All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 20, 1996 - Bill Cooper
01:01:45
Conference 2nd Day – Dan Meador
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Light, power of the hour, be the power of the time.
I'm Pooh.
You're listening to the Air of the Times.
I'm Pooh.
And I'm William Cooper.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Wait a minute, don't go away.
Who are you?
Who?
Anna.
Liz.
Well say it right there, Liz.
Liz.
Alright, thanks guys.
You're welcome.
We appreciate it.
All right.
My country, tis of thee, sweet land of myriad dreams, of thee I sing.
Land where my father died.
Land of the pilgrims' pride.
From every mountain try to let freedom ring My native country, thee
Land of the noble priests Thy name I love
I love thy rocks and rivers you
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a special guest tonight.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a special guest tonight.
He's already done about ten or eleven hours of solid back-to-back, hour-to-hour speaking
and teaching and illustrating and quoting and everything that you can think of.
He's taken us from the beginning, the roots of this country, all the way up to some of the problems today and solutions.
And he is affecting some real results.
Welcome to the Hour of Time, Dan Mentor.
Thank you.
Glad to be here, Bill.
I've got to talk a lot louder.
I've just about run out of a voice today.
That's quite a labor to start at 9 in the morning and end at 10 at night.
Yes it is.
Why don't you give us a little bit of your background, if you can, Dan.
You had a story this morning.
Of course, we've only got one hour after music and everything else.
It really condenses down to about 40 minutes.
So give us just a short little history of what got you started.
In your perpetual tangle with the federal government.
Well, the federal government, I think that I was like most people, that I was willing to leave government alone if government would leave me alone.
And in 1992, my wife and I tried to address what we felt like was a small tax problem that ballooned into a situation that We viewed some information that was generated by Al Carter out of Provo, Utah, that led us to believe that the Internal Revenue Service might not be totally legitimate.
And maybe we didn't know some of the taxes we originally thought that we owed, and when we started asking questions, one thing led to another, and it turned into a pretty A large scale fight.
We suffered considerable economic setback out of the thing.
The more we researched, we found out that there was things far deeper.
Of course, what Gail and I did with respect to the Master Index, to the Internal Revenue Laws, and then we picked up on you and Wayne Benson's research.
And then we verified that and went beyond that to demonstrate to the IRS, BATF, and whatnot, or Department of Treasury of Puerto Rico.
And we, for the last year or so, have worked with a coalition across the country who have literally dedicated the proposition of putting government tyranny out of business in the form of the IRS.
Uh, in 1994, partial way into this business with IRS, we figured out enough that we tried to, uh, resolve some things through, uh, the court system.
We found that the court system was as corrupt as the IRS and without the corruption in, in the judicial courts, both of the, uh, Both of the states and the United States, the IRS, couldn't perpetrate this hearing, so we had to back up and start looking at the structure of courts, the application of law, and of course you've read enough of my material that you realize what we've discovered, that they're operating, both of them, completely outside the Constitution.
So we've spent something over three years unearthing and laying a foundation in memorandums which we can use as a platform now, hopefully, to secure some remedies.
That's quite a mouthful, and I'm sure there are an awful lot of people out there who have been looking for this kind of research for quite a long time.
Quite some time ago that they were operating outside of their jurisdiction and that the American people are really not subject if they're citizens of their states to the federal income tax.
But what has significantly impressed me about your work is you've taken not just your research, not just William Benson's research or mine or anybody else's, but The best of all of it, and put it together in two public notices that are being published in legal papers around the country, and of course that's just one significant step which establishes the basis for the preservation of the foundation of law.
If these aren't challenged on any of the points enumerated in these public notices, but for You've gone much farther than that.
You've helped people in their battle against not just the Internal Revenue Service, but the system, the corrupt system in general.
And what I would really like for you to get into initially with the listening audiences is what are, because we don't have time to do what you've done today on this broadcast, what are some of the significant points that you discovered early on That led to other discoveries that brought you up to this point and have given you a foundation to stand upon when you challenge this corrupt system.
Well, I of course have been a publishing writer since 1969 and one of the things that I set out to do years ago was to reduce Uh, complicated issues the ordinary people could understand.
And, uh, so I always look for, uh, the simplest common denominator, the most conspicuous fact.
And, uh, for instance, uh, uh, when I went into the court system the first time, I found out that justice was not available.
Uh, now I equate that to the Fifth Amendment and the guarantee for due process of law.
And so I had to begin with trying to figure out what due process of law is, and I, after considerable research, established that where the Fifth Amendment and the corresponding Bill of Rights in state constitutions assures that no person will be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, what that Provision is substantial or substantive due process.
And the statutory court, whether it's the state statutory court or the United States District Court, is operating in admiralty, so they're under procedural due process, and it's basically color of law.
Uh, try to speak with people who are not familiar with the constitutionalist issues.
I talk about, uh, in Article 1 of the Constitution ensures that Congress will mint coin and regulate value, and it says that no state shall make, uh, anything but gold and silver coins a hinder for payment of debt.
Well, those provisions have never been amended.
They've never been appealed.
And yet Congress is not performing and the states are accommodating a fraudulent monetary system.
So there we have an essential fact to start from.
And so we have always tried to start from those essential facts and build on those.
And when you make these discoveries, particularly in regard to the Constitution, Isn't that pretty fashy evidence that the Constitution is not in effect in a substantial portion of the law?
Well, ironically, and I secured a lot of my answers, I write letters to particularly the
Supreme Court justices here in Oklahoma.
And they have been very generous in responding and they confirm a lot of research.
Now, Justice O'Polla on the Oklahoma Supreme Court confirmed that the statutory State District
Court is operating as a legislative or statutory court and it's under non-constitutional law.
Now, the trick is to find where is the Constitution hidden.
And that has been the laborious task.
And we found under the rule governing conflict of law, when you introduce a common law or
constitutional principle, that the judge of the statutory court has to take judicial notice
of it.
And in all cases, the substantial right overpowers the adopted acts of the statutory law.
So basically what you discover is that there are really two courts in one court.
One is a judicial court and one is an admiralty sitting sometimes also in equity.
And whenever this happens, you have to force the court in some manner to be the court that you want it to be.
And you always want it to be a judicial court.
Yeah.
The law of the case determines the character of the court.
And if that is a statutory or admiralty court that a case has been entered against you, Then your substantial rights, constitutionally guaranteed rights, forces that court to close that shop.
And if it doesn't, then the judge has exceeded jurisdiction.
And we've had to develop and deploy strategies based on those rules that govern that court under judicial notice and presumed fact.
And judges don't like to be forced in that manner.
In fact, some of them will just totally ignore Well, in the survey of history, a civil remedy is nearly always individual.
the status quo but you found a way to let them know that they're not going to get away
with that and that they have to follow the law.
Can you talk a little bit about that?
Well, in the survey of history, a civil remedy, a civil remedy is nearly always individual.
You or I gain money for someone abusing our rights or denying our rights.
Bye.
But in the survey of history, the civil remedy has never ended tyranny.
It's always had to be a criminal remedy.
It had to be prosecuted to where someone suffered something in persona, a punishment for it.
And we reinforced this in the Nuremberg trials for following World War II.
So we don't make any pretense that we will do everything in our power to criminally prosecute the judge who exceeds his jurisdictional authority.
And so far have you been able to actually find a way to really criminally prosecute these people?
We're trying.
We've initiated some complaints and are demanding a grand jury in one particular case and we've In another case we've got some complaints in and we feel like we can compel prosecution, but it's of course not going to be easy because you're asking members of the fraternity to preside over prosecution of other members of the fraternity.
So what we're trying to do is force a grand jury indictment rather than a judicially controlled indictment.
In any event, you've managed to literally scare these people quite a bit.
Probably our strategies and our purposes in what we are doing are somewhat different than most people who would rather go out here and secure a lien or something.
It is a criminal remedy, and when you chase a judge with a criminal indictment, he normally doesn't care for it much.
No.
I guess not.
Okay.
What do you think the most significant event in your research over the last few years has been?
If there was one point along the way that you could point to and say, this is what really Well, I can tell you precisely when it was.
was what got us out of a dead end street and got us moving again.
What would that be?
Oh, I can tell you precisely when it was.
It was on June 27, 1994, when I unraveled, which happens to be my last birthday.
And I unraveled, so far as the Internal Revenue Code is concerned,
that Section 7804B preserves all the processed rights.
And you have the right to pursue remedies against bogus assessments as well as collection.
And the last sentence of that says that venue will be determined by existing law.
Now that's the prosecution of the case in the location.
We'll be determined by existing law.
And if the federal taxing statute does not reach into the state and apply to the population at large, then the only existing law is state law.
And that's put us on the trail, which we've culminated both in our judicial research and in our Internal Revenue Code research.
And it has shaped the strategies over the past few years.
Now, it's not just the corruption of the system and the fact that you found that some of these things that we've already talked about, but there is a matter of jurisdiction and venue, which is absolutely crucial to what you're doing and is crucial to the state of affairs that we find ourselves in today.
And is really the root source of the subversion, if you will, of the nation through the judicial, or the pseudo-judicial process as we've discovered it really is.
And basically what you've discovered, and you can talk about these points in law if
you wish, and how you arrived at this, and it wasn't just you.
It's been a lot of people across the country who just over the last few years, seemed like
simultaneously arrived at the same point that the federal government really has absolutely
no business, no venue, no jurisdiction within the several states, unless they're sitting
on a plot of land that was actually ceded to them by the legislature of the state for
some constitutional purpose that is enumerated clearly in Article I, Section 8.
That's right.
And the judicial authority of the United States is actually three different aspects of that judicial authority prescribed in Article 3 of the Constitution in Section 2.1 and 2.2.
The first being the arising under clause where suits in law and equity might fall under federal
authority.
Now the only time that that happens is in the diversity of citizenship and in the criminal
process we do not have a federal jurisdiction and in that article, Article 3 of the Constitution
it says the trial of crimes will be in the state and then when we go back we know that
the federal court, the United States District Court is operating in Admiralty and its source,
current source is the Judicial Act of 1911.
And we demonstrate from that that it is an Admiralty court.
And the statute which governs its venue is section 3231 of Title 18.
And then the last paragraph of that statute reserves the authority of the courts and laws
of the several states.
And I think that's a good thing.
And then, as you say, the federal enclave for jurisdiction is at Section 7, Subsection 3.
Now, we go back and look at the decisions that arise out or that relate to Article 3, and the Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction in the United States does not fall under the arising under clause.
It's applicable only in this geographical United States, meaning the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other areas subject to Congress Article 4 jurisdiction, and as it relates to international affairs.
It does not apply to the American people at large, and that jurisdiction does not extend inland to the several states.
So we go back to the source, which is the Constitution, and we work from there out to the statutory applications to demonstrate that the United States District Court does not have jurisdiction to prosecute all these crimes that they are prosecuting.
Now, I know that a lot of people, when they hear you say this, they begin by leaning back on their couch.
They're all comfortable and as they begin to understand what you're saying, they begin to lean up and they're on the edge of their seats right now.
What do you mean the federal government has no jurisdiction within the states?
I mean, didn't the FBI just go up there in Montana and yank out a bunch of people off their farm and take them away to be prosecuted in a federal court?
Didn't the judge refuse to hear the challenges on the venue and jurisdiction?
And didn't they go down in there in Waco, Texas and murder a whole church full of people and imprison the ones who defended themselves or tried to defend themselves that survived?
And didn't they surround a small home up in Idaho and murder a woman as she held her baby to her breast?
And bring in over 450 some-odd agents and armored personnel carriers and tanks and helicopters and what are you talking about?
Very illegal, isn't he?
And so that federal authority has to comply with Congress' legislated jurisdiction.
So what you're saying is these were criminal acts?
Yes.
They were criminal on the part of the criminal element of government.
Now I'm sort of playing the devil's advocate because that's my role.
Of course you are.
That's my role as the host of the broadcast because I'm trying to put this in perspective with the people out there who are asking those kinds of questions to the radio and of course the radio can't ask them of you.
But I've been telling my listening audience this for many years, and you're someone else now who's telling them exactly the same thing.
How in the world, if that is true, and if the Alfred P. Murrow Federal Building was sitting on state land that was never ceded to the federal government, how in the world can they have jurisdiction of the prosecution of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols?
Okay, they have jurisdiction because the state ceased performing its duty.
So the problem is to put the state in such a position that the state officers, whether
it be enforcement, whether it be judicial officers or whoever, assume and perform their
rightful constitutional duties as prescribed in Article III of the United States Constitution
and in corresponding portions of state constitution.
You see, in the American system, tyranny never stands on one leg.
It has to have the tyranny by intent.
Which is normally a minority, but then materially by consent, by accommodation.
Now, that accommodation may be for personal gain, but more generally it's out of fear.
The person vested with the responsibility does not exercise the authority that he is vested with because he fears reprisal.
So you come back to the position that Thomas Jefferson said.
That liberty vanishes when the people fear government, but liberty flourishes when government fears the people.
So the people have to do whatever is necessary to compel the proper authority, to exercise the proper authority, and to repel the improper authority.
Okay, now, so what you're saying is that's what the IRS means when they say the income tax system is voluntary.
Yeah, now what we want the IRS to do is voluntarily go to jail and we're going to try to encourage some state judges and some state prosecutors to help them volunteer the same way the IRS has been helping people volunteer to surrender homes, properties, and everything else.
I think it's an excellent idea.
Well, we've deployed a strategy which I hope helps us to achieve that end and I particularly
through your publication of the public notice memorandum in Veritas Magazine, Congress,
every member of Congress has that.
Every member of Congress today knows that we know the truth.
And that memorandum has published its legal notice at least three times in Oklahoma, Nebraska, Montana.
At this present time, it's either, I think it's published twice in Alabama.
We know that it's going to go in Utah, California, Florida, Wisconsin.
They're coming online.
And the judicial memorandum is right behind it.
And by the way, we have taken the IRS memorandum public notice memorandum and on the 13th of the month we mailed
it to Commissioner Richardson and gave her the opportunity either to rebut, correct, or
acquiesce to that memorandum.
So we've cured it at the final stage now.
And so what happens if he fails to answer your communication?
Well, we're already using it as legal presumed fact in cases both for criminal complaints
and to default support.
We're also using it in administrative protests to try to resolve some things for people through the administrative process, too.
It's having some effect.
The listening audience knows exactly what you're talking about.
It's also read verbatim in its entirety over the air as a public notice.
And radio can be used as a medium, even though it's not recognized by the county or the state as a public notice vehicle.
Nevertheless, it serves as a public notice and will be published soon in the Round Valley paper, which is the legal paper, one of the legal papers for Apache County, Arizona.
And we're encouraging people throughout the nation to get a copy of not only this memorandum
but the judicial or jurisdictional memorandum or we should call it public notice actually
because that's what they are.
And publish them in their legal papers in their states and counties
to help us establish this presumed fact in the law and preserve the fundamental law.
And every time this is done it makes our case much stronger.
Now something else that I have done is in order to complete this you see the federal side
and the state side both are being problematic.
The state district court or whatever it is in your state whether it's a superior court
or a circuit court or whatever is operating in a de facto federal character too.
And so I went ahead while I was at the task and I finished up a memorandum which addresses state courts, first level state courts.
And the thing focuses on the rule governing conflict of law.
And that is how the statutory court has to yield to the substantial due process, has
to yield to constitutional and common law and take judicial notice whenever you go in
and address the rules of the statutory court.
And so the third memorandum is also available, although people in other states will have
to spend some time studying their constitutions and statutes of their respective states.
But this thing has been sent out to researchers across the country, and of course we'll make
it available to anyone else who...
And we'll talk about how people might be able to get a copy of that later in the broadcast.
Of course, if you subscribe to Veritas, you've already got a copy of the IRS memorandum.
And in the next issue, you will have that will be printed again, because that will be printed three times in a row.
And there will also be a new one, which is the jurisdictional memorandum, which addresses the jurisdiction and venue of the federal government within the states, where it applies and where it doesn't apply.
and what a state is and all of these kinds of things that most people don't understand.
By the way, on the 13th, that memorandum was sent to Chief Justice Rehnquist.
course.
I think it's fantastic.
the director for the United States Courts of Administrative Office, so that is already
in the process of administrative declaratory judgment.
I think it's fantastic.
Don't go away folks, we'll be right back after this short pause.
Oh God bless America, land that I love.
Stand beside her and guide her through the night with the light from above.
From the mountains to the prairies, Ladies and gentlemen, the hour of the time is brought to you by Swiss America Trading.
They're our people, in Phoenix, who hold the keys to the real money.
And you know why?
They're so nice.
That they will actually give you real money for that counterfeit stuff that you're carrying in your pocket.
You know why I love to take coin dealers to lunch?
Because I want to make them feel real good about exchanging real worth for worthless fantasy.
You can't call it notepaper because you can't really write on it.
It's covered with ink.
And I guess you could use it for toilet paper if you didn't mind painting your derriere a different color.
But you have to understand, they know what they're doing.
You know what you're doing.
And everybody is taking advantage of an opportunity right now To leverage what they have into something much more substantial.
You see, when you purchase gold or silver coin in their various form, denominations, weights, measurements, colors, with different pictures on them, I don't care.
When you do that, the coin dealer takes that money, or I should say, that currency?
It's not a currency.
They take those Federal Reserve notes.
Now, wait a minute.
It's not a note.
It's not federal.
There isn't any reserve.
It says a dollar on it, but a dollar is a unit of measurement, so, you know, it's like going to spend a quart.
You know, I'm really confused.
What was I going to say here?
I started out to give you a message and I don't know how to give you that message because I don't know how to describe what it is that we're supposed to be using for money that isn't money, that they call currency that isn't currency, because currency has to be exchangeable for whatever it represents.
It's not a note because a note's an instrument of debt and can be called.
Isn't that right?
I mean, did I read Black's Law Dictionary correctly?
I don't think I can do this commercial.
I'm going to have to call my sponsor and find out just exactly what it is that I'm supposed to say.
Because I'm thoroughly confused, folks.
And if you're confused, I think you better call Swiss America Trading and, you know, if you don't want to wait for the next broadcast, if I can even get the answers to these questions, maybe you should just call Swiss America Trading and ask them what it is you're supposed to call that green funny stuff that you're carrying around in your pocket.
Which by the way is counterfeit.
And there are strict laws against counterfeiting in the basement of the coinage of the United States of America.
In fact, I happen to know that the penalty for that is death.
Now that's pretty heavy, isn't it?
What in the world is going on?
1-800-289-2646.
That's 1-800-289-2646.
2-6-4-6.
If you find out the answer to these questions, folks, will you call me and let me know?
Thank you very much.
Oh, God bless America, this land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her, through the night with the light from above.
From the mountains to the plains, through the oceans white with foam,
God bless America, my home sweet home.
God bless America, and God I love you.
God bless America, and God I love you.
Our conferences are so thorough, so complete, so engrossing, so educational, that lawyers come here to get their graduate degree in law.
And I have an attorney standing right here with me.
Did Dan illuminate the subject today?
Very much so, Bill.
And I'm going to do what you always tell us, and what you told us again today, listen to everybody, read everything, but check it out for yourself.
So I'm not going to endorse necessarily everything I heard, but certainly some interesting things, and like we were talking about earlier, it's hard to realize sometimes that you've been playing checkers on the chessboard.
And I've heard some cases Chinese checkers.
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
But certainly, a woman.
And you came here hoping to be able to pick up some of these things.
Oh, certainly.
And I've been a listener of yours for some time.
And your information and your program has been more valuable than any that I've found.
Well, thank you.
Mark, if you had to do all over again, and you went back to law school knowing what you know now, how in the world would you approach it a second time based upon what you now know?
If you had to do it all over again, knowing that they're going to intentionally try to mislead you away from the foundation and law that this country was built upon, to the corrupt system that is practiced in the courts.
Well, I think that it dovetails with what you had said all along, and that is that people you've got to think for yourselves.
And as you discussed yesterday, when you elect a sheeple to Congress, all you've got is a sheeple in Congress.
It's difficult, isn't it?
It is.
It's painful.
Thank you, Mark.
I think the same thing for anybody.
So I've been on a quest for the truth for the last three years or so.
And I think that learning to think for yourself is quite a task these days.
It's difficult, isn't it?
It is.
It's painful.
Thank you, Mark.
Appreciate it.
Well, Dan, in your dealings with the courts and with the judges and with the largest court,
the judges have been weeded out through a process of initiation and seeing if they're
going to play the game and stuff like that before they're put up on the bench.
But you run into lawyers all the time and people who are in the legal profession.
What do they think about all this?
Do you find that some of them are willing and able?
To learn and help?
Or do you find that they really would rather put obstacles in your way and would really rather not see you coming down the street?
I know there's got to be some of them who are looking and watching what you're doing and some bells are ringing and some lights are coming on.
Do these people show promise in becoming allies?
Well, and for example, I told you that I've had Justice Opala on the Oklahoma Supreme Court has answered two, in two letters, answered very penetrating questions as early as 1994.
Now, he confirmed them out in research and in fact, whether or not his subtle terminology
was intended to provide me a clue, gave me a launch pad in a couple of instances.
The Chief Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court has answered a letter where she didn't
really have to.
She confirmed that my contention that non-attorney counsel is legitimate in the courts of Oklahoma.
And I asked her own question.
I said, where do I register?
With Oklahoma Supreme Court or Oklahoma Secretary of State?
Well, now she avoided the question I said I asked, and I knew better by then.
She said there is no registered non-attorney counsel, but she acquiesced to the law as I had demonstrated it.
So now I have her, her confirmation letter.
To go in if someone wants to argue about my serving as a counsel for someone.
I've had some determinations by some judges who complied with their rules.
And I won cases because they complied with the rules.
So not every judge who sits in a statutory court is by intention a crook.
Some of them enforce the rules.
And basically, if they'll do that, then we have a fair chance that we can fight a good fight and win on substantial due process.
I know increasing numbers of attorneys who are looking at their profession, and like Mark who was just here, they want to know more.
In fact, I think today, Gail took checks for Two different law firms that ordered my material because they want to know the truth.
So no, I don't condemn all attorneys and I don't condemn all judges.
I think we've got friends in the castle.
What I've discovered and what others have discovered is the more that you actually know, and I mean legitimately know about the law, the more they respect you and are willing to help you, the less you know they actually become contemptuous toward you.
And not only will they not help you, but they'll do everything they can to make sure you lose and go to jail if it's in their power.
There has to be, based upon that, some type of an elitist attitude at play there.
Where does this come from?
Well, I think that, I think probably law being a mercenary profession to start with, attracts
an abundance of those types of people who are there simply for self-serving ends.
And the court has operated in a certain method for so long that you challenge the law or
challenge their authority, they think you're crazy to start with.
And it offends them for someone to have the audacity to say that they aren't Jesus Christ.
And so when you run into the people who are egocentric to that degree, then you've got
problems.
And unfortunately there are any number of people in the law profession, both on the bench and just practicing law, who have that disposition about non-attorneys.
Now I've had people ask me this question.
I'm going to ask it of you.
Because, quite honestly, I've never known how to answer it.
Maybe you do.
All of these people, who are obviously involved in the subversion of this country, and the destruction of this country from within, claim to be loyal Americans, claim to care about freedom, and about the Constitution, The principles and ideals upon which this country was based.
Now, how can they claim to be good Americans and know that what they're doing is destroying America, and there are so many of them, and it doesn't even bother them, that what they're creating could eventually destroy them?
Well, they sell out their own children and grandchildren.
That's what I can't understand.
Involved with a lot of people in county government.
I promise you, they were good friends for a period of years and then we had a dispute over what IRS was trying to do and what I was telling them that IRS couldn't do and asking them to comply with the law rather than kowtow to IRS.
And they respond out of fear.
Fear, not because they're hostile towards me, but fear of their own laws.
And so they will become accomplices to destroy their own friends rather than risk loss.
So I think the other side of tyranny, the accommodation of tyranny, is largely fear on the part of people who are in positions where they're afraid they're going to lose for themselves.
Now, that's been a major part of this conference, is instilling to the attendees here the fear is really the major weapon that the subversives within this country have that they use against us.
In other words, that's the major instrument of the destruction of the judicial system, the destruction of our communities, the intimidation that makes you Do something that you don't have to do, that's not required by the law, such as filing an income tax return, and many other things.
I think part of our efforts here has been to teach people that fear is the instrument of your own destruction, and we have to learn how to eliminate that fear from our life.
At the same time, understand that if we are afraid, We have to be very careful how we interact with those that we are afraid of, because it's used, literally, to destroy us.
And so until we learn to deal with that fear, or eliminate that fear altogether, it's not wise to get involved in things like you and I are involved in.
Well, but it's, and I used to tell this to county officers.
I told them, you know, after IRS came to our house and ran into my wife with a wrecker,
terrorized my grandchildren, I told the county officers that the tyranny was going to end
in K-County if we had to clean out everything from the state house to that house.
But when I was in somewhat of a calmer mode, I used to point out to those that if they
will check in Revelation that the cowards are going to go to the same pit of fire and
brimstone as do the liars, thieves, whoremongers, and murderers.
That that fear is the greatest sin man has, and it's the greatest destruction that we have.
And that's, you know, again, we go back to the principles of the Nuremberg Trials, and the accomplice, by consent, whether it was for personal gain or out of fear, suffered the same punishment with the perpetrator of the tyranny by intent.
And we have to realize that that standard is absolutely necessary, so that the government fears the people, rather than the people fear government.
What are some of the victories that you've had, Dan?
Can you, sort of, within, you know, five or six minutes, go over some of the significant victories that you've had, or significant moments that have That have convinced you that there is an avenue or at least the beginning of a flicker of a light at the end of the tunnel that we might be able to follow to get out of this wilderness?
Well, of course, we've unraveled the Title 12 of the United States Code almost to the same extent that we did the Internal Revenue Code, which is banking and banks and banking.
And we've had some victories there, some preliminary victories, and we've learned some strategies.
We've got some cases pending.
We've either stalemated or got dismissals on actions out of statutory courts in several states, which we count as victories.
We, for about the last 18 months, have We've been working with people in up to 40 states in the effort to try to find administrative remedies to the Internal Revenue Service problems, and we have, I feel, along with what other people are doing, in the last 18 months, forced the Internal Revenue Service to change strategies about three different times.
You've also forced them to return seized property.
And release leans, or I should say notice of leans.
They never had a look at a lean to begin with.
They're not very good about removing the leans, but we've been able to intercede on a few garnishments and things of that sort.
We feel like that we have a, and I don't want to talk about this particular strategy, but we think we have the ultimate answer to the lean problem.
And we will test that here in the next two or three weeks.
Great.
So has there been a clear-cut significant victory along the way so far?
Well, anytime that we have been able to get a security return of people's property or
get the IRS to lift levies or to eliminate assessments or to quit pursuing people for
audits or to back off and say, well, maybe you don't have to file that return.
I had one of the people that I work with and who uses my material out of Georgia, I talked
with him yesterday as a matter of fact, and he reported having interceded on garnishments
in North Carolina and California just last week.
So there's two more and there's enough of those from not just me but other people around
the country using our strategies that we are enjoying some success and sometimes it's not
successful.
Now they seize property and garnish people's wages, take their homes, take their belongings.
They don't just take property, they take lives.
They take photo albums with all the babies' pictures from the first day they were born.
They take personal items that can't be replaced.
They take all of these things.
They take records.
And once they take them, unless somebody like you comes along or somebody figures out a way to force them to return these things, which is extremely rare, People lose their, they lose everything.
They lose their whole life, their memories, their records, their lives.
Isn't that right?
The catastrophic element goes beyond IRS because once IRS commences on people it puts them
in financial jeopardy and even if IRS doesn't get it, the banks or whoever the mortgager
is gets their homes and wind up in just utter life destruction.
One of the people that we work with, we had, IRS got bad during the family to the point
the woman had a miscarriage and she was in the hospital the morning after the miscarriage
and the revenue agent who had scheduled her for an appointment called her up in the hospital
and raised hell because she was in the hospital and not at that appointment.
But that demonstrates some of the callousness.
The Tuesday before Christmas, year before last, I got a call out of Bigsby, Oklahoma.
A guy was calling from a pay phone and he had, I forget if it was six or ten IRS people armed with vests and carrying out his house.
And they carried out everything to the kid's piggy banks, and he had a wife who was suffering from terminal cancer.
And they took everything with the children's beds, and they did not take the unopened Christmas presents under the Christmas tree, but hauled everything else off.
And they did that discapriciously.
There, it appears to me that these people are sometimes just not human.
It's like they're not anybody that we've ever known.
I mean, the worst people I've ever known would never do things like that.
It's incredible.
We have had some victories along the way.
When we published in issue number six, our headline article, BATF IRS Criminal Fraud, or actually it was IRS BATF Criminal Fraud.
and outline the results of the research of several people.
A significant portion of it came from Wayne Benson.
Some of it was mine.
Some of it belonged to other people that may have even had some of your research in there.
Shortly after that, the IRS came under tremendous fire from people in Congress and across the country.
Because we had revealed things in that article that were never known before, especially to the general public and to many representatives in the House and Senators just had no idea that these things were true.
And they were forced to stop performing random audits and that was one of the great things that happened because we published that story in issue number six.
Shortly after that, because we had obtained part of our information from their own historian, they called their own historian on the carpet, and we had to run another headline story outlining how they were persecuting their own historian, and had ordered an investigation of the historian to find out how we had obtained the information that we did from the historian.
And now that person is no longer in office.
as a historian with the Internal Revenue Service, but the, another outcome was
that they were not filing their records and papers and history with the National Archives
and the Director of the National Archives has now ordered the IRS to fork
up all the missing documents and put them on the records.
So we are making headway.
Okay, go ahead.
We expect to be in congressional hearings possibly before the end of the year.
We've heard that from a member of the Oklahoma congressional delegation.
And, uh, there is a, a, uh, representative out of the southeast who wants to put together a, uh, a redress agreement for the House Ways and Means Committee.
Wonderful.
We're out of time, folks, and I, I really sincerely hope that you, uh, that you've got an awful lot of information out of this.
If you want to get these public notices, you subscribe to Veritas.
And I'll tell you how to do that tomorrow night, or order the next issue.
It will have both of those in there, and we will have, and you can get that issue for $3, and it will have in there, hopefully, if I can make a deal with Dan here somehow, for him to be able to provide you with a computer disc with a lot more information, including those on them, as he has done the attendees to this conference.
Good night, folks, and God bless each and every single one of you.
If tomorrow all the things were gone, I'd work for all my life.
Can I have a start again with just my children and my wife?
I'd thank my lucky stars to be living here today.
But the flag still stands for freedom, and they can't take that away.
And I'm proud to be an American wearing these signs over my face.
And I won't forget some men who died who gave that fight to me.
And I gladly stand up next to you as they came first to the gate.
But there ain't no doubt I love this land God bless the USA
From the lakes of Minnesota To the hills of Tennessee
Across the plains of Tennessee I'm free to shine and sing
He tore it down to Houston and New York to L.A.
Spread a pride in every American heart, that it's time we stand and say
That I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free
And I won't forget the men who died, who gave that fight for me.
And I won't forget the men who died, who gave that fight for me
And I gladly stand up next to you and defend her until today.
And I gladly stand up next to you and defend her until today
But do make no doubt I love to pray.
God bless the U.S.A.
God bless the U.S.A.
And I won't forget.
▲
Export Selection