune from any type of persecution or retaliation from the agencies. This is where they had their absolute, total immunity. It was from them, it was never supposed to be applied to our side the way they are doing it.

This goes right back into misuse and abuse of when they created this. It is like a lot of things. They created things, knowing that they were able to go back in and misuse it and that the people would never know the difference. The people would never figure it out. They would drop hints and the people would never be able to pick up the hints that were dropped. Through the years of things that have been done, and that we have worked on, and that people have gathered information on and shared, this is how we are starting to piece all of this together. We are starting to work together and share what we have.

By being able to get into the Congressional Records, which someone had and they gave to us, and going into the Library of Congress and verifying them, we now know that this is where their immunity comes from. It came from them being able to help us do their job to where their side could not come back in and say: you’re not supposed to do this for them, we are supposed to them. No, the obligation of the Administrative Judge was to correct the administration, and they are not doing that. As we are finding out, they are all corrupt. It has come to the place where they are going to do whatever it takes to cover their own.

The reality of it is, this first case that we did in Superior Court, we actually beat the United States. The Judge cannot answer the paperwork, even though he stepped off the bench and played council for these people. The reality of it is, we beat them. The judge cannot come back in and answer the reconsideration, because we showed him exactly where the flaws were. We got the procedure book out and we showed him step for step exactly where he made his flaws. The reality is, we beat them. Whether or not they are going to give it to us, is another answer. That is part of the problem.

Everything that we have done, we have taken everything step for step. We have gone through the procedures. We have walked them through their Congressional Records. We have walked them through all the procedures they have done, all of their Executive Orders, rules, regulations. We showed them where they made their mistakes, how they made their mistakes. Now they have a problem, because now we have exposed it. We were not supposed to be able to expose this the way we exposed it. This was something they never anticipated that we would ever do to them. But we did. We got in. We laid it into them. The Judge tried to cover it up. We went back and proved that he was in error. It is like the case we are dealing with right now -- the Buess case. We are coming back in and showing them, again, the fraud that they are committing on the people. They do not know how to come back and handle it. They do not know how to answer the paperwork.

H: Rod, if they do not know how to answer the paperwork, what is going to happen?

R: What we are doing is coming back in and showing the fraud by addressing this to Homeland Security, the Committee on Homeland Security, the United States Coastguard (which is the head of the Homeland Security, which is the Military side) getting this out the Provost Marshals and to the CID, trying to notify them.

H: Do you think they will do anything once they are notified?

R: I do not know. We do not know unless we try, unless we put the information out. In the Letters of Marque and Reprisal (LOMAR) and the Private Attorney General document that were all signed by Congress. This is where we have this in our favor. It actually shows that we have tried to go through the system and follow procedure. We actually reported the crimes, the abuse, to the representatives and the Judiciary Committee is the one, if you understand the history, that pulls the investigation. They are the ones that come and do the impeachment. It is not the Homeland Security committee, it is not the Ways and Means or Agriculture …it is the Judiciary Committee. They are the ones that actually hold the investigations that deal with public officials. That is why we went to them. That is their job description.

H: Rod, it is like when you and I were in the Military we had to go through the chain of command.

R: Right, and that is exactly what we did. We are showing that we are trying to go through the proper channels. We are trying to get them to fix the problem. We are bringing it to their attention. When we were there in 2007, we handed them a stack of paperwork about 1 foot thick of impeachments against federal judges and other judges for abuse and misuse of their office. We are showing where the crimes are, and how they committed them. They have not addressed it. Not on our side.

With what we are doing, we have two choices. Either we can fold up shop and go home and just get on with our lives, or we can do what we are doing here on Friday and Saturday nights, bringing information forward, trying to bring the education up, keep filing some type of paperwork, letting them know that we are still alive and kicking, that we still have a problem and are trying to address it. If someone has a better way of doing it, or actually is sitting on the answer, and will come on board, I will be more than glad to turn things over.

…? Rod, have you ever thought of a tort claim?

R: No. We went through the Claims Court. Four of us did. We got our cases kicked back. We went through every single court. We even went through the United States Administrative Office for the United States Court, where we had to go in and ask permission from them to sue the United States. They came back with a document that said they did not see anything wrong with what is going on-- when we had put down all the issues of all of the corruption. We went through the Federal Court of Claims. We ran a tort claim. We had our paperwork kicked back out. Rodger Tanner got sent back to the Federal Court in Ohio because they did not want to address it.

The only court that was left that we did not know about was the Superior Court (DC??) and that is why we tried it.

…..? I am going to send an e-mail for a website. Believe it or not, there is progress being made with the King and Queen of Hawaii. There is an apology bill, signed by Bill Clinton, on www.freehawaii.org . I will send you what they are doing. They have put together a $300 trillion UCC tort claim.

R: As I said, with everything that we are doing, through all the proper channels. At this point in time, by going after (obtaining ??) the Private Attorney General (document), taking it before Congress, going into the Library of Congress and pulling the history on it, pulling the documentation that verifies it, we have done everything humanly possible, up to this point, on our side to try to fix the problem. We are still growing. There is still new information that keeps coming up with what we are doing, as people start to come of the woodwork. They are listening to different segments and they are sending different things that we may not have.

What we have done since 2007, we actually have come a long, long way in exposing so much of what has taken them 600 years to do. We have unraveled quite a bit in the last two years, more than they ever thought we would unravel.

It still comes down to the people. It comes down to us. What do we want to do with the problem? Do we want to throw our hands up into the air, go bury our heads in the sand like an ostrich, or do we want to try through peaceful means to fix this problem. We put in the documentation that shows that we have tried everything, even going into Congress and getting the approval of Congress – not once, not twice, but three different times, on a LOMAR. As I said, I do not know of anyone other than myself in this country who has done this. A lot of people want to talk, but I actually did it. I have my signatures on the documents – and I have the stamps.

This shows the seriousness of what we are trying to do. We are actually trying to fix the problem.

H: And it is our government to fix.

R: Yes. I ties right into what we talked about last night. The Declaration of Independence and the state Constitutions put the inherited (inherent ?) political power with the people. We are technically the government. These (the government) are employees of ours (the people). We have the right to alter, reform or abolish any part of it when it becomes destructive to us. It is just that we have been brainwashed so badly over the years, and browbeaten, and have been brutalized by the system. A lot of people are scared to death, which is understandable. At what point in time do you stand up and say NO.

H: If it is our government, we would not treat ourselves like this.

R: No. So, we need to address the issue with them. That is where we need to get the people with the best education and knowledge, and bring it to the table and ask: why are you doing this. If it is the lawyers, then let’s get rid of the Bar Association in this country. Let’s put the lawyers under the same guidelines as a doctor or nurse or mechanic. Make them get a real license from the Secretary of State and operate independently from the courts. When they are operating independently of the courts, then the courts cannot browbeat and threaten them. They (the courts) cannot remind them (the lawyers) that they (the lawyers) are officers of the Supreme Court of the state and we (the courts) can pull your bar card. Well, take your bar card and shove it.

There is an avenue here. The District Attorneys who have come on Talkshoe, who have called me, who have done the research, have been astounded with what we have found, and the information we are running. They have actually validated a lot of it. They were not taught any of this. They are still looking at some of the other stuff.

It comes down to this, as we talked last night, where we are making our mistakes when we are talking to a lot of these people, when we are talking to public officials, when we are saying that a judge violated my rights and is suppressing my paperwork, or when a judge did not allow this -- your statement may be absolutely true. When we say, the judge did this, the judge did that, you can go back into the law and show them that by their suppressing your evidence, the truth, they are in violation of Title 18, 1001 and 1505 (obstruction). Had the truth been allowed to come out, you never would have been convicted, your homes never would have been taken from you. That is what we are starting to prove.

We have started to have federal judges coming back in and bringing up the fact that the banks do not have the original note. They do not have the original lien. Therefore, because they do not have it, they cannot evict the people. This is part of what we are looking at.

When we start putting in the paperwork and talking to these representatives, quoting the statutes, explaining it to them, now they are going to start realizing that we a not just complaining. This is the difference. The time we have gone into Congress, eg., into Adam Putman’s (SP ???) office on the first LOMAR, he told me: no, no, no—we cannot get involved. Well, YES, you can. When I pulled out the Constitution and started explaining it to him, his whole attitude changed 180 degrees, with: yes sir, you are right. It was the same way when I dealt with the state legislature in Florida when we were talking about impeachments. When we started out wanting an impeachment process, it was: no, we can’t do that; we can’t get involved; no, that is not our job. I said: Are you going to be here tomorrow? He said: Yes, I am. I said: Good, I’ll be back.

I brought in the Constitution for the United States and for Florida, the United States Attorneys’ Manual and started explaining this to him. All of a sudden he realized that I knew what I was talking about. I was not just bitching to bitch. I was actually able to show him exactly where the violations were, and what his job was. This is where we are running short on a lot of what is happening. When we were in DC in 2007, even though the people were right with what they were saying, they were not backing up what they were complaining about. By not being able to back it up, they (courts) do not have to do anything for you.

When we laid out the Jefferson’s Manual and starting talking to them about it, their attitude changed because now I had the rule books in my hands, I was able to explain it to them. This is the difference. When you start laying it out, which is actually their procedures, and you explain it to them, their attitude changes. This is where we have fallen short, because the majority of the people who teach do not actually get into the depth that we are getting into on this show. They talk in generalities. When we were at a Florida seminar, the first two gentlemen who spoke on mortgages talked in generalities. They talked about and around things. The people were really getting upset. When Carl and I had our conversation on Sunday with them, they got a whole different line of information because we were breaking it down and explaining it to them. We showed them exactly where things were at. This is what we need more of among our own people.

A lot of people do not want to get into this because now it is stepping on toes and we do not want to ruffle feathers. Well, ladies and gentlemen, it is getting to be late to start being concerned about ruffling their feathers when they are taking your children and you home. They have shipped you jobs overseas. How much more do we have to lose before we decide that we need to ruffle their feathers. We have to start pushing this, peacefully. But we do have an alternative, if it comes right down to it.

I have not heard anything from Homeland Security at this point on the LOMAR that we have filed with them, with the Private Attorney General material, with the information from the 81st Congress that the National Lawyers Guild is a Communist Party along with the Bar Association, and the information we entered regarding the Trading with the Enemy Act which shows that they were not supposed to steal our gold, but to keep those people from hoarding it who were trying to stockpile it but not to take it from us. By entering this kind of information we are giving them a different perspective from what they were told, what they were allowed to believe.

From 1933—it is like telling a story. From the time you tell someone next to you your story, and it goes through 30 people, the story has changed. Especially if you have lawyers involved, you know they are going to change the stories. That is exactly what has happened. The attorneys have found a way to make money on this; they have modified it. If you really, truly, think about what has actually happened, and we are finding it, everything that they are doing to the people, by changing definitions of words, capitalizing letters, using last names, all of this has been and is being done by them changing corporate law, revising corporate law. How do we (the attorneys) need to fix this so that we can go and get the people. They have gone into corporate law and changed definitions of words, believing that the people will never know. Lawyers will never explain this because the moment that they do they will lose their bar card.

The fraud has being going through by changing corporate law. We have the Supreme Court case cites on it. We have the Legislative Act on it from Delaware. We have the Texas Code on it. We have the Delaware Code on it. This explains the fraud and how they are misusing corporate law against the American people.

H: We are dumping a lot of information onto these people, and they are starting to realize that we know what we are talking about. Can you give us a date as to when you first really started to confront the main parties on the fact that we know what is going on and we want it changed? R: 2006 when we started our class action law suit. This is when we actually started laying down hard facts of corruption, the proof of the fraud. We started pulling information from a lot of public officials who wanted to remain anonymous. We got a book from Child Services showing the facilities of some of the Child Services places where children are staying, the nastiness of them, and they wanted this exposed. They sent us a book with pictures in it.

H: When did first file your class action suit?

R: Sept./Oct 2006 perhaps

H: It is the Evvy case (sp ???), right?

R: Yes.

H: What we need on your web site/blog / rayservers –is a count-up clock, not a count-down clock, from when we first started to point out the fraud.

R: We started this back in 2006. We were in Oklahoma – and it was filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma about Sept 10. We (Carl and I) both had two bundles, one under each arm (four in total). These were roughly 1 foot thick. We had a 116 page complaint and all of the rest of it was evidence of corruption, and it all got filed in.

Then we started filing in more. We filed roughly 7 feet of documentation of corruption. We got, out of California, from a lady who was not really happy with her husband who was a congressman who sort of jilted her, a judicial book of probably 500 pages. She sent it to us and we made copies of it and we filed it into the case. It was their procedures and guidelines and how they were supposed to operate. This is what we were doing. Someone from Texas sent us stuff on Child Services – a whole book. We copied it and filed it in. We put in the fraud of the IRS, the fraud of some of the mortgages.

M: There were about six or seven books that were filed. The stack of exhibits was taller that I stand.

R: Yes, we had 7 feet.

H: Now, that case is still an active case, is it not?

R: No. They terminated it in Oklahoma. We went into the 10th Circuit Court and filed for an appeal on it. We had 40 days in order to do a brief. Ten days into it, they sent it out to a review board. Ten days later (our 20th day) they shut the case down. Forty days later they came back in and made a ruling that we failed to prosecute, at which time the defendants filed a motion to sue for labor and hourly rates on Evvy (SP??) because the amount of paperwork we submitted. They wanted $20,000 (to read it) and the courts charged another $6,000 to $7,000 for filing it.

That is where we got the documentation -- from the 10th Circuit Court ruling -- that they were corporate appellees and not public officials. The corporate appellees were: United States of America, all of the Federal Judges, the State Justice Institute – we had a list of defendants. H: So, the 10th Circuit determined that the US, et al. were corporate appellees. What does that mean?

R: We started in 2007, going back and doing the research, and that is where we got into all these colonies, finding that they were not colonies as we assumed. They were all chartered corporations that came over from England and they set up their own businesses under The Carolinas, Virginia, Delaware, New Hampshire. These were all corporations. They just took on the name of their corporation and we assumed that these were colonies.

H: The Massachusetts Bay Colony… So, if the 10th Circuit ruled that the US, et al (all the other defendants) were corporate appellees, what did that mean? Was the 10th Circuit trying to tell you that they had immunity.

R: Yes, that is exactly what they when back in and did.

M: ……until everything was filed in DC against the corporation. Then they did not have any defense.

R: Then we came back in and rattled their cage

H: You rattled their cage because you knew that they were corporate. We never before knew that we should have styled the case as a Class vs the US dba corporation.

R: That’s it. That is when we came up with the idea of running it this way. We have run it in their individual office capacity and in their private capacity, and that did not work. The only thing that was left, and the 10th Circuit Court gave us that answer, was that they were corporate.

H: The normal group of people would have said: okay, they are corporate appellees….nothing we can do. Hmmm.

R: That is when we started, back in 2007, doing the research of the corporation stuff and all the stuff we have found. This is how we have been able to prove through the corporate laws as to how they are deceiving the people.

H: As a government, when the 10th Circuit told you as a government that they are corporate appellees, it seemed that: oh, we are screwed. Then we find out that they are actually a corporation and not a government, so that is where you came up with the idea to then sue them in their corporate capacity -- and the Attorney General of the US wouldn’t be able to defend the corporation.

Who is it that can defend the corporation?

R: That goes right back into the law firm for the corporation. Now, it had to be Eric Holder. We caught him on both sides of the fence.

H: He (Holder) can’t be both and not be able to function in either one.

R: That’s it. The moment he came in and represented the corporation, as the Attorney General, now that is misuse of taxpayers’ money. H: He was using taxpayers’ money to defend a corporation

R: That’s it. They have given us the information. They have given us everything that we have ever needed.

H: They did not think that we could figure it out.

R: That is the whole point. They never figured we would look at it, read the paperwork, figure it out.

H: They are too stupid to be a government, Rod. If that was their attitude, that we would never figure it out, they are so stupid that they should not be the government.

R: The thing is, we are in a position where we cannot get them out now -- other than through force, or get the people organized better than what they are.

H: Or, embarrassment, or whatever. Or being sued for trillions of dollars. And have them have to settle. Have them have to declare bankruptcy, or something.

R: Well, they are already bankrupt. And how many times can you declare bankruptcy and keep borrowing money, knowing that you can never pay it back.

H: You are going to have some people from another continent across the Pacific coming over here, knocking on your door, asking for money.

R: And they don’t have it.

H: I know. We are going to be the collateral damage for all of that. And that really p…….es me off.

R: They used us as the collateral on this.

H: Yes, but when that other country comes over from across the Pacific to collect, and push comes to shove, we are going to be the collateral damage. And that is unacceptable. Totally unacceptable.

R: Yes. You are absolutely right. This is part of what we are going after. This is where the war crimes and the hate crimes and the crimes against humanity is coming in, and we are charging them.

H: This is very frustrating.

R: Yes it is. The American people do not understand a lot of this, and this is what we are trying to bring out and bring up, and to get people to be aware of how bad they have railroaded us. A lot of people will tell you that they know it is corrupt.

H: …and they say: but what can you do about it…you can’t fight city hall.

R: Well, yes you can…if more of us would get together. M: Yes, you can, if you go in and charge them with domestic terrorism, war crimes and hate crimes. And we can prove every letter that we write. We have to get them on the stand under oath as the defendant.

H: The people need to know that they won’t go on the stand, and then the people are going to be going to be a little bit p…..ed off, are they not.

R: Yes they are. With what we have done in these couple of cases, Dale vs US and Beuss vs US, if the people, and I mean the foreigners, if they would actually catch on, we are are actually sitting on law suits that proves the fraud that the US has committed against them.

We are actually sitting on the proof of fraud. We actually have the evidence and this would be enough for them to come in and take to task, these people. As you have just said, Harvey, we the people are going to end up being the collateral damage out of this.

H: I am up for that.

R: The people should not be punished and we should not be the ones ending up being the fallout because the system failed to do it’s job -- what they were hired for.

H: Because the system perpetrated fraud.

R: With the evidence that we have put in, and that we are coming up with, so much is of this has been done behind closed doors. None of it has ever come out to the people for us to be made aware of or to agree to. They have frauded the American people and this country and they have really railroaded the people so badly. Once the people wake up to this, they are going to have an angry mob in this country.

You can’t blame the people, once they wake up to the reality that those who were in office who had a trusted position of honor, of dignity, have abused it because they allowed a group of people to come in and misuse their office. That goes right back in to the Bar Association.

H: Those lawyers who sit in C……..’s office. Remember, he was pointing them out to you.

R: That is the whole point.

M: That is why they are so angry over here, Rod. We have filed charges against them as the pirates engaged in piractical enterprises. That has really stirred the pot here.

H: That is great that you have done that, Maria.

M: And we have two judges who have had these charges filed against them….and a bunch more are coming up. Now they have to come in and prove that they did not do all the violations that , Rod, you are speaking of, that constituted engaging in a piractical enterprise. By asking them for their foreign agent registration documents, and the LOMARs in the people’s name, which we know cannot happen, they know right up front that we are going after the jugular. And there is not anything they can do about it. I truly do believe that there is going to be some attempts to offer a settlement on these issues. We will have to wait and see exactly what these defendants are going to do.

R: With a lot of what is going on, by putting this into Homeland Security the way I have file it in to them, they are going to have to go back in, do an investigation on their own, and verify a lot of the stuff that is going on. With the statutes and codes and Congressional Records, etc., that we are dumping in, we are dumping in stuff that a lot of these people don’t have a clue that has been done over the years. It just goes in. We just follow routine. We follow procedure. We do not know why. That is just the way it is done. That is how we are going to go and do it.

H: They are taught procedure from a certain level. They are not taught the entire menu of the procedure.

R: By coming in and laying this out and explaining it to them, and in this Buess case, with me doing the paperwork, by coming in and asking for clarification on the wording and on the phrases and terminology (and it is sitting in there, and they do not want to address it), by me coming in and explaining that Mr. Sanders is failing to clarify and he is concealing information. I am coming in and showing exactly what he is concealing, and how he is concealing it, and he is in violation of Title 18, 1001, for false statements, and Title 18, 1505, for obstruction of justice, withholding information. This all comes back under fraud.

So, by laying all of this stuff out, and making the issue of the clarification, this is going to allow me to come back in, as my defense in all of this, I asked, he wanted it suppressed, here is the information. By dumping discovery in on them, dumping in their code book, and tearing it apart, getting into the Federal Debt Collection procedure and showing their procedure and showing how they have failed to follow it, now we are coming in and exposing so much of the wrong doing that now when Homeland Security or the Coastguard (and these people are starting to come in and looking at this stuff) – My God, we were not aware of all of this. Now they can sit back and say: okay, you people have a legitimate gripe because you are right. They are interfering with the federal statutes. Congress wrote this out, or actually the Bar Association wrote this out. This was the meaning. This was the intent. This was how it is supposed to be. You are actually proving that they are not following their own guidelines. Something as simple as writing their name on a sheet of paper is not the /s/ John Doe.

H: Rod, the only hope we have is if we can get the lower levels of these agencies incensed enough to start really making noise within their own agencies. I think that is how is going to have to be done. The top part is not going to stand for what we are doing. The bottom part did not know all of the chicanery that the top part was actually trying to accomplish, with their accomplices, the lawyers. I would say that we have a real ………………brewing here if we can get the lower levels to really step back and say: wait a minute—these guys are right (Rod and Carl); this thing is not being run right and we are not going to stand for it. So, if we can get them fighting among themselves, I would suspect that is more of the lower level than there is the top level in any agency, and if you have more people at the lower level yelling at the people at the top level, something is going to happen. Then, of course, we out here doing what we what we are doing, you never can tell. R: Stop and look over the last few years. Stop and think here. Ritalin was one of the most prescribed medications for children with attention deficit disorder. They have prescribed, prescribed, prescribed. In the last year we are now seeing on the news, on tv, on commercials, if your child was on Ritalin and they did this and they had this psychological problem and they had this happen, join the class action law suit. They have put out medication. They have put out so much stuff that they forced on the people, and now, years later, we have law suits against this stuff, but it was the law that you had to. If you did not, as a parent, Child Services would come in and take your child. Now they are coming back and proving that this medication was dangerous. It is the same thing with Prozac.

We are seeing a trend, and that is part of the reason we went in after the genocide on our first law suit, knowing that they were killing the people off. Now, all of a sudden, you see a law suit. Now you are seeing law suits about all of this money on the stock market. Now you can hire an attorney to go back after the broker because he railroaded you. Go back about four or five years and you will not see anything like this. Now, all of a sudden in the last couple of years this stuff is popping up like crazy. They are starting to come up. What Carl was saying, last night, is that we now have lawyers coming out here suing lawyers on these bank frauds. They know this whole thing was a fraud. They have made the money off of it, and now they are going to start coming back in and making money on the other side. They made money on both sides on this thing. That is exactly what they are doing. This whole thing is nothing but a scam.

H: Well, we had better get cut in for some of the action on all of this law crap.

R: This is why we are coming back in and trying to expose what we are exposing. We are trying to open this thing up. As I said, if you look over the years at a lot of the paperwork that has been done, and you look at the paperwork that I am doing, other than my grammar, what is the difference between my paperwork and what was done for the last several years.

M: Your paperwork has all of the stats right in the paperwork. No one else does that. They want to run around the horn and talk about it, existentially out in the air, and wherever, outer space, and not put it down. No one can define or deny your intent of what you are trying to say.

R: This is what we need to start doing and start learning, when we are putting in our paperwork. When I had my first cast back in 2002, my very first ticket, I did not go in and defend. I went in and said: “Excuse me, here the Compact Agreement that shows that I have a right to drive up here. By the way, you don’t have an oath of office. Here is your oath that you never because you have not signed. Here is the law that says you have to. Here is the regulation.”

We attacked them. We showed them where they had no authority and they are violating their own procedures. I was not the defending myself. I did not have to. They did not have the authority to stop me.

H: You were not arguing the controversy. You were arguing procedure. R: You are exactly right. You had to meet these standards before you did what you did, and you did not meet your own standards.

H: There you go, case closed.

R: This the whole point with what we are doing. You are coming in and showing procedural violations, showing where they have to meet these qualifications. These were the Congressional Acts, and the moment they override them, that goes into Title 10, 333, interfering with federal state statutes. The moment they interfere with federal state statutes and they override them, this is where the Administrative Procedures Act comes in, under 60 Stat 237, they are misusing this and abusing this, because now they are saying that they have rule making power. I say: Yes, if you are dealing with another Administrative Office – not us.

Because we did not know and did not under understand the Administrative Procedure Act, this is where we kept getting our butts handed to us, even though people talked: ‘well, this is Administrative Court’. But, no one could ever tell you what the rules were.

H: Nor do they even know what it was originally intended for.

R: That is exactly right. This is part of the problem. People were sitting on the information and whoever came up with it should have had the records that we are sitting on now.

H: We could find them easily – didn’t we?

R: We did. Someone handed it to me. The thing is, now that we know what it means and what it is, we can now start bringing it into court and putting it into the record. We can start showing them that we are in an Article 3 court, so you have a corpus delicti--you have real injured parties. We can ask: ‘Would you like to produce them, and it cannot be the state of’. They say: ‘We do not have them’. I can then say: ‘If you don’t have one, then what kind of court are you running. If it is not Administrative, not Article 3, is it called kangaroo?’

This is where this runs back under Trading with the Enemy Act. This is the only place that will allow the government to come in their own name against an enemy of the state. No one knew about this either, until we started getting into it. That is one of the issues that I put in the paperwork. We talked about the four actions (actually there were five, I forgot the Administrative). We did the four actions: Civil, Criminal, Equity and Admiralty (which actually is administrative).

The courts will deny the last two. They will tell you: ‘We are not a court of Equity. We are not an Admiralty court’. Well, that makes it either Civil or Criminal. Since most of the charges are criminal and there is no one on the plaintiff side, other than the state of, that brings it in under Title 50, under Trading with the Enemy Act. It is the government that is bringing charges against the enemy. How did we become an enemy when we never expatriated ourselves?

This is part of the fraud. No one else has really gone into this. I have, and I have put it into the paperwork. If you go back and read what we did on this Ohio judge (that should be posted on the blog), we addressed this because that Attorney said that I misused the Trading with the Enemy Act. The people of the United States were not considered enemies. Well, I say: ‘Yes they were under the Ambertory (sp ?) Act of 1933’. I started breaking this down to him. No one else breaks this down. I dealt with the Federal Reserve taking over Germany, of taking over their economy so they could still trade, because he was under the impression that it was only so the United States and our side would not trade with Germany. What it was, was Federal Reserves. As long as they did not take on Federal Reserve they could not trade. The moment they took on Federal Reserve, they could trade even with us. That is exactly what they did.

As I said, a lot of these lawyers really are not familiar with a lot of this. I know I am throwing them by throwing in this paperwork. With us sitting on the Congressional Records, sitting on the information on all of this, and explaining it them, they have a very serious problem on how to come back and answer the paperwork because they are not familiar with this as they were never taught any of this.

H: I can see some law suits against some law schools. …Hey, you guys screwed me out of an education I should have had.

R: These guys went to Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, etc. and we-the-people went to the school of hard knocks.

H: We have our library card.

R: That’s right. We got our education out in the street and our education is a lot better than theirs. I can come back in and I can quote their procedure to them and I can show them in their rules where they did not sign their paperwork. It shows under Title 26, Rule 23, where they have to sign their paperwork. This getting a little embarrassing on their part.

I am coming back in under Title 26, Rule 10, that talks about tax court. Now, we are not supposed to know any of this. We are entering it and we are shoving it in their faces and making the issue – we were in a tax court. The tax man had to prove that this was not a proper tax court, and here it is in the DC statues: ‘this is the tax court’. He has to explain why he as an IRS agent moved it out of a tax court. He can’t. We have caught him in a fraud, because he knew the moment he put it into the US District Court of the District of Columbia that it was in the wrong jurisdiction. He did it knowingly. He committed a fraud.

M: He did it to bring fraud upon the court, to engage in a piractical enterprise.

R: He knew that this court would have to dismiss the case because it did not have jurisdiction to hear it.

H: Now, if that court dismisses it, does it not have to go back to the original court – the Superior Court of DC.

R: It should, but the point is – this is why we are filing paperwork into Homeland Security, because Judge Holman should never have relinquished it to the District Court. By him releasing it, he now committed a fraud in the tax court. Now, because there has been fraud committed by the public officials on both sides of the fence, the only place that this court can actually turn this case over to is Homeland Security. Because now we are coming in and showing that they are in violation, this now comes under the Home Grown Terrorist Act.

H: An act of terrorism, you say.

R: Yes, this is now domestic terrorism.

H: Against us – by them.

R: Yes.

H: I wanted to get it on the record, Rod.

R: What we can do is address it, bring their attention to it, see what they are going to do with it, and hope for the best. As I said, will this hit CNN news, I doubt it very much…..if they come back and do anything with it.

H: We have a lot of worker bees out here to help get it to the rest of the country.

R: There are not enough of us doing it. Everyone is sitting back and waiting for the test run to see how successful it is. I do understand to a certain extent, but I also understand that one person cannot pick up a car and flip it over. It takes a multitude of people to be able to do this. I one person can do it, I don’t need 15 or 20 people to come behind me, because I can do it by myself. It takes someone to get the door open. Then it is going to take other people to address these same issues, knowing that they (the courts) cannot answer their own documents.

So far, they cannot answer their own documents. They are saying that what we are putting in is legally incomprehendable or grammaralogically illogical. However, everything that we put in were Congressional Records, Executive Orders, Statutes.

H: Some of the stuff that surrounded the Congressional Records, etc., might have been grammatically incorrect. Nonetheless, in the case, the black ink on the white paper shows what they have done wrong.

R: That is exactly right. They are coming back in and saying that this is frivolous, and these other nouns, verbs and pronouns that they are have for it, actually what they are saying is that the entire system is a fraud.

H: In essence, that is what they are saying.

R: Yes, they are saying that the entire system is a fraud, and this is their defense.

H: Their defense is no defense.

R: This is what we are bringing up. If you (the court) are saying all of this stuff is basically fraud, they you cannot justify putting millions of American people in prison, taking children, taking their homes. H: … Putting us in jeopardy for the people across the ocean coming over here and looking for their money.

Rod: Yes. If your entire system is a fraud, remember that you are the ones who have created it. It was not the people.

H: There was a story recently about Goldman Saks that high executives are wanting permission to carry weapons. Soon we are going to hear Congress, that is against gun control, asking to have concealed carryability.

R: Judges have already asked for that. You have judges sitting on the bench right now who have a pistol sitting on the bench.

H: Holy Crap.

M: …been there for years. That is common knowledge. Still, they want to take the guns away from the people.

R: You are walking through a metal detector. You are being searched. You have armed guards and armed judge sitting on the bench.

H: That is a great system.

M: Sounds like treason to me.

R: Some of these courtrooms have bulletproof glass in front of the judge.

H: Well deserved, I would say.

R: What is wrong with this picture? If they were actually doing their job right, and were acting according to the rules and regulations that are laid out in the books, these judges would have absolutely nothing to fear from the people.

H: That’s right. They could go to the International House of Pancakes and have breakfast.

R: With us! They would have absolutely nothing to fear because they could say that they are actually following procedures. They would have to make sure that the Prosecutor – the moment that evidence comes in could not say that they need to suppress this information because this man could be found ‘not guilty’. No….he is ‘not guilty’ and we are not going to suppress it.

M: They are mandated to bring in all exculpatory evidence, and they never do. Exculpatory means evidence that would substantiate the innocent, of the person being charged. In all Grand Jury hearings, the Prosecuting Attorney is supposed to bring in all sides of the evidence, including all exculpatory evidence. But they never do.

H: That is very real, it rarely happens. M: Every time they don’t do that, what we should do is charge them, then add: a pirate engaged in a piractical enterprise. That one, they cannot get out of.

R: It truly comes down to the people. We have to unlearn so much of what we have been taught, go back in and start adding what we are talking about into the paperwork and showing the statutes where they are in violation. We must start breaking it down and shoving it in their faces. They are becoming aware that more and more people are becoming knowledgeable.

For years and years they used to tell the people that ignorance of the law is no excuse. What they were telling us was to go back in and read the law books, but most people just sat there and dropped their heads, saying , eg., yes, your Honor, I understand, I should not have done it. Did they get into the law books…NO. For years they have told us, hinted, and people never bothered to do it. The people who have done this and who are teaching this are not teaching everything. They are only teaching partials, the basics. That is part of the problem too is that once you tell a story and it gets around, by the time it gets back to you, what you started is not the same thing that comes back because part of it has been left out.

M: They seem to think that their ignorance of the law has some kind of excuse.

R: That is the problem. They say that they did not know. Well, excuse me. You are supposed to know this. You are supposed to be aware of this. This is what I was pointing out in the paperwork. The judge with whom we are dealing with in the Buess case, gave me until the 28th or he is going to dismiss the case. Now, wait a minute…when Dave Buess proved that the IRS codefendant did not show up in court, failed to answer the paperwork, why did he (Buess) not get a ruling in his favor. Why did this judge rule in favor of the IRS who never showed up. And now you are telling me that if we don’t, you are going to rule in their favor.

Where is equal protection under the law. Everything falls back under one side. This violates the Taff Hartley Act. They are running a closed-union shop. They are striking against the employer. That is ‘us’. We need to start making these issues. This violates anti-trust laws.

By breaking some of this down and bringing it in to them, letting them know that we do now know and we are starting to have a better understanding, we are no longer coming in with myths and legends, but we are actually coming in with facts and documentation, it is going to help shortchange things. But remember, this happened over 400 years ago. We are not going to change it over night.

… ? When you were talking about equal protection, is there a particular place to go for that besides just referring to a case.

R: Yes. Title 18, 1981.

H: We should not despair. We have 220 to 230 people on the update list. If people will forward some of the announcements that come out through rayservers to their friends, there is a place for them to sign up, get the announcements. They will know that you calls happen Friday and Saturday nights. We are stirring it up. It will eventually change, and it will change much quicker than we anticipate. R: A lot of people from different areas who have heard about our show have called me wondering why they have not heard of this before now. I have had people who have asked me to come on their shows throughout the week. I have brought them up to speed on what we are doing. It is getting out. There are a lot more people wanting to know about us than I have realized.

H: …and from very small beginnings. What the heck. Right is Right.

R: With what we are teaching, we are giving the best education, we are breaking it down. I think I am explaining it clearly enough for the average person to understand. I know we have new people coming on the line. The new people need to get into the archives to come up to speed because initially some of this will be over their heads. If they get into the archives , they will catch up with what we are talking about. It is not that hard. Once you understand the basics, and once you understand their job description – of how they are supposed to operate and how they are supposed to function, it is not that hard to figure this out. The hardest thing is to understand their job description, but once you understand that, this is a breeze. It is simple. It is just taking time from our side to do it.

People on the line have come up with information and sent it to me. I was able to go through it and break it down, look at it and get an understanding of it and bring it out to the people. It has just taken us a while to come up with all of this information and to get through all of the myths and legends. That is why we created the Facts and Hearsay sheet which actually breaks a lot of this down and explains it.

This way everyone would have the basic knowledge as to the source of this information. Once people start understanding that in 1933 this country was turned over to International, under International Laws, they stripped the states of their statutes. In 1945 Congress put all public officials under United Nations jurisdiction. In Title 8, 1481, every time they took an oath of office they had to relinquish their national citizenship. All of this is in their books. We are exposing this and we are exposing the fraud. We are showing that they are a foreign state. We broke down the corporations . When they came over here, it was not the colonies, but it was the corporations that created the government, created the governors, underneath the corporation.

H: What were we taught in High School? Weren’t we taught that the Pilgrims came over here because they were fleeing from religious persecution.

R: That may have been their original intent, but the problem is that when you start at what came later is because of the land and they had opportunities over here – that is when they started sending over the corporations to set up colonies in order to be able to ship some of the goods back.

H: The colonies, from the get-go, were corporations. They were charters from the King.

R: Yes they were. We were never taught that this started out as a corporation. It kept that under the Treaty of Paris.

H: Treaty of Paris. Yes, it was a treaty, but it was also a commercial agreement for the end of the conflict – that is all. It was a commercial document. R: Yes. Here again, this was never taught in school. A lot of the public officials were never taught any of this. They are just in it for the pay check. They are just following the rules and regulations. We are breaking it down and exposing it. They never anticipated us to start digging into the history of all of this and exposing it at this late date. It has come to the place where they have become so arrogant about what they are doing, and so blatantly. There was a book called Rotten to the Core .

..: I know you are stretched to the limit right now. I just occurred to me – why can’t you take the knowledge that you have right now and put out a book? That would hit the nation’s best seller list. It could actually be a paperback, even small. If you just even put together a lot of the information you already have, and put it into a book and say that part two is coming..or whatever. But this is just to let people know that this is what is going on and encouraging them to get into the law and get themselves educated. Come to the calls, whatever. Just put out a book.

H: An e-book.

R: I do not have anyone who can do this for me. I do not know how to do it.

… There are people out there who would help if you were willing to do it.

R: I have had people ask me. I need someone who can type and write in order to get this into a book, but I do not know of anyone who will come down and spend the time to do it.

…. All we have to do is put out a call asking if there is someone there who can do this. Contact Rod, or contact Harvey, or whatever. Contact anyone they recognize on the call so that we can get you connected, because I know there are people out there. Michael Anthony…here is one.

H: Did you get that second edit from Judy on the Sanders second objection.

R: I received the first one.

H: She gave you a second edit. She re-jiggered it.

… I believe you really have a mantle, that God has put on a mantle for you just like he did for David to go after Goliath. You have a mantle on you right now. We talk about the best way, but the media is screwed up and controlled, but you can publish books. That is what I would do. I think that is what you need to do and it does not have to be two inches thick, even though it probably would be that with what you already have. Even someone who would be willing to go to the archives and transcribe, just going from a to z in the history. There are some back there that were so tremendous where it said this is where it started. There were the charters, Jamestown law….these are the main things. Go up point by point to the present. That could be in the first section. Then you could go on to the second…here we are now, and this is what is going on. There could be different areas, such as foreclosure and the IRS. This is what they are doing. Now we are in the tax court, and this is what is going on. It would not take that long, based on all of the information you already have. It is just a matter of collecting it and putting it together. R: That is why we have the archives. All of this is recorded. There is just so much here.

… All it would take is someone who knows how to dictate. Type and dictate. There are people who are paid to do that. I am just saying, from what is going to come out, they could get a back-end kind of commission for what they did on the front end.

H: This is Richard in Utah (R/U). I am a professional editor and copy editor. I edited a magazine called Perceptions on this subject back in the mid 90’s. I have a couple of books out. I am interested to talk to you to see if there is something we can work out where I can help out.

…. There you go, Rod. See what I am talking about.

R/U: You have to thank my wife for that. She was on the call, watching for the speaker phone. I was on the phone calling people for Assembly calls for tomorrow for Utah. She said: ‘You’ve got to here this, it’s Rod. He needs help’. So we will thank Michelle on this also.

…. That is what I am saying. If you are willing they will come.

R: This is one of the reasons why we are recording all of this. This way someone can go in and write some of this out. There is just so much knowledge here. We are here to try to help. We are here to educate. When Marie and I started this in 2005 – when I brought out my impeachment on your show. This is basically the educational program, bringing people up to speed, educating them on the rule of law.

When I started the impeachment stuff, I actually broke down where it was in Constitution, how this was supposed to work. Whenever you bring charges, you bring in the Articles and show them where they violated their office under the Constitution, misconduct…and bring it all in. That is where we started bringing in the notice of felonies and affidavits point all of this out. What you were doing in the courtrooms against the judges, basically, is doing an impeachment on them. You are not doing it under the Articles of how they violated their Constitutional oaths, you are actually pointing out in the different sections of the law where they are concealing and suppressing evidence, obstruction of justice, interfering with federal state statutes; you are coming in and showing where they are violating their procedures because they are no doing their jobs properly. They are totally deficient. You are actually doing an impeachment, but you are actually bringing in the statutes instead of Constitutional issues. You are actually bringing in the laws.

H: Their procedure.

R: Yes. We had the conversation last night where Dave Buess brought up that they were misusing his name. He is absolutely right. By going back in and bringing up: where did the capitalization come from; how did this come about. It came out of the Style Manual, under the nouns and pronouns, punctuation. It came from Texas Administrative Code, under Corporations, under Chapter 79, section 79.31 (???) Now we are showing this and making an issue. You show me where you are not bringing me in as a corporation. Here is the proof of how you are bringing me in. You are saying that we cannot charge you, you are above the law. Well, no. We what we are saying is that if you are going to charge me, then there has to be a real injured party. You have to bring me in as a real person. You cannot bring me in as a corporation against another corporation because -- remember – here is the history of the colonies, under the Treaty of Paris, that they had to keep their corporate status. You (court) are operating under corporate because you went in under an Act providing general law, you re-defined the word ‘person’ to be a corporate. Here are the Supreme Court case laws. You have Santa Claire vs Union Pacific, the US vs New York, the US vs Donna Whittey (sp???). All of these define a corporation to be a person. Now, show me where you are not bringing me in as a corporation.

H: If you go back to that Santa Claire case, that case never had the opinion that a corporation should have been called a person. That was a head not to the case that was written by a court reporter. Therefore, their whole basis for their 1899 law is based on sand.

R: What is was… they were to go back in and give corporation a 14th Amendment standing.

H: Right. And how can you do that to a fictional entity.

R: That is exactly right. That is part of the fraud.

… Where I that in the Style Manual?

R: Under Punctuations, nouns and pronouns.

When you go in and start of addressing this in your paperwork and you start putting it in to them, they may not want to address it. The thing is, you have to bring it up. The judge may overrule it. The point is that you are making the issue, you are addressing it, you are bringing it up.

H: You are putting it on the record.

R: Yes you are. You are putting it on the record. You are actually putting it into the paperwork. By doing this, you are starting to expose the fraud, bringing it to their attention, making them aware that you are aware of all of this.

H: A story just crossed my desk today from Indiana. In Indiana there is a lawyer who is trying to make a $2500 fine for people who contest tickets because they find law that says that the tickets are not valid, that you do have a right to travel, etc. Can you imagine that. And they will probably pass it.

R: What you are dealing with is that you have lawyers who are making case law. Case law is made my lawyers. However they want to go back and run it is how they come up with it.

H: How they want to use their words to confuse the hell out of you when you try to read it.

R: That is exactly right. I had a gentlemen call me who wants to go back in and file paperwork into the Supreme Court. The problem is, you have to do it with a 6 ¼ by 9 ¼ booklet form on both sides and there are very few publishers around here that will do this for you. And, you have to do 40 copies.

H: However, we do now have computers, and that is excellent. Callers:

Michael: Recently I have been very blessed. I am working with a retired judge from Florida who has probably served over 8000 cases and law enforcement. He is helping me establish my one big case against the …..? in Florida. It is amazing, and he actually contacted me because ………. Through Bob Hart (sp?) and he enjoyed some of the research that I have done. …………………. We have to educate these judges, but in a very simplistic way. There are things he had no idea about. He did not know what a Notorial Protest was. He did not know what a Private Attorney General was, only in generality. I had to break it down for him and I showed him everything, which absolutely astounded him. A lot of times it is the way that you have to educate these judges, but we have to do it in a simplistic, ………..? way.

He is a firm believer that the system is so corrupt that it is not even funny. He is helping me out and I have been working with……..going back and forth. I believe a lot of the work that you have done – I do not believe that a book, per se, could (?) be generated…………………? And that is of course ii you boss allows you to give seminars and break everything down, almost on a section to section part, why it is based on this, and here is what the law says, and maybe even develop it further, like a dvd of a seminar and pamphlets and booklets. But, of course, you have to charge for……………I will forward you………….not the primary goal. Your primary goal is to educate. There is nothing wrong with your making a few bucks on it too.

Most people will do that. I will go to a seminar if I feel I am going to benefit from it. So, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that approach. I think the seminar approach would be very good for you getting out the material.

A good friend in California does seminars, breaks it down. This has absolutely chilled the IRS in court and it is based on procedure. It is amazing.

I have been talking to this judge and he wanted to know what I was basing this on. I showed him, here, here, here. He is astounded. It is good that he has come into my path, but it shows me in what direction he is working.

One of the downfalls that I have with my paperwork is that …………???…………will apply. I ….. in my pleadings, so much law and cases and statutes. I have to learn to draw back the reins a little bit and keep it very simple. Michael has been helping me to tune down complaints. Right now I am working on 30 cases , but I do believe that I have a very good friend now in Florida where I can almost knock out these foreclosures in 90 days….which I am trying right now. It is a new approach. It is only because of the Homestead Laws in Florida that allows me to do this.

R: There is a problem we have run in to with the seminars, and Marie will tell you. When we did the ones in California, I talked for 6 to 6 ½ hours. Bob Hart( sp?) will tell you that down here in Florida, he had to stop me about every hour or hour and a half because the information we were giving was causing migraine headaches. … If you do a book, then people can have it in their hands and study it. It will reach more people. Besides that, with you physical issues, this would be a lot easier to reach out and get people aware of this. Believe me, when that gets passed around, it will go like hot cakes.

…Just like in any classroom, you need that Q & A section , even if you have it right in front of you, in a text, in a workbook. For someone to study on their own, that Q & A can be black and white and you still don’t see it. You really need to be able to ask the teacher the question. This is why attorneys go to law school where they can ask questions, etc. If in that Q & S section something is not clear, or in a book, you need a source to go back to. There are all sorts of people who do it: Tim Turner, Jean Keating, … Clarkson, ….Bob Hart. One of my mentors was John Jennings from Florida. It is that Q & A section that really educates the people.

R: That is why we are on the air here, and getting into some of this. I can hear what Carlene (sp?) and I can hear what you are saying, but I also know that, as a prime example, whenever we talk to Rick Neil (FBI agent, Texas City, Texas), ….. we were on the phone with him. After about an hour of conversation with him, he had to tell me that he needed to hang up because I was making his head hurt. You are giving me too much information. You are actually backing it up with facts and you are explaining it. He said that he had never had anyone sit down, like my brother and me, and explain it. “You are making my head hurt”. This was after about an hour.

That is the same thing with the FBI in Florida. After about an hour they were ready to throw me out of their office because their heads hurt.

…..That is why a seminar does not really work well.

…. And this is where what you can also do.. Let’s just say, you get a handful of experienced, trained, legal researchers who have worked with you in the group, and I think maybe just have a small session, for like a weekend, or however long -- maybe right there in your back yard so that this is not far from home. You could rent something right there. I would be willing to come down and go section to section. That could a seminar or just that particular time frame. You could say that in the following month or the following quarter that you are going to do another one, with the same group of people. Once they know, they can pass it down. You can say, hey, deal with this guy, he is in your area. He is very good, I have trained him. This way you can take your mantle and you can multiply it. Like sales or MLM. You are selling your knowledge and this way it is in a format where you can train people and they can teach others. This way you do not have to be there the whole………….. You do not have to bare the whole………….. Do you know what I am saying.

R: That is part of the problem right now as I am the only one who has all of this wrapped up in my head. I am the only one who can explain it, and hold these seminars, these calls.

…… But you deal with experienced people that have dealt in court. You and I had a conversation, just on the Private Attorney General issue. I have people calling me all of the time asking how to do this. Well, of course, you have to educate yourself, know the history , what there is to know about it. That was not one time. There was a fellow fighting an issue, and what happened, and you know yourself that it was you, Dr. Ray (SP???) and I who got together the PAG declaration………………………………? I showed it to someone and he disputed it. What they did, they copied it. I said, well, OK, let me ask you…what did you do here…how do you get to that position…what is the first step…what do you do…who do you sent notice to.. He did not have a clue.

What I am saying is that if you have experienced people, people who have done the research, that are good researchers, that have fought in court at different levels, then I am saying, keep a small group. Train that group and then let that group circulate from but take one………………………?at a time. Let’s say, for a weekend, and then you are not going to exhaust yourself. They are not going to exhaust themselves.

For myself, right now I am working on 30 cases. I don’t have time to breathe let alone anything else. But this way, even on a weekend thing, and it is fortunate for me that I am off work right now and I am not far away from you, because I definitely want to get together with you. I want to bring you in as Private Attorney General in my case. I want to explain this off the air, because this would be very profitable for me as well.

What I am going to do, I am in the process right now of filing a case in DC but it is not in Superior Cour, it is actually in the District Court. For different reasons, but we can go into that off the show….and there are good reasons why I would rather not say it on the show.

R: I have another couple of callers I need to bring on.

… You still need to focus on the book. We do not want to scare you away with your thinking that this is going to get too involved. Focus on the book first and then spread out.

Virginia, go ahead.

…V I just want to piggyback on what Carlene is saying. Maybe even if it is not a book, but something that is recorded that really hits the basics. I can say now that I am finally starting to get it. I have heard you say all the different things you have said, and it has it me so many times, over and over, that now my head does not hurt…as you have mentioned how you are giving people a headache. Now my head does not hurt. I have heard it enough to where now I get it. That is where this needs to be for someone like me. Once you hear it a few times, you will be able to say that you now have the basics. Now I am not afraid to go to the next step.

Getting this recorded in a 1, 2, 3 kind of scenario of the basics, then you feel comfortable about going further.

R: This is why we did some of the videos on some of the seminars, in order to get the basics out. I went through a lot of this through the video. It took me 6 to 6 ½ hours just on my side, out of the 8 hours. Marie only had about 1 to 1 ½ hrs left at the end. I took up the biggest part of breaking this down. As I said, I did not realize that I could talk that long, but once I got started, I got rolling with it. I could see the people were getting migraine headaches because there was just too much information. That is the difference with what we are doing.

M: To unleash Rod is like unleashing the Eveready Bunny.

R: We have different avenues with which we can work, but there is so much here for knowledge and being able to explain it. You people have been with me for the last several years. You have had a chance to go back and look and validate what sounded like so much of a fictional setup. We have actually proved that it was not fictional. It is actually real. This is going to be part of the problem. In someone is reading a book, are they going to be able to break it down. Also, regarding a Publisher…do they really want to go in and expose this much of the corruption. I have heard of cases where people have tried this and the publishers do not want to take the risk, which is understandable, because they do not want to lose what they have. There is an opportunity here……….

…The Lord will make a way. Don’t you worry about that.

R: Yes, I understand that.

… I have told people that they might be overwhelmed when you come to the calls, but if you just keep listening, just keep listening, even if you do not understand. I have had a couple of people say that it was way over their heads, but I just tell them to keep listening.

R: It is like when you start school, when you get into school, it is something you are not used to, it takes time to learn, to break in. You have heard so much of the patriot stuff and so much of the myth. We are actually breaking down and explain a lot of the myth, of the origin, and it is not quite what you thought it was, and you are finding the reality of it. It does make a big difference with what we are doing.

…. When you do write your book, the preface is going to be very important. The very first part is going to be very important…how you lay out what is in the book, to prepare people for what is in it.

R: That is something we might have to ….

…. I am just letting you know.

R: As I said, I have had a couple of people who have talked to me about doing a book. I just don’t have anyone that I know that I could do this with.

…You will, though.

Another Caller---JR

JR: I know that we have archives. I think sometimes it would help if it was transcribed. Being transcribed, the gentleman who volunteered would have an easier of method of categorizing the book.

R: We have a lady, Autumn Breyer (sp?) in Pennsylvania. She was trying to get some help to get into the archives to do this. I do not know whether or not she was able to get the assistance. She called me and asked me if there was a problem with her doing this. I said no, by all means go ahead. Carl: Give her my email or whatever. I will ship it to her on a cd or whatever she needs.

….That is what we call people, volunteering. Stepping forward.

R: She is not on here now, but she comes on every so often and she has asked about doing this. There is a lot of information that we have over the years.

Carl: The only drawback I can see is that sometimes we get off on a tangent, so I do not know if a 100% full transcription would be necessary, or absolute. So that is up to her, or you.

R: We should just go back in and just deal with the topic we were dealing with and just wipe out the other stuff.

…Actually, you could blip it out, except some of that stuff is important too. You could just set it aside. Take it but set it aside for the miscellaneous.

Another Caller – Derek/Virginia

D/V… I like the direction this is going as far as going back into the archives and piecing together all of that information. I am willing to volunteer if it means looking at a specific subject and finding all of the areas within the archives that deal with that particular subject. For example, the all- caps name, or another subject that you have talked about many times. It is in the archives but spread out over all of those years. For someone that new, who wants to know more, they have to go through two years of information and then be able to put it all together. That is the tough part.

R: Yes it is, because we cover so much.

…I have something to add on that. There is someone who has done that for Tim Turner and he has a website where he has broken that down by subject matter. He might have a technique that someone would benefit from. We could find out if there is a technique to it that he has found that is easy to do.

D/V: It would help to have certain headings, an outline. Because, Rod, when you go through this stuff, it is just off the top of your head, and that is outstanding. But for someone who is new, it is like when you come up against a conflict or a rebuttal , you immediately know where to go to rebut that question. For someone new, they are stuck. I can practice law from the bench. They do not know what the next move. So, that is kind of where the disconnect is, knowing what the main basics are. If you know the basics, as in anything, if you have the basics, now you can do something.

….: I have to interject here. #1 – you are going to have to decide the purpose of the book. There is no way that with one book you are going to be able to teach everyone how to put a case in based on everything that Rod knows. That is not what we are talking about initially. It was trying to make this information available to the public, to make people aware. I think that with all of what he has brought up, you have to have a particular purpose for the book.

Now, he can come up with another book to do that kind of stuff, or a second part. The initial book is – this is what is really going on out there. This is what they have done to us. This is why when you go into court you are not getting remedy. This is what is actually going on: a, b, c, d, etc. Go through it. Then there could be a second part to it. Mainly, initially, there has to be a purpose to this book. What is it. To totally educate everyone. No. There is no way he can do that. If the purpose of the book is to get it out there so that the people are going to say: WHAT, THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING. It is not (?) to get everyone riled up and say, hey this is what they have done to us. It is not for everyone to all of a sudden go: okay, now I know how to file in something into court – it is to get the people to rise up and say: wait a minute, this is not right. And to become aware, rise up and do something about it. That is the purpose of it, because people are not aware. They do not know what is going on. Maybe a part two, or whatever………………….

Another thing is that as long as there is enough information in there to give them a good idea, they can go and research from there. At least they will know where to go to look. That has been my problem. Even now, if I come up with a question I am not sure where to even go to look to find the answer. If we have some code and titles – this is where you go to find this, etc, that is the kind of thing that could/should be the purpose. You have to decide on the purpose, and perhaps a part two.

Mainly, the whole reason the subject came up was to get people aware. That is the main thing.

D/V: I totally agree, and maybe I am not expressing myself in the manner that will get my point across. I am 100% agreeing with what you are saying. When I speak of the basics, that is what I am talking about. This is what is going on. These are the basic things that you need to know to understand that this is what is going on. That is what I am talking about when I say that.

H: A plug for the e-mail list. If you are not on the e-mail list that comes out from www.rayservers.com , here is how to get on it. Send an e-mail to [email protected]. You will be put on the list and when Rod sets up an emergency call, you will be informed. This is for those who are not part of the message board, and the people who already get the rayservers update from when we started this a couple weeks ago, you do not need to subscribe. This is for the NEW people.

To close, Carlene offered a prayer.

……………………………..

Load more

  27

Copy Link