Volume 9 No. 2 - Adask's law

Cover Page

ANTISHYSTER 

NEWS MAGAZINE 

Volume 9 * Anno Domini 1999 

Creator, Proprietor, Editor & Publisher 

Alfred Adask 

One Door Closes, Another Opens 

Although the quality of the research, opinion and speculation 

published in 1999 in the AntiShyster was the best yet, our 

subscriptions fell precipitously. 

We’d been in a financial slump since mid-1997 when President 

Clinton announced that America was living in the best of all 

possible times. Without government pushing fear at the public 

about crime, drugs, corporate downsizing, and terrorism – public 

anxiety (and thus public interest in news in general and the Anti- 

Shyster in particular) drained from the body politic. We were in 

an era similar to the Roaring 20’s. It’s party time and nobody 

cares about a dreary old thing like the Constitution while they’re 

having sales on Jetski’s. 

Once I recognized the inverse relationship between the 

news and “good times,” I determined to simply wait until government 

inevitably caused another recession (or worse), and the news 

business and the AntiShyster once again became profitable. How 

long could it be? A few months? Maybe a year? 

But 1998 and 1999 came and went, Clinton’s “economic 

miracle” grew stronger and my determination to outlast Clinton’s 

boom began to waiver. 

In July, 1999, I realized that a revolutionary new element – 

the Internet – had entered the equation. For the AntiShyster (and 

similar paper publications), the Internet spelled doom. Our subscription 

base softened as former readers started spending two or 

three hours a day on the Internet – and thus had less time to read 

magazines. Our subscription base collapsed as former readers 

realized the there was no sense in paying $30 for subscriptions to 

paper magazines when they could download infinite quantities of 

information from the Internet for free. 

I soon realized that even if (when) Clinton’s boom went 

bust, we’d only get a temporary reprieve. The Internet was 

putting the paper AntiShyster out of business. As a result, Volume 

9 No. 3 was probably the AntiShyster’s last paper edition. 

But I’m not worried. In fact, I’m excited! It took a while 

to see the Internet’s potential, but I’m now enthralled by the idea 

of publishing exclusively on the ’Net. We already reach more 

people and publish more issues of the AntiShyster on the ‘Net 

than we ever did in paper. So sometimes, even a near-bankruptcy 

can be a blessing. 

Therefore, while Volume 9 No. 3 may be our last paper 

edition, Volume 10 No. 1 will be our first exclusively “digital” 

edition. Say good-bye to the paper AntiShyster; say Hello to the 

Internet AntiShyster. I haven’t had so much fun in years. These 

are exciting times. 

Alfred Adask 

“AntiShyster” defined: 

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “shyster” as “one who carries on 

any business, especially a legal business, in a dishonest way. An 

unscrupulous practitioner who disgraces his profession by doing 

mean work, and resorts to sharp practice to do it.” Webster’s 

Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines “shyster” as “one who is 

professionally unscrupulous esp. in the practice of law or politics.” 

For the purposes of this publication, a “shyster” is a dishonest 

attorney or politician, i.e., one who lies. An “AntiShyster”, therefore, 

is a person, an institution, or in this case, a news magazine that 

stands in sharp opposition to lies and to professional liars, 

especially in the arenas of law and politics. 

Legal Advice 

The ONLY legal advice this publication offers is this: 

Any attempt to learn to cope with our modern judicial system must 

be tempered with the sure and certain knowledge that “law” is 

always a crapshoot. That is, nothing, not even brown paper bags 

filled with hundred dollar bills and handed to the judge, will absolutely 

guarantee your victory in a judicial trial or administrative hearing. 

The most you can hope for is to improve the probability that you 

may win. Therefore, DO NOT DEPEND ON THE ARTICLES OR 

ADVERTISEMENTS IN THIS PUBLICATION to illustrate anything 

more than the opinions or experiences of others trying to escape, 

survive, attack or even make sense of “the best judicial system in 

the world”. But don’t be discouraged; there’s not another foolproof 

publication on law in the entire USA – except the Bible. 

Reprint Policy 

Except for those articles which specifically identify a copyright or 

have been reprinted with permission of another publication, 

permission is granted to reprint any article in the AntiShyster, 

provided that: 1) the reprinted article contains the following credit: 

“Reprinted with permission from the AntiShyster, POB 540786, 

Dallas, Texas, 75354-0786, or call (800) 477-5508 - annual 

subscription (6 issues) $30”; and 2) one copy of the publication 

carrying the reprinted article is sent to the AntiShyster. 

Correction Policy 

There is so much truth that is offensive about the American legal 

system that we have no need or intention to lie or fabricate stories. 

Nevertheless, unintentional errors may occur. We are eager to 

make corrections quickly and candidly as soon as we discover 

and confirm them. This policy should not be mistaken for a policy 

of accommodating readers who are simply unhappy about a 

published article. If someone has been portrayed in a false light, 

we will endeavor to portray them accurately. Likewise, if someone 

has been falsely accused, we will investigate and make every 

effort to see that they are correctly accused. 

Advertising Policy 

The AntiShyster News Magazine reserves the right to reject any 

advertisement we deem unsuitable and will not knowingly publish 

advertisements that are fraudulent, libelous, misleading, 

pornographic, or contrary to our editorial policies. However, we 

do not have the resources to absolutely determine the true value 

of any product or service offered by our advertisers. Therefore, 

readers should not assume that publication of an advertisement 

in the AntiShyster News Magazine constitutes our endorsement 

of its sponsor, or the products or services offered. 

Advertising Rates 

See our website www.antishyster.com 

EMail: adask@gte.net 

Office: 972-418-8993 

AntiShyster News Magazine 

POB 540786 Dallas, Texas 75354-0786 

The United States of America 

2 ANTISHYSTER Volume 9 (1999 A.D.) www.antishyster.com adask@gte.net 972-418-8993

Volume 9 No. 1 

4 Corporations vs. Creators 

5 Understanding Corporations 

7 A civil Action 

8 Boeing Goes to Prison 

13 Accounting 

In a Limited Liability World 

17 Legal Firearms 

for Prohibited Persons 

21 Silence of the Lambs 

24 Corporate Darwinism 

27 IRS Political Prosecution 

32 Keep Your Eye Onnn. . . 

That Gold Fringed Flaaag! 

38 Is “Good Faith” a False Religion? 

42 IRS Agent Tax Cheats 

46 FRNs Make Sham Trusts 

50 Letters 

54 Your Money’s No Good Here 

55 Etc. 


110 Introducing the “e-AntiShyster” 

112 Internet Deflation 

116 The Internet is Money 

119 Waco: A New Revelation 

121 Administrative Notice Feedback 

125 Is the Battle in the Court — 

or in the Case? 

130 Kids, Please Don’t 

Try This at Home 

135 The Genocide/ 

Gun Control Connection 

140 The UN and Property Rights 

145 Bumble Bee Economics 

151 Savings are the Root of All Evil? 

155 Y2K Dominoes or Delusions? 

158 The Amoral Majority 

163 Etc. 


56 The Grapes of Technology 

59 Concentration 

of Agricultural Markets 

63 Corporations 

& the Multiplier Effect 

66 Bad Faith Immunity 

71 Administrative Notices 

74 Are Federal Plea Bargains 

Unconstitutional? 

80 “Evil Twin” Courts 

84 Banking Without Social Security 

89 Implied, Resulting 

& Constructive Trusts 

93 Hipshots 

96 Milosevic Indicted for Abusing 

Emergency Powers 

99 Letters 

102 By What Authority? 

105 Biblical Proof of Insurance 

109 Etc. 

“. . . it does not require a majority to prevail, but 

rather an irate, tireless minority keen to 

set brush fires in people’s minds.” 

– Samuel Adams 

ANTISHYSTER Volume 9 (1999 A.D.) www.antishyster.com adask@ gte.net 972-418-8993 3

Corporations vs. Creators 

by Alfred Adask 

I 

recently watched a TV docu 

mentary about a colony of sea birds. The 

birds build stony nests on the beach in a 

massive cluster of “pot holes”. Each nest is 

barely separated from adjacent nests by just 

the length of the birds’ necks and beaks. Any 

bird that crosses the “beak-line” onto a neighboring 

bird’s nest territory was vigorously 

scolded and pecked. It seemed comical that 

birds so determined to fight among themselves 

would still choose to nest so closely 

together. 

But the comedy turned bizarre when 

two birds fighting for possession of a nest 

site simply watched as a lizard sauntered in, 

took an egg from one of their nests and sauntered 

off. Either one of the squabbling birds 

was big enough to drive that lizard off with 

some serious pecking. And there were hundreds 

of large adult birds in that colony, more 

than enough to kill the lizard. And yet, the 

birds which were so dedicated to fighting 

each other over scraps of sand, did nothing 

to protect their eggs. 

The birds weren’t afraid of the lizard. 

Instead, they simply couldn’t “see” it. Although 

the birds’ instinct to fight each other 

over territory was powerful, they had no instinctive 

ability to fight or even perceive the 

lizard taking their eggs. Thus, the lizard was 

virtually invisible to the birds and could stroll 

in whenever it liked, grab an egg and have 

lunch. 

I suspect people are somewhat like 

those birds when it comes to “perceiving” 

the threat posed by corporations. We’ll fight 

or kill each other over trivial trespasses, and 

yet we seem almost incapable of “seeing” 

(let along resisting) the threats posed by corporations. 

While you and I squabble endlessly 

over bits of territory, the corporations 

are stealing our eggs. 

Do we mind? Do we even notice? Not 

much. Conditioned by genetics or society, 

we can see each other’s betrayals and trespasses 

vividly, but we’re strangely blind to 

the offenses committed by our “invisible” 

artificial entities. 

Since ancient times, virtually 

all societies have been designed to 

structure increasingly complex relationships 

between growing numbers of natural, fleshand-blood 

people. Over time, we’ve developed 

a powerful love-hate relationship with 

our societies. We’ll fight and kill “outsiders” 

to protect our society; we’ll fight and 

sometimes kill “insiders” to escape it. (Society 

– you can’t live with it and your can’t live 

without it.) 

However, in the last few centuries man 

has begun to further complicate our individual/social 

relationships by creating “artificial 

entities” (like trusts and corporations) 

and recognizing them as “legal” (not flesh 

and blood) “persons”. 

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 

“artificial persons” are “Persons created and 

devised by human laws for the purposes of 

society and government, as distinguished 

from natural persons. Corporations are examples 

of artificial persons.” 

Corporations were ostensibly created 

to accumulate and protect large amounts of 

capital and assets necessary to accomplish 

tasks beyond the range of individual 

proprietorships, partnerships, and similar less 

sophisticated business entities. Initially, the 

corporations’ peculiar powers (they’re 

amoral, potentially immortal, and bestow 

the privilege of limited liability) were intended 

to serve the public interest. But over 

time (just as we’ve been warned by the cliché 

about the corrupting influence of power) corporate 

power has come to serve corporations 

themselves, often at public expense. 

As corporations “evolved” to become 

overtly self-serving, a strange “Darwinian” 

competition sprung up between man and his 

corporate creations. Unlike the ancient individual 

vs. society competitions (which were 

always between natural, flesh-and-blood 

people), we now compete with artificial entities, 

invisible “fictions of law” that exist only 

in our imagination. 

The result is somewhat surreal. While 

we are instinctively equipped to compete with 

each other (over food, shelter, status and sex), 

we not only lack a natural ability to compete 

with our corporate creations, we even lack 

the ability to clearly see such competition is 

taking place. With the advent of artificial 

entities, our ancient bipolar individual/social 

schizophrenia has become an unnatural, almost 

maddening “tri-polar” competition between 

natural individuals, groups, and artificial 

entities. 

The creator-creation conflict 

is ancient and persistent theme. The stories 

of Satan, Oedipus, Frankenstein and 

“Hal the computer” (from Arthur C. Clark’s 

“2001 – A Space Odyssey”) all explore the 

horror of a creation rebelling against its creator 

– and the creator’s peculiar inability to 

deal effectively with that rebellion. 

This issue of the AntiShyster will primarily 

explore the conflict between man and 

his corporations. We’ll glimpse clues to the 

corporate “instinct” for self-preservation and 

indifference to human sacrifice. We’ll 

vaguely sense a “Darwinian” competition 

between ourselves and our own creations 

(artificial entities) – but not to determine who 

will survive, but rather who (or what) will 

serve and who (or what) will rule. Natural 

man or artificial entity? Creator or creation? 

In the end, will this nation be of, by and 

for the People – or the corporations? 


“Do men make their own gods? 

Yes, but they’re not gods.” Jeremiah 

16:20 (NIV) 

Here’s an introduction to fundamentals 

of corporate creation, obligations 

and benefits. 

The role, status, and formation of the 

corporation has evolved considerably since 

the 17th century in England when royalty 

would issue revocable charters for special 

business and/or political purposes called 

“franchises.” One legal commentator of the 

time declared: “A corporation is a franchise 

created by the King.” Originally, these Royal 

Charters were strict and narrow. Companies 

that acted beyond their charter limits were 

disciplined with heavy fines. 

However, in the New World, American 

states revolutionized the process of incorporation. 

Legislatures created corporations as 

“artificial persons” which enjoyed great operational 

flexibility. States hungry for incorporation 

fees made the formation of companies 

simple. As a result, today’s corporations 

are autonomous and so egalitarian that 

virtually anyone can have one – without petition 

to royalty. 

Understanding 

Corporations 

by Attorney David C. 

Grossack 

Forming a corporation 

The document that creates a corporation 

is usually called the “Articles of Incorporation”. 

These Articles are executed by the “incorporators” 

(people organizing the company) 

and approved by the Secretary of State. Typically, 

Articles of Incorporation identify the 

names of the corporation, the incorporators 

and the organization’s first “officers” and 

“directors”. The Articles of Incorporation also 

state the date of the annual meeting, special 

provisions for governance of the corporation 

and the classes of stock available to shareholders. 

Even a corporate “purpose” (which 

may be very broad) may be given. 

A separate document (not filed with the 

state) is called the “Bylaws”. These Bylaws 

are adopted by the Board of Directors and 

set forth the rules of Corporate self-government. 

Well drafted Bylaws may include: 

Provisions for the election of officers 

and their terms of office. 

Notice provisions for meetings of directors 

and shareholders. 

Duties of officers. 

Indemnification of officers and directors; 

and other corporate activity. 

Corporations must register in any state 

where they do business, own or lease real 

estate and even where they own automobiles, 

boats and planes. Thus a corporation can be 

registered in many localities in addition to its 

state of incorporation. 

Most, if not all, states require a “resident 

agent” (a local person) to receive official 

notices and court pleadings. This includes 

both states of incorporation and states 

in which the corporation is registered to do 

business. 

Corporations have the inherent power 

to merge, swap stock, engage in partnerships, 

engage in joint ventures, and participate in 

similar activities as provided by statute. Nevertheless, 

it’s a good idea to expressly declare 

your corporation reserves these powers 

in its Articles of Incorporation. 

Obligations 

By accepting a legislative franchise, a 

corporation is required to comply with the 

state’s entire regulatory framework for corporations. 

Not only may there be tax and 

annual fee requirements, the corporation is 

required to have workman’s compensation 

insurance, engage in tax and social security 

withholding, pay a special unemployment tax 

contribution. 

The ultimate question of whether a regulatory 

scheme applies is determined by both 

state and federal law. Therefore, income on 

corporate profit is taxed differently from state 


to state and some enlightened jurisdictions 

impose no tax on corporations. 

Constitutional corporate 

rights? 

Although corporations are imaginary 

“artificial entities,” they are nevertheless “legal 

persons”. As a result, there is an ongoing 

debate as to whether corporations have 

constitutional rights. Those who draft a 

corporation’s Articles of Incorporation 

should consider inserting provisions reserving 

constitutional protections of privacy, right 

to avoid self-incrimination and protection 

from unreasonable search and seizure, as well 

as other rights expressed in state and federal 

constitutions. Although no test cases have 

been located, including such provisions may 

create a strong foundation for rebutting any 

regulator or police authority who later argue 

that a corporation waived certain protections 

by accepting a legislative privilege. 

Nevertheless, once a corporation has 

been formed, management must adhere to 

corporate formalities and other guidelines to 

bolster the company’s ability to withstand 

attempts to pierce the veil. For example: 

The finances of the corporation 

should not be intermingled with those of individuals 

or other companies. 

Meetings should be called regularly 

according to the notice requirements of 

the Bylaws. Minutes should be taken of every 

meeting and kept in an organized form. 

Corporate resolutions, certificates 

of corporate vote and shareholder votes, as 

well as all director’s meetings, should be recorded 

and filed in an easy to retrieve system. 

Annual statements of condition 

must be filed regularly with your state’s corporations 

office. 

Failing to pay annual report fees 

for three consecutive years can result in a 

corporation being dissolved and losing it’s 

shield from liability. However, in many 

states, even a corporation that’s been dissolved 

by operation of law may still sue, be 

sued and carry on certain business activities 

for the purpose of winding up its affairs. 

Some states also allow the revival of dormant 

corporations within limited time periods. 

However, so long as corporations pay 

their annual fees, they exist until management 

decides to dissolve. Otherwise, their 

existence is permanent. As such, corporations 

are theoretically “immortal”. 

Corporate benefits 

What benefits might be available to the 

corporation’s officers, directors and shareholders 

as a result of incorporation? 

The fundamental benefit of incorporation 

is limited liability for shareholders and 

corporate personnel from exposure for claims 

for breach of contract and negligence, as well 

as many other causes of action. As a result, 

it’s often very difficult for claimants to “pierce 

the corporate veil” for the purpose of holding 

corporate actors personally responsible 

(see the 1999 movie A Civil Action). 

As a result, corporate officers and shareholders 

enjoy substantial legal immunity – 

even if they are clearly responsible for negligent 

acts. Of course, when shareholders 

become corporate “control persons” (officers) 

who violate certain laws, or when officers 

and directors engage in certain prohibited 

activities, the “corporate veil” may be 

pierced. But even then, the “practical” immunity 

provided by the corporate structure 

is difficult to overcome. 

The second major benefit of incorporation 

(flows from the first benefit – limited 

liability) is easy credit formation. That is, 

without the promise of limited liability, investors 

would be extremely reluctant to purchase 

corporate stock. Would you want to 

invest your money in a strange corporation 

that could be easily sued and thereby lose 

your investment? Of course not. However, 

because corporations enjoy certain legal immunities, 

your stock investment is almost as 

safe from loss to lawsuit as money in the 

bank – but unlike bank accounts, stocks offer 

a chance for substantial increases in 

wealth. 

The issuance of stock by corporations 

has given rise to a subspecialty of corporate 

law: “securities regulation”. A security has 

been defined as “an investment contract or 

scheme for the placing of capital or laying 

out of money in a way intended to secure 

income or profit from its employment.” Limited 

partnerships, corporate stocks and bonds, 

beneficial interests in trusts and other certain 

types of contract rights may all be subject to 

securities regulations. 

Corporate stock (which symbolizes equity 

interest or ownership of the corporation) 

can be sold to finance corporate activity 

or obtain liquidity (cash) for the founders or 

other shareholders. Some states allow hundreds 

of millions of shares of stock to be 

issued at a very nominal price. Others make 

it very expensive. In any case, the easy transferability 

of corporate equity has been a major 

factor in the growth of all modern capital 

(stock) markets. 

Finally, corporations have the same 

powers as other “natural” persons to enter 

into contracts; sue and to be sued; own, 

pledge and convey real property and chattels; 

and engage in other business transaction. 

Ultimately, the legal structure of a business 

can only help it so much. In the final 

analysis, shrewd planning, careful use of 

resources, and effective management and 

marketing will make a company successful. 

However, a careful understanding of the law 

of corporations is required for management 

to fully exploit the benefits of a corporation 

and avoid the pitfalls. 

David Grossack is the principal behind 

the “Patriot Caucus” – a small, unfunded 

organization that makes waves 

with little or no money. (The last time 

he picketed in Washington, he gained 

national media exposure by bringing 

an exorcist to the steps of Congress.) 

Mr. Grossack’s website 

(patriotcaucus.com) promotes American 

freedom and legislation to place 

pro-se reading rooms in every courthouse. 

He’s also produced the “Cults 

of the New World Order” videotape. 

Attorney Grossack reports wanting 

“to picket that accursed Southern Poverty 

Law Center and similar groups and 

get a bus or two for a national caravan 

to picket the UN in New York and/or 

Congress in D.C.” Those of you wishing 

to support his efforts can reach Mr. 

Grossack at Citizens Law Digest, POB 

90, Hull, Mass. 02045-0090. 


Toxic Avengers vs. Corporate Criminals 

A Civil Action 

by Uri Dowbenko Copyright 1999 

As outlined in the previous article, 

the benefits and powers of incorporation 

are attractive. But like 

all powers, they are subject to abuse. 

Here’s a movie review that illustrates 

America’s growing uneasiness with 

the corporate powers. 

The corporate criminals win in the 

movie, “A Civil Action” starring John 

Travolta. When multinational conglomerates, 

W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods, are 

sued on behalf of parents who’ve lost their 

children to leukemia, the outcome is brutal. 

Based on a real-life lawsuit, “A Civil 

Action” is the anatomy of an environmental 

crime, and writer-director Steven Zaillian 

(who wrote the screenplay for “Schindler’s 

List” and directed “Searching for Bobby 

Fischer”) has created a powerful drama about 

human loss, suffering – and incidentally – 

the absence of justice in America. 

Jan Schlichtmann (John Travolta) is a 

hotshot personal injury lawyer. He and his 

two partners own a boutique law firm in Boston. 

A group of parents from the town of 

Woburn, Massachusetts, ask Schlichtmann 

for help in a complex environmental case 

about toxic dumping. The parents suspect 

(but can’t prove) that chemicals have poisoned 

the town’s drinking water. “Twelve 

deaths over fifteen years. Eight of the children 

had leukemia.” The contaminants? 

“Trichloroethylene which FDA describes as 

a ‘probable’ carcinogen.” The problem is that 

“to prove it you need new medical evidence.” 

At attorney Schlichtmann’s first meeting 

with the parents, Anne Anderson 

(Kathleen Quinlan) tells him, “We don’t want 

money. We want to know what happened.” 

She knows that no amount of money will 

bring back her child, but pleads for some 

kind of accountability: “We just want someone 

to say they’re sorry.” 

But Schlichtmann replies, “You want 

an apology. But who will apologize to you – 

and pay me?” Seeing no “deep pockets,” he 

declines the case and drives off in his black 

Porsche. However, when he’s stopped for 

speeding on the way out of Woburn, 

Schlichtmann looks at the local river, walks 

down the railroad tracks and sees some effluent 

discharging from a pipe into the river 

and a cargo container labelled “Grace”. The 

culprit is a tannery that’s a subsidiary of 

Beatrice Foods. Schlichtmann’s found his 

“deep pockets” adversaries. 

Later, he tells his partners, “Beatrice and 

Grace made $634 million net. . . this is a 

goldmine!” True to his ambulance-chasing 

self, he also admits appreciating “the theatrical 

value of several dead kids.” 

In a voiceover, Travolta explains, “It 

begins with a declaration of war – the complaint.” 

Then we see the actual lawsuit. Cause 

of Action. Wrongful Death. Negligence. Pain 

and Suffering. “We have to show how toxic 

solvents leaked into the water supply.” And 

thus begin the endless depositions. 

The opposing lawyer played by Robert 

Duvall vows that the parents will never reach 

the courtroom because their testimony is too 

devastating. His eccentricities hide a cunning 

legal mind that knows the odds (as in gambling) 

and the tactics (as in chess) that are 

necessary to win at any cost. 

One film highlight is the darkly comic 

scene when Grace Vice President tells 

Schlichtmann, “Let’s be honest. I can afford 

to pay . . .” But he won’t because other 

lawyers will perceive the payoff as a sign of 

weakness and therefore sue Grace for other 

perceived damages. 

The case moves on, consuming more 

time and money until, after spending almost 

two million dollars preparing the case, hiring 

consultants, engineers, geologists, and 

doctors, Schlichtmann’s firm goes broke. 

Near the end, awaiting the jury’s verdict, 

Travolta and Duvall meet in a casual encounter 

in the court’s hallway. Duvall mocks 

Travolta’s search for truth saying, “If you’re 

looking for truth, Jan, look where it is, at the 

bottom of the bottomless pit.” Truth and 

justice are simply not the products of a court 

of law. 

Finally, the case is sabotaged by Judge 

Skinner (John Lithgow) whose actions prove 

Dante’s Inferno must reserve a special ring 

of fire exclusively for judges. 

Schlichtmann loses. He and his partners 

are bankrupted. The parents of the 

twelve dead children receive nothing. Eventually, 

Schlichtmann abandons the case and 

ships his truckload of depositions, evidence, 

and exhibits to the Environmental Protection 

Agency with a letter expressing his hope that 

they do better in court than he did. 

In fact, the EPA takes the case and does 

do better. The movie’s postscript explains 

that W.R. Grace was indicted and forced to 

pay $69.4 million in cleanup costs. But 

Schlichtmann and the parents still received 

nothing. In this David v. Goliath legal battle, 

who wants to see David get stomped? The 

film remains emotionally unsatisfying and 

even discouraging. 

So why would anyone want to make a 

movie like “A Civil Action?” The only reason 

would be to show the futility of suing a 

corporate giant. The movie’s implicit message 

is stark and undeniable. If you take on 

Big Business in a court of law, don’t expect 

to win. Don’t even expect to survive. 

This true story illustrates that 

while common people have little 

chance to defeat massive corporations 

in court, those corporations 

are still vulnerable to their creator – 

the government. The EPA achieved 

what “We the People” could not. 

But considered carefully, the 

fact that corporations are vulnerable 

to government – but not to 

People – raises serious questions 

about who or what is truly “sovereign” 

in the U.S.A. – natural people 

or artificial entities? Is America still 

a nation “of, by and for” the People 

– or the corporations? 

Uri Dowbenko is CEO of New 

Improved Entertainment Corp. He 

can be reached at Box 43, Pray, 

Montana 59065. e-mail: 

u.dowbenko@mailcity.com 


Verk ist Vreedom! 

Boeing Goes To Prison 

by Paul Wright 

Since 1980, we’ve paid for a nationwide 

prison construction program 

that now allows government to jail a 

higher percentage of Americans than 

any other nation on the face of this 

earth – more than Red China, South Africa 

the former Soviet Union, or every 

other political regime that’s variously 

described by government or mainstream 

media as “repressive,” “fascist,” 

“communist,” “tyrannical,”, or even 

“Evil”. 

Why? Because 1) our politicians 

exaggerated our fear of crime for almost 

two decades; 2) they exploited 

that fear to win elections; and 3) a host 

of special, corporate and bureaucratic 

interests profit handsomely from 

America’s fear. 

There are pockets of serious crime 

in various urban communities – especially 

among those addicted to government 

handouts. But nationally, our 

crime rate has been declining since 

1973 and would be almost trivial today 

except that our legislative law-mills are 

constantly “criminalizing” more varieties 

of human activity that were otherwise 

legal for at least 150 years. Americans 

are increasingly subject to incarceration, 

not for “constitutional” crimes 

(damage to another person or property), 

but for “victimless” (political) offenses 

in which no one is hurt, but the perpetrator 

has committed an act which our 

legislators regard as not only politically 

incorrect, but politically unrighteous. 

Thus, much of the “rising crime rate” 

reported from 1980 to 1997 was really 

a “rising political crime rate.” 

Why is this happening? 

Part of the explanation involves 

“free trade” agreements like NAFTA and 

GATT which opened our borders. As 

Ross Perot predicted in 1992, these 

free trade agreements have caused a 

“giant sucking sound” as former American 

corporations “emigrated” to foreign 

countries with low wage scales 

for laborers. 

However, some corporations (especially 

those tied directly to “patriotic” 

concepts like national defense) 

cannot easily relocate abroad since 

the political furor over having American 

tanks built in Thailand is too great 

for even President Clinton to overcome. 

On the other hand, if our defense 

contractors (once described by 

President Eisenhower as the part of the 

“military-industrial complex”) can’t relocate 

overseas, how can they compete 

with armaments produced in lowwage 

countries? One solution might 

be to create “low wage” (high profit) 

areas within the U.S. so we can continue 

to “buy American” – even though 

the product is built by American laborers 

paid Third World wages. 

Hmm. So how could we create 

“third-world labor zones” right here 

within the USA? Obviously, no Ameri- 

can will voluntarily work for third-world 

wages. But what if they didn’t volunteer? 

What if they were deprived of 

their rights, forced to work, and virtually 

enslaved? 

Is that possible in the “land of the 

Free”? Of course. We call it prison. 

Follow the money trail for a 

glimpse of the profits of incarceration: 

Currently more than 90,000 state and federal 

convicts work in a variety of public and 

private enterprises while serving time. 1 The 

majority are employed in state owned enterprises 

such as making license plates or furniture 

for government offices. Increasingly 

though, private businesses have contracted with 

at least 25 states to set up businesses inside 

prison walls to take advantage of state-supplied 

facilities and low wage nonunion workers. 

Recently, sales from private corporate industries 

within prisons totaled $83 million – a 

relatively small but growing addition to the $821 

million generated from sales of state agency 

industries products and services. 2 

However, with the repeal of welfare, 

some political opportunists and right-wing 

pundits are turning their sights on questions 

of law and order in general, and prison “reform” 

in particular. They are pushing Congress 

to impose the same solution on prisoners 

as on welfare recipients: force them to 

work. In September, 1996, candidate Bob 

Dole promised that if elected president, he 

would issue an executive order requiring 


every able-bodied federal prisoner to work a 

40-hour week to earn money to compensate 

victims. According to the Atlanta Journal 

and Constitution, “Taking a portion of prisoners’ 

earnings to pay their upkeep or reimburse 

their victims also seems appropriate to 

many Americans.” 3 

Knut Rostad, head of the right-wing 

Enterprise Prison Institute is trying to rally 

support for the scheme. Rostad told a 

Congressional committee that “the American 

public believes the greatest failure of government 

on a national level – other than welfare 

– involves crime and punishment.” Focus 

groups, “reveal a negative emotional response 

to the prison system which is unlike 

anything he has seen in recent years. . . . The 

bottom line is that the state prison system 

should be changed from the ground up, and 

that inmate work programs should drive this 

change.” 4 

Those who advocate the expansion of 

private industry into prisons argue that “legal 

restrictions, aided by bureaucratic inertia 

and labor union sensitivities continue to 

hamper progress.” 5 They propose repealing 

laws that protect prisoner laborers from the 

worst exploitation and shield free labor from 

unfair competition. In a Wall Street Journal 

editorial, former Attorney General Edwin 

Meese proposed repealing depression era 

laws that require prison workers making 

goods transported in interstate commerce be 

paid at least the minimum wage. 6 Part of his 

argument rests on the assertion that if the 

labor market is opened up for them, prisoners 

can help pay the costs of their incarceration. 

This argument is illogical since if the 

state really wanted to profit from a portion of 

the prisoners’ wages, it should push for 

higher wages, not lower. However, while 

lower prisoner wages will not help compensate 

victims or defray prison costs, they will 

increase profits for corporations that employ 

prisoner labor. 

Testifying before Congress, Morgan 

Reynolds, director of the Criminal Justice 

Center, National Center for Policy Analysis, 

was not so circumspect: “State and federal 

prison systems control a huge asset – convict 

labor – and largely waste its productive 

potential.” He advocated changing the law 

to, “Allow private prison operators to profit 

from the gainful employment of convict labor. 

Encourage and publicize private sector 

proposals for enterprise prisons. Set up procedures 

for competitive bidding for prison 

labor. Diminish prisoner litigation against 

prison work by repealing the Civil Rights of 

Institutionalized Persons Act and the federal 

habeas corpus procedure.” 7 

Prison industries make 

out like Chinese bandits 

Former Attorney General Meese touts 

Washington state as a model for prison industries. 

In one Washington prison, Boeing 

Corp., headquartered in Seattle, is discovering 

the benefits of a captive work force. In 

1995, while the world’s largest civil aviation 

manufacturer made more planes and more 

money than ever before, it cut the number of 

employees on its US payroll. 8 Like most 

corporations, Boeing has been cutting costs 

and countering organized labor’s threat to its 

bottom line by moving factories abroad and 

out-sourcing to non-union subcontractors. 

Its search for workers unable to unionize or 

demand decent wages took it to two divergent, 

yet strangely similar places: China and 

the Washington State Reformatory (WSR) 

in Monroe, Washington. 

In China, where Boeing sold ten percent 

of its planes between 1993 and 1995, 9 

the company operates at a fraction of its US 

costs. According to the Seattle Times, “Employees 

live mostly in or next to the factory 

premises. Workers receive a salary of about 

$50 a month. They are forbidden to form 

independent trade unions. For those who 

step out of line on the shop floors in China, 

there is the notorious Lao Gai ‘reeducation 

through labor’ prison work camps.” 10 

The Seattle Times could have written 

almost the same story by traveling 25 miles 

to the Washington State Reformatory where 

MicroJet employs prison labor to make aircraft 

components. 11 Among the recently 

formed company’s customers is Boeing. 

MicroJet lists its address as the same address 

as the prison and currently employs 

eight prisoners. They train at minimum wage 

and (unlike those pesky machinists at 

Boeing’s Everett plant who earn up to $30 

an hour for the same work) eventually 

progress to $7 an hour. 12 Like all companies 

employing prison labor, MicroJet also saves 

by not paying benefits such as health insurance, 

unemployment, workers’ compensation, 

etc. Even if a prisoner worker is seriously 

injured, the prison (i.e., taxpayers) 

picks up the tab. 

Prison industries also enjoy subsidized 

overhead. MicroJet’s rent-free factory is in a 

56,000 square foot industrial building built 

and maintained by Washington state. 13 The 

arrangement offers a “just-in-time” inventory 

of labor: Prisoner workers can be simply left 

in their cells for weeks on end if there is no 

work, then be called in on short notice. Outside 

competitors, on the other hand, have to 

pay overhead and workers even if no production 

is taking place and have to maintain a 

steady production line even when demand 

drops. Further, any attempt at labor organizing 

in prison meets immediate and harsh repression 

which generates even less negative 

publicity than similar moves in China. 

Not a bad deal; not for MicroJet anyway. 

Nor for the other private employers at 

the Washington reformatory including Redwood 

Outdoors, a garment-making sweatshop 

that makes clothes for Eddie Bauer, 

Kelly Hanson, Planet Hollywood, Union 

Bay, and other brands; Elliot Bay, a metals 

manufacturing company that makes crab pots 

and fishing industry equipment: A&I Manufacturing, 

which makes blinds: and Washington 

Marketing Group, a telemarketing 

company that’s been used to campaign for 

Republican congressional candidates among 

others. 

With these competitive advantages, 

prison industries can easily underbid any US 

competitor. The real losers, are the free workers, 

machinists in particular, whose jobs have 

gone to prisoner slave laborers or Chinese 

workers. 

Wage slave or chattel? 

In prison, the term “wage slavery” takes 

on a new meaning since prisoners are confined 

to their cells for much of the day. An 

industry job “consumes virtually all of your 

out-of-cell time,” said Chris St. Pierre, who 

is serving a life sentence at WSR, “making 

you a virtual slave where all your time is 

spent at work or locked in your cell. This 

limits your ability to visit with your family 

and attorneys, do legal research, go to school, 

exercise, etc.” 

But while a $7 an hour wage clearly 

puts prison workers at a competitive advantage, 

it does not at first seem to exploit 

them. In fact, prisoners hired by MicroJet 

take home only a small fraction of their earnings. 

Right off the top, the state takes 20% 

for “cost of corrections”; 10% goes into a 

mandatory savings fund controlled by the 

Department of Corrections (DOC); and 5% 

to a crime victim compensation fund (that’s 


actually used to fund DOC victim notification 

and awareness programs). l5 In addition, 

the prisoner pays state and federal taxes, 

social security, and up to 20 percent more to 

pay off any victim restitution, child support, 

trial costs, and other court ordered financial 

obligations. 16 After Albert Delp works 40 

hours a week for Omega Pacific at $6 an 

hour his gross weekly pay is $240. After 

three quarters of that is eaten up by deductions, 

he takes “home” $60. 17 

“It’s not really slave labor because that 

implies it is compelled,” argues a former Redwood 

Industries employee “It’s more like 

serfdom, [or being] a domesticated animal.” 19 

Even so, few prisoners are willing to 

speak publicly against the program for fear 

of losing their industry jobs, being blacklisted 

by prison industry employers, or incurring 

retaliation from prison officials. In 

any case, most of Washington state’s 12,800 

prisoners would probably say they support 

prison industries, regardless of any objective 

exploitation. Just like on the outside, 

people in prison work at jobs they dislike 

because they need the money and there are 

long waiting lists for the 300 industry jobs 

available. 

Their situation is similar to that of sweatshop 

and maquiladora workers in South Asia 

and Latin America who earn a few dollars a 

day. Such wages are exploitative and paltry 

by First World standards, but in the Third 

World they make the difference between starvation 

and mere poverty and are thus highly 

desired. 

Prison industries represent a Third 

World labor market in the heart of America. 

While $1.50 an hour take-home pay for work 

that brings $30 an hour on the outside may 

not seem like much, it looks pretty good 

against the 38 to 42 cents an hour Washington 

convicts earn in prison kitchens, laundries, 

janitorial services, etc. Like the 

maquiladora workers of Mexico, the prisoners 

are objectively exploited but subjectively 

paid quite well. In prison as in Mexico, this 

disparity creates a relatively “wealthy” class 

of prisoners; a miniature labor aristocracy. 

Prisoners also look to these industries 

for training that will make them more employable 

on the outside. “Elliot Bay is the 

best program in the joint,” said one prisoner, 

since it allowed him to hone his welding 

skills in preparation for a job after he serves 

his remaining seven years. When reminded 

that companies like Elliot Bay drive down 

wages and take jobs out of society, he was 

blunt: “F k society, they locked me up.” 

According to a prisoner named St. 

Pierre (who worked at both Redwood Outdoors 

making clothes as well as the prison’s 

print shop): “I worked in prison industries 

for several years to earn enough money to 

hire an attorney and challenge my conviction 

and sentence . . . . I learned good skills working 

in the prison print shop – but because of 

my sentence there’s no way to tell if I’ll be 

able to get out and use them.” 

His situation is not unusual. Prison industries 

prefer to hire people serving life 

terms to avoid the retraining and slow production 

associated with worker/prisoner turnover. 

23 Dr. Morgan 0. Reynolds tacitly admits 

that industry favors prisoners with 

longer terms, but explains it this way: “One 

of the difficulties of creating jobs for prisoners 

is that many of them are illiterate or semiliterate, 

or have low IQs . . . . The federal 

system may have the best prospects for high 

rates of payback because many of the prisoners 

are there for crimes typically committed 

by more intelligent criminals like counterfeiting, 

kidnapping and drug smuggling.” 24 

These are also crimes that (coincidentally) 

tend to carry longer sentences. 

However, this pattern of employing 

lifers and long-termers challenges the claim 

that such programs are intended to provide 

meaningful “free world” job skills. (Why 

teach free-world trades to prisoners who will 

never get out of prison?) Also debatable is 

whether the skills are marketable on the outside. 

How many ex-prisoners will find work 

sewing garments in a free world sweatshop? 

Most of those jobs go overseas; those that 

stay in the US are often filled by undocumented 

immigrants and, increasingly, by prisoners. 

Ironically, skilled labor jobs within 

prisons (such as those for MicroJet and Elliot 

Bay) help ensure that such jobs become 

scarcer on the outside and the free world 

wages are forced downward. 

Indeed, the interests of labor and most 

taxpayers may be ill-served by these programs. 

In touting the “revolutionary” impact 

of changing the system so that half of all 

prisoners could be employed by private industry, 

ex-Attorney General Meese cited the 

example of Lockhart Correctional Facility in 

Texas where the 180 prisoners who assemble 

circuit boards for Lockhart Technologies are 

paid minimum wage. 25 In fact, they actually 

take home about $.50 an hour. Meese’s ex- 

ample is indeed illustrative – not how the 

system works – but how it fails: 

In 1993, Lockhart Technologies closed 

its Austin, Texas plant where it paid about 

130 workers $10 an hour to assemble circuit 

boards and moved the whole manufacturing 

operation into the prison about 30 miles 

away. 26 Even if prisoners were paid minimum 

wage (as Meese claims), Lockhart essentially 

cut its labor costs by more than half 

and it now pays just $1 a year in rent. Meese 

says that this type of operation will reduce 

the “cost of incarceration,” but says nothing 

about the social cost of driving down “free 

world” wages and employment. 

Omega Pacific manufactures rock 

climbing equipment and is another runaway 

corporation that scampered behind bars rather 

than move to Mexico or Indonesia. In December 

1995, the Redmond, Washington 

company laid off 30 workers earning $7 an 

hour plus benefits and moved to the Airway 

Heights Corrections Center near Spokane. 

There, five free employees supervise some 

40 prisoners who earn $6 an hour. Omega 

Pacific owner Bert Atwater told the Spokane 

Spokesman Review that he moved to prison 

because of the rent-free quarters where “the 

workers are delighted with the pay; [where 

there are] no workers who don’t come in 

because of rush hour traffic or sick children 

at home; [and] workers . . . don’t take vacations.” 

Atwater was also pleased that he 

doesn’t “have to deal with employee benefits 

or workers’ compensation.” 27 

“Outside” welfare 

moves “inside” 

Others see the program as a sophisticated 

and palatable form of corporate welfare. 

The program is attractive not only to 

industry looking for a good deal, but to state 

governments and penal authorities overburdened 

by the highest per capita incarceration 

rate in the world. As the number of convicts 

explodes, so do the costs. 

“Since 1980, the state and federal prison 

population has increased from 316,000 to 

1.1 million,” said Dr. Reynolds. “By the year 

2002, the inmate population is expected to 

increase by another 43 percent . . . The expense 

has reached about $25 billion a year, 

or $250 a year for every household in 

America. One of the most obvious proposals 

to reduce the cost of criminal justice is to 

increase the amount of productive work by 

prisoners.” 30 


Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) proposed 

that federal prisoners pay 50 percent of their 

annual support through prison work. 31 Knut 

Rostad predicts that, “Up to 60 to 80 percent 

[of wages paid prisoners in private industries 

programs] can end up going back to the state.” 32 

So far, that scenario seems largely hype. 

For example, in 1995, the Washington state 

legislature appropriated over $19 million to 

the DOC’s prison industries for the 1995-97 

biennium – $9.5 million a year to pay prison 

staff salaries and benefits to ensure that 300 

prisoners are employed at minimum wage 

jobs. 33 In essence, the state spends more than 

$30,000 a year to ensure each prisoner earning 

$5-7 an hour repays 20% of their wages 

back in the form of a “cost of corrections” 

deduction. But for the state to recover its 

$30,000 costs by collecting at 20% of the prisoners’ 

wages, prisoners would have to work 

full time for at least $60 per hour – not $5-6. 

Further, the DOC’s prison industries 

budget does not include salaries for additional 

guards for the prisoner workers nor 

capital construction costs, such as the $5 

million spent by the DOC to house 

MicroJet. 34 In addition to the direct expense 

to taxpayers, the loss of jobs in the free world 

community means a declining income tax 

base – plus the loss of property taxes which 

corporations like MicroJet would pay if they 

were not housed in prisons. 

Our tax dollars at work 

Prisoners can and should be given the 

right to perform meaningful work for decent 

wages and the opportunity to gain job skills 

and earn money. A sane program that would 

serve both society’s and prisoners’ interests 

would require that: 

prisoners keep the wages they 

earn, subject to the same deductions as any 

other citizen; 

prisoners be paid the same wages 

as free world workers in comparable industries; 

prisoners learn job skills that 

would help them get decent jobs on release; 

products be labeled to indicate that 

prison labor was used; and, 

prisoners be allowed to live up to 

their financial responsibilities to their families 

on the outside before corporations on 

the inside. 

Such a program would pay off in lower 

recidivism without driving down wages on 

the outside. 

The right-wing drive to make prisons 

pay – while racking up a nice profit for private 

corporations – fits well with the continuing 

transformation of America into a nation 

of small government, big corporations, and 

big prisons. And just like the welfare bill, it 

gives the public the false sense that meaningful 

reform is taking place. Meanwhile it 

takes pressure off a system which cannot 

provide enough decent jobs and uses incarceration 

as a remedy for poverty, unemployment, 

poor education, and racism. If your 

job in manufacturing, garment or furniture 

fabrication, telemarketing or packaging has 

disappeared, don’t look for it overseas – perhaps 

it was merely “exported” to an American 

prison. 

This article is reprinted with permission 

from Prison Legal News, 2400 

N.W. 80th St #148, Seattle, Wash. 98117 

– an excellent monthly publication 

available for $20 per year. 

1 Jeff Nesmith, “Prison Job Expansion 

Stirs Concern,” Atlanta Journal and 

Constitution, Sept.18, 1996, p. A7. 

2 Knut A. Rostad, president of the 

Enterprise Prison Institute, testimony before 

the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee 

on Crime, Sept.18, 1996. 

3 Nesmith, op. cit. 

4 Rostad, op. Cit. The figure of 25 

states comes from Joyce Price, “License 

Plates Not All That Inmates Make,” 

Washington Times, April 17, 1996, p. A6. 

5 Dr. Morgan 0. Reynolds, Ph.D. “The 

Economics of Prison Industries,” testimony 

before House Judiciary Committee Crime 

Committee on the Economies of Prison 

Industries, Sept.18, 1996. 

6 Edwin Meese, “Let Prison Inmates 

Earn Their Keep.” Wall Street Journal, May 

1, 1996. 

7 Ibid In fact, neither the Civil Rights 

of Institutionalized Persons Act nor the 

habeas corpus provision has anything to do 

with the issue of prison labor litigation. 

8 Boeing’s 1995 profits rose 66 

percent to $856 million with sales of almost 

$20 billion. At $1.66 million a year, 

Boeing’s Frank Schrontz was the state’s 

highest CEO. Meanwhile from 1989-95 the 

number of workers fell from 107,000 to 

95,000. (Byron Acohido, “Top 5 Revenue 

Generators Hold Onto Their Rankings,” 

Seattle Times, June 11, 1996, p. G5.) This 

trend continues as Boeing announced its 

proposed merger with McDonnell Douglas 

in December, 1996. According to The 

New Federalist (12/14/98), Boeing 

announced that it will lay off an additional 

38,000 workers in 1999 and 10,000 in 

2000. 9 Ken Silverstein, “The New China 

Hands,” The Nation, Feb.17, 1997, p.12. 

10 Stanley Holmes, Produce a Faulty 

Part, Be Punished,” Seattle Times, May 26, 

1996, p. A15. 

11 They utilize a relatively modern 

technology that forces water through small 

nozzles at 55,000 pound per square inch to 

precision cut metals, plastics, ceramics and 

other materials. (MicroJet promotional 

materials.) 

12 MicroJet hiring application. 

13 Dan Pens, “Microsoft Out-Cells 

Competition,” Prison Legal News, April, 

1996, p.3. 

15 Revised Code of Washington, 

72.09.111(1)(a). 

16 Revised Cede of Washington, 

72.111. 

17 Tom Sowa, “Paycheck Deductions 

Make Inmates Hone Subtraction Skills,” 

Spokesman Review, Feb.22, 1996, p. Al. 

19 Interview with former industry 

worker, Sept.1996. 

23 Although there are no national 

figures available, at WSR, of the 8 MicroJet 

workers 4 are lifers; as are 12 of the 15 who 

work for Redwood. 

24 Reynolds, op. Cit. 

25 Ibid. [Edwin Meese, “Let Prison 

Inmates Earn Their Keep,” Wall Street 

Journal, May 1, 1996.] 

26 “Forced Workforce,” Dollars and 

Sense, July/Aug. 1995, p.4. 

27 Tom Sowa, “Companies Find Home 

Inside State Prisons,” and “Paycheck 

Deductions Make Inmates Home Subtraction 

Skills,” Spokesman Review, Feb.22, 

1996, p. Al. 

30 Interview, Oct. 4, 1996. 

31 David Frum, “Working for the 

Man,” The American Spectator, August 

1995, p.48. 

32 Reynolds, supra 

33 1995-97 State Budget Appropriation, 

Washington state legislature. 

34 Dan Pens “Microsoft Outsells the 

Competition, Prison Legal News, April 

1996, p.1E 

This article is not presented to advocate 

“prisoner rights” or “kinder, 

gentler prisons”. It’s purpose is to make 

folks see that what happens to prisoners 

“inside” directly impacts the lives 

of Americans “outside”. So long as the 

fate of prisoners is believed separate 

from our own, “free” Americans can easily 

vote to “Git those convicts! Make 


‘em pay! Better yet – make ‘em suffer!!” 

And so, forced prison labor (slavery) 

increases. 

But not all of life turns on vengeance. 

There’s also reason and rational 

self-interest. And reason indicates 

that folks on the “outside” are not truly 

separate from the prisoners on the “inside”. 

What we allow to happen to our 

prisoners, will launch a chain of events 

that may cause something similar to 

happen to us. 

What happens when your neighbor 

(the aircraft machinist) loses his 

$30/hr job? His standard of living will 

probably fall by at least half. He may 

slide into depression, alcoholism, 

drugs, domestic violence, or even suicide. 

Government studies indicate 75% 

of all divorces are caused by financial 

stress, so his wife may divorce him. 

Government studies also indicate that 

over half of all fathers lose complete 

contact with their kids within two years 

after a divorce. Therefore, your unemployed 

neighbor’s children are more 

likely to grow up fatherless, illiterate, 

impoverished, and more inclined to 

self-destructive, violent, or criminal behavior. 

And they’re already in your 

neighborhood. Should you really be 

surprised if your unemployed 

neighbor’s teenage son breaks into 

your garage and steals your tools or 

shares a venereal disease with your 

teenage daughter? All of this can flow 

from your own gleeful determination 

to “git tuff” and turn a blind eye to slavery 

in American prisons. 

This causal chain of events is not 

farfetched. Our newspapers routinely 

report that economic conditions in Indonesia 

or China can have a significant 

impact on our own standard of living. 

If we can see the “ripple effect” of 

Jakarta’s economy on our own, there’s 

little doubt that a similar “ripple effect” 

can also emanate from our prisons. We 

live in a society that’s so highly integrated 

and interdependent, that even 

economic policies in seemingly remote 

prisons can cause a cascade of 

consequences that flow right into your 

own backyard. 

Forced prison labor can trash the 

lives of employers as well as employees. 

Sooner or later, the economic pressures 

of cheap prison labor will force 

free market employers to either close 

their businesses, move overseas, or 

hire prison labor. If a desk manufacturer 

quits due to competition from 

cheap prison labor, what will happen 

to the other businesses that supplied 

the sheet metal for his desks, order 

forms for his customers, and computers 

for his office staff? Won’t those businesses 

also be indirectly diminished 

by forced prison labor? What will happen 

to property values and tax revenues 

from the desk manufacturer’s 

plant that helped pay to educate your 

kids? And what about property values 

and tax revenues for the land adjacent 

to the abandoned desk factory? Isn’t 

all of this likely to decline? 

Further, if the prison machinist 

pays half his $7/hr income for his 

prison room and board – that only 

amounts to about $7,000 a year against 

the $20-$25,000 it costs to house each 

prisoner. That means the state (i.e., we 

taxpayers) is effectively subsidizing 

cheap prison laborers (and their corporate 

employers) to the tune of $13 - 

$18,000 per year per prison worker. As 

a result, many of the same poor blacks, 

browns and whites who once collected 

$500 a month in welfare on the “outside” 

will, on the “inside,” cost taxpayers 

two or three times that much in sub- 

sidies that help enrich their corporate 

employers while driving other free 

world businesses toward bankruptcy. 

(And you thought welfare was dead, 

hmm?) 

There’s no escape from the consequences 

of slave labor. America 

tried it once before and wound up with 

a Civil War and social consequences 

that afflict us still. The Nazi’s tried slavery 

and were not only defeated but 

watched their nation split in two. The 

Soviet Union tried slavery and perished. 

The Red Chinese use it and have 

not yet perished but deserve to – and 

even if they don’t, who wants to live in 

Red China? Forced prison labor (slavery) 

may temporarily boost corporate 

profits but, over the long run, is dangerous 

and self-destructive to all Americans. 

Do the corporate beneficiaries of 

prison labor care? No. Their only issues 

are quarterly profits and executive 

bonuses. Thus, they push to build 

more prisons and expand prison industries. 

But sooner or later, your slaves 

come home to roost. While the precise 

causal relationship between slavery, 

government oppression, and social collapse 

is unclear, there’s little doubt that 

where you see slaves, you’ll also see 

government oppression, poverty, political 

instability, violence, or even social 

collapse. 


Accounting For A 

Limited Liability World 

by Craig Fletcher 

Dr. W. Edwards Deming was a world 

famous quality control expert. His innovations 

and insights into the true nature 

of business efficiency are generally 

regarded as the foundation for the 

Japan’s economic “miracle” after WWII 

and its emergence as an economic superpower. 

In 1985, Craig Fletcher was introduced 

to Dr. Deming’s theories and realized 

that business efficiency was not 

merely a cold mechanical exercise in 

accounting and lifeless mathematics 

but a disciplined expression of the ethics 

and personal character. Good accounting 

doesn’t merely measure 

quantities of products or money; it measures 

an organization’s commitment to 

moral principles and truth. 

After all, what good is any accounting 

(including your own checkbook 

register) unless the numbers accurately 

reflect the truth? A checkbook 

register that indicates there’s $5,000 

in your bank account when there’s only 

$500, is arguably a lie that will inevitably 

cause trouble. Likewise, when a 

corporation “cooks the books” to show 

a false profit when it is actually suffering 

a loss, the primary problem is not 

mathematical but moral. Thus, good accountants 

must be more than colorless 

“bean counters” – they must be men of 

integrity committed to finding and reporting 

truth. 

Mr. Fletcher took these lessons to 

heart and applied them as Chief Financial 

Officer (CFO) for Avicom International 

Inc. (a subsidiary of the giant 

Lockheed Corporation which produces 

Trident II submarines and F-16 jet fighters). 

As Avicom’s CFO, Mr. Fletcher performance 

was ethical, dedicated and 

thorough. And that, of course, started 

all the trouble. 

In an October 21, 1994 press release 

entitled “Corporate America 

Against Honesty” Joe Kincaid explained: 

“Does the whistle-blower law have any 

real teeth in it? Mr. Craig W. Fletcher of Irvine, 

California doubts it. In 1989 Mr. Fletcher 

was discharged from his position as Chief 

Financial Officer for a Lockheed subsidiary 

(Avicom International) in Pasadena, California 

for doing nothing more than the job he 

was sent (by Lockheed senior management) 

to do. Lockheed senior management ignored 

Mr. Fletcher’s confidential reports of 

Avicom’s mismanagement and malfeasance, 

alerted Avicom to Fletcher’s confidential reports 

and thereby caused Mr. Fletcher to suffer 

two years of extreme harassment by 

Avicom management. 

Mr. Fletcher was ultimately forced out 

of his position through a series of management 

manipulations clearly sanctioned by 

senior members of Lockheed, all in order to 

cover up the problems at Avicom so it could 

be sold to some unsuspecting buyer at an 

inflated price. Lockheed’s 1990 sale of 

Avicom to Hughes Aircraft sparked at least 

one shareholder lawsuit. [According to Mr. 

Fletcher, Avicom falsified its 1989 earning 

to show a nonexistent $1 million profit. This 

false profit created a false 30:1 price-to-earnings 

ratio used to sell Avicom to Hughes for 

a $30 million – at least twice its true value.] 

“Following the sale, the President and 

CEO of Avicom conspired with certain 

Lockheed senior executives to damage Mr. 

Fletcher’s credibility, suggest mental imbalance 

leading to incompetence, and (in concert 

with their law firm O’Melveny and Myers) 

pro-actively thwart Mr. Fletcher’s attempts at 

restitution through the judicial system. 

After five years, Mr. Fletcher’s claims 

of improper management, auditor complicity, 

and suspicions of insider trading can no 

longer be ignored by members of the investment 

community. Nor should his factual allegations 

continue to be concealed by the 

powerful presence of the O’Melveny & 

Myers’ law firm. 

“Perhaps it is time to question the policies 

and practices of Lockheed, a national defense 

giant, who would allow, let alone promote, this 

prolonged miscarriage of justice.” 

Or maybe not. Today, almost ten 

years since he was discharged from 

Avicom, Craig Fletcher struggles on in 


what he describes as a “fierce fight for 

truth silently raging between myself 

and Lockheed.” 

According to Mr. Fletcher: 

Over these ten years, 

Lockheed’s lawyers (O’Melveny 

& Myers) have ambushed truth and assassinated 

character to effectively “silence” my 

allegations. However, the silence itself is 

evidence of a desperate battle to conceal the 

truth. I believe the forces behind this battle 

represent “Absolute Power” in America – a 

“legal” tyranny controlled by corporations 

but financed by unsuspecting taxpayers. 

Lying, cheating, and stealing in the business, 

political, and legal arenas appears to be 

rampant today. Yet the public sees only the 

tips of the icebergs, and even the tips are 

bigger than we’d like to believe. Due to 

countless successful cover-ups, only insiders 

know the depth of the deception and 

breadth of denial, the true impact of wasteful 

and unethical practices regularly hidden from 

the public. 

And strangely, when an insider exposes 

corporate fraud, overt corruption will often 

escalate rather than diminish! At first, the 

idea that exposure might increase corruption 

seems absurd. But unfortunately, most 

“whistle blowers” typically report what they 

naively believe is evidence of a single act of 

corruption by a single corporate executive. 

They assume the corruption is an anomaly 

and report it to their superiors with an expectation 

of reward for vigilance. 

But too often, they learn that the corruption 

seen in one executive’s office actually 

reaches throughout the corporation’s 

upper echelons. As the whistle blower works 

ever harder to expose the corruption, increasingly 

powerful executives are threatened with 

exposure and drawn into the web of deceit – 

not to expose the corruption, but to hide it to 

protect themselves. The more the whistle 

blower works to expose the corruption, the 

more ruthlessly the corrupt executives fight 

to resist that exposure and discredit or destroy 

the whistle blower. 

Worse, to protect themselves, a handful 

of corrupt executives will bribe and recruit 

other (formerly innocent) executives to support 

their conspiracy. Thus, by exposing a 

few, the number of active participants in the 

conspiracy may actually tend to increase. 

The whistle blower begins believing 

he’s one of the corporation’s many “good 

guys” who’ll be rewarded for exposing the 

single “bad guy”. But over time, the 

whistleblower becomes disoriented and finally 

horrified as he slowly realizes that he 

may the only “good guy” facing a “bad guy” 

who enjoys the comfort and support of a 

growing number of powerful, prospering 

members of a corporate “secret society”. 

If the whistleblower persists, attorneys 

are finally unleashed (in my case, O’Melveny 

& Myers, the 10th biggest law firm in 

America). Once the attorneys appear, visibility 

for the “whole truth” rapidly diminishes. 

Why? Because lawyers are paid to 

fragment truth, and then “legally” bury whatever 

fragments weaken their client’s position. 

Their intent is to obfuscate, not clarify. 

In 1996, during my wrongful discharge 

suit against Lockheed (Fletcher v. Avicom 

Int’L, Inc., Lockheed Corporation, R. A. 

Bertagna, & Does 1-100 inclusive) , my 

complete case file simply “disappeared” from 

the California 2nd District Court of Appeals. 

An investigation was initiated but California 

Attorney General Daniel Lungren (also a 

candidate for Governor running on an “anticrime” 

platform) declined to pursue it, despite 

my repeated letters and pleas. 

The driving force behind 

corporate corruption is greed. 

Unfortunately, greed is a natural human tendency 

that can’t be eliminated from most individuals 

who achieve positions of authority. 

Therefore, we try to minimize each other’s 

willingness to engage in greedy behavior by 

establishing systems of accountability. The 

underlying principle is simple: If we know 

we’re accountable (likely to be caught and 

punished) our sense of self-preservation will 

usually overcome our sense of greed. 

Unfortunately, corporations pose an intractable 

problem since they are created for 

the primary purpose of achieving limited personal 

liability for their shareholders and executives. 

Limited liability necessarily compromises 

or even eliminates “accountability” 

and thereby encourages unethical or criminal 

behavior. 

Thus, the corporate essence (limited 

personal liability) predisposes every corporation 

to “institutionalize” inefficiencies, 

waste, unethical conduct and even corruption. 

Think not? In all of history, show me 

a nation, civilization, religion, race, political 

party or even cadre of corporate executives 

that – given the privilege of limited personal 

liability – did not finally succumb to the temptation 

to abuse their unaccountable power 

for personal gain. 

Further, if Dr. Deming’s principles are 

correct and efficiency is ultimately an expression 

ethics, integrity and character–it 

follows that highly efficient organizations 

necessarily offer little opportunity for corruption. 

After all, by definition, a highly 

efficient firm simply doesn’t have any unaccountable 

resources or unused capital that 

can be easily exploited or stolen. Since all 

the resources in an efficient organization are 

fully dedicated to achieving the organization’s 

goals, no resource can be easily exploited or 

stolen from the “stream of production” without 

instantly impeding the organization’s productivity 

and alerting others to the theft. 

But if efficiency precludes 

corruption, it follows that those 

organizations that are most inefficient and 

unaccountable should also be most susceptible 

to corruption. 

Consider the corporations that are 

closely associated with government – especially 

those that comprise our “defense industries” 

(the “military-industrial complex” 

President Eisenhower warned against). 

How many times have you heard of “costoverruns” 

within the defense industry? How 

‘bout projects that were originally scheduled 

for completion in 1995 but weren’t finished 

until years later? Isn’t this evidence of inefficiency? 

Defense industries justify these cost 

overruns and scheduling failures as the inevitable 

consequence of dealing with new, 

untested technologies. Undoubtedly, that 

justification makes some sense. But once 

inefficiency becomes “justifiable,” it soon 

becomes acceptable, unremarkable, and finally 

expected. Result? Who really believes 

that any major corporation’s bid to produce 

a national defense product truly reflects anticipated 

costs? No one. Corporations that 

bid to produce a particular part or jet fighter 

routinely bid far below what they know will 

be the real costs of production. Given the 

accepted excuse of inefficiency, these corporations 

know that once the contract is signed 

and the production line established, government 

will send as much money as it can print 

for as many years as the product remains 

politically viable. Thus, once tolerated, even 

“legitimate” inefficiencies attract and foster 


the kind of institutionalized exploitation (and 

then corruption) that contracts to build fighter 

planes for $5 million each and delivers them 

for $20 million – and provide $600 toilet 

seats, $150 hammers and $20 screws as replacement 

parts. 

Further, despite their limited liability, 

conventional corporations sell products directly 

to the consumers who pay for them 

with their own money and therefore closely 

examine the price. As a result, most corporations 

are subject to a kind of “consumerprice” 

accountability (if they overcharge for 

their products, their sales will probably decline). 

But when Lockheed builds a jet 

fighter, who really examines the price? Since 

government (which has a nearly unlimited 

source of unearned income) pays the bill, the 

price-accountability that’s imposed on most 

corporations is often missing. Who knows 

or cares whether a jet plane costs $5 million 

or $20 million? Who squawks if an aerospace 

giant doubles the previously agreedon 

price? Virtually no one. Thus, another 

form of accountability is badly diminished 

for corporations doing business with government. 

(In 1997, Lockheed-Martin did 

66% of it’s $28 billion business with U.S. 

government, 17% with foreign governments 

and 17% with the “free market”.) 

If the correlation between unaccountability 

and corruption holds true, it follows 

that defense industry corporations should be 

particularly prone to corruption since they 

not only enjoy the usual corporate shield of 

“limited liability” but also the added political 

shield of “national security”. (The most extreme 

example of the relationship between inefficiency 

and corruption should be any 

nation’s intelligence service where virtually 

no one knows how much money is being 

collected, where it’s spent or why. If accountability 

is nearly zero, corruption should be 

enormous.) 

Any lack of accountability 

is essentially a lack of truth. Any 

absence of truth is an invitation to lies and all 

the inefficiency and temptations for executives 

to exploit their office for personal gain. 

Because the corporate structure is designed 

to limit liability (accountability), corporations 

are naturally prone to corruption. And the 

bigger they are, the more corrupt they’re 

likely to be. 

Are our defense industry corporations 

corrupt? Of course. Despite all the patriotic 

propaganda to the contrary, how else could it 

be? If this opinion seems cynical or extreme, 

read the newspapers or, better yet, the internet 

to learn how American corporations – aided 

by our own government – have graduated 

from selling $600 toilet seats to the Pentagon 

to selling top-secret nuclear missile technology 

to Red China. Are those corporations 

corrupt? Of course. This isn’t an indictment; 

it’s an observation of inevitable human behavior. 

Temptation without penalty (truthful 

accounting and personal liability) is virtually 

irresistible. We have allowed corporations 

the privilege of unaccountable behavior. Of 

course they’re inefficient, self-serving, corrupt 

and now even treasonous. 

Over the ten years of researching 

and prosecuting my 

case against Lockheed, I have learned: 

1. In 1993 four top aerospace executives 

(Dan Tellep of Lockheed Corporation, 

Norman Augustine of Martin Marietta, 

Bernie Schwartz of Loral Inc., and C. Michael 

Armstrong of Hughes Aircraft) sent a letter 

to the federal government outlining their intent 

to merge two or more of their already 

huge defense companies. 

2. Their merger plan was ardently supported 

by three high ranking government 

officials who had previously served as consultants, 

Board members and even Director 

for Lockheed – Warren Christopher (former 

Secretary of State (92-96), senior partner for 

O’Melveny & Myers law firm), John Deutch 

(Director of CIA) and William Perry (Secretary 

of Defense). 

3. These giant aerospace defense companies 

mergers were not only approved by government, 

but funded with billion dollar subsidies 

paid by taxpayers. 

4. After Lockheed successfully 

merged with Martin Marietta in 1994-1995, 

approximately 450 top executives from the 

newly formed “Lockheed Martin” corporation 

tried to “skim” over $100 million in “bonuses” 

from the merger subsidies to enrich 

themselves at taxpayer expense. 

5. In 1995-1996, the Lockheed Martin 

Corporation quietly acquired most of Loral 

(the corporation recently implicated in the 

release of top secret ICBM guidance technology 

to Red China). 

6. The Federal government still seeks 

to close more military bases in order to free 

up future appropriation$ to pay more of your 

tax monies to the giant, newly merged, mis- 

managed, defense companies for “improved” 

hardware for our “defense.” 

7. According to “The Case for Impeachment” 

by the Office of Legal Counsel of the 

Center for American Values: 

In 1994, the Clinton administration 

gave Top Secret clearance to John 

Huang while he was still a top executive at 

The Lippo Group – an Indonesian conglomerate 

tied to Red Chinese intelligence. The 

usual extensive background investigation 

was waived for Mr. Huang due to “the critical 

need for his expertise in the new administration 

of (Commerce) Secretary (Ron) 

Brown” (who was later killed in a mysterious 

airplane crash in Europe). 

Clinton appointed Huang as 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for International 

Economic Policy at the U.S. Dept. 

of Commerce. The Lippo Group gave Huang 

a $780,000 bonus when he left Lippo to take 

his position at Commercet. The Commerce 

Department reported that as Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, Huang received 109 CIA intelligence 

briefings on Top Secret information 

concerning Red China, fifteen classified 

field reports and twelve finished intelligence 

reports. While he was receiving this intelligence, 

phone records show that Huang made 

more than 70 phone calls to a Lippo-controlled 

bank in Los Angeles, received calls 

from Chinese embassy officials, and privately 

visited official at the Indonesian embassy. 

In December, 1995, President 

Clinton instructed Huang to resign from the 

Dept. of Commerce to work as a fund-raiser 

for Clinton’s 1996 reelection campaign. Although 

Huang worked for the Democratic 

National Committee (DNC) through 1996 

and was not a government employee, he retained 

his Top Secret clearance. During his 

tenure with the DNC, Huang raised $5 million 

for Clinton and the DNC. The Lippo 

Group gave $475,000. Red China’s Army 

was another substantial DNC contributor. 

In late 1996, when Huang’s 

background and activities came to light, he 

refused to cooperate with congressional investigators 

and fled the country. President 

Clinton also refused to comply with congressional 

subpoenas exploring these issues. 

8. President Clinton has given Most Favored 

Nations trading status, the former naval 

base at Long Beach California and topsecret 

nuclear missile guidance technology 

to Communist China – a country that uses 

tanks on its own people and has previously 


threatened to launch nuclear weapons at 

America’s west coast. 

9. The transfer of missile guidance technology 

to Red China was achieved through 

the Loral Corporation – one of the four aerospace 

mega-corporations mentioned in Item 

# 1 whose mergers involved former 

Lockheed executives Secretary of State Warren 

Christopher, CIA Director John Deutch, 

and Secretary of Defense William Perry. 

10. Former Secretary of State Warren 

Christopher is not only a former Director of 

Lockheed; he is also a senior partner of 

O’Melveny & Myers – the tenth largest 

American law firm. O’Melveny & Myers’ 

letterhead indicate that they are a multinational 

law firm with offices in: London, England; 

New York city; Washington D.C.; Los 

Angeles, Newport Beach, and San Francisco, 

California; Tokyo, Japan; and Hong 

Kong. Note that five of their eight primary 

offices are located on the Pacific Rim and 

thus imply that much of O’Melveny & 

Myers’ business deals with Asia. 

11. Secretary of State Christopher’s 

Hong Kong law office is listed as “1104 Lippo 

Tower, Lippo Centre, 89 Queensway, Central, 

Hong Kong.” Note that “The Lippo 

Group” is the massive Indonesian conglomerate 

with offices throughout Asia, including 

Hong Kong that contributed ($475,000) to 

President Clinton’s 1996 reelection. 

In the previous list, note 

the number of former Lockheed executives 

who’ve also achieved extraordinary 

power within our federal government as 

heads of State, Defense and the CIA. Can a 

single corporation spawn so many powerful 

government officials by random accident? 

Of course not. Clearly, a “special” relationship 

exists between Lockheed-Martin, our 

federal government and foreign governments 

as well. While this special relationship may 

serve the interests of multinational corporations 

and several governments, it can only 

be dangerous to the American people. 

Note also the relationships between 

American defense corporations, our federal 

government, the CIA, a multinational law firm, 

and foreign governments including Communist 

Red China. 

Can these complex “relationships” exist 

without limited personal liability, unaccountable 

inefficiency, corruption and even 

treason? And what should we call this “conglomerate” 

of multinational corporations, law 

firms, intelligence agencies and governments? 

Welcome to the “New World Order”. 

Note that a (perhaps the) fundamental building 

block of this “New World” is limited 

liability corporations. 

I 

’m convinced the flip-side 

of all freedom is personal responsibility 

(those who would be free must also be 

responsible). If so, can freedom survive in 

an age of “limited liability” and minimal accountability? 

Or does it necessarily follow 

that those who use corporate privileges to 

evade their personal liabilities must also surrender 

their freedom? I suspect that any form 

of limited liability is dangerous to freedom, 

and I believe Dr. Deming might agree. I also 

believe the time has come to escape the easy 

embrace of corporations and thereby reestablish 

personal responsibility, productive efficiency 

and national morality. 


Legal Firearms for 

Prohibited Persons 

by Mike Crooker 

Although private individuals may 

prepare a fledgling corporation’s Articles 

of Incorporation, no corporation 

is “born” until approved by the government. 

As such, governments are 

the true “creators” of corporations and 

corporations are therefore absolutely 

subject to their government-creators’s 

rules and regulations. 

Conversely, as “creatures (creations) 

of the state,” corporations (not 

people) are government’s true “children” 

and natural beneficiaries. Nevertheless, 

Washington does not find all 

corporate “children” equally delightful. 

Corporations that were extremely popular 

in one era may be condemned in 

another era as grotesquely politically 

incorrect. 

For example, government no 

longer holds corporate manufacturers 

of firearms in the same high esteem as 

when their guns “won the West”. In 

order to disarm Americans, government 

is simultaneously assaulting corporate 

firearm manufacturers and the customers 

seeking to buy firearms. While 

some ostensibly private gun-control 

activists seek to sue gun manufacturers 

into poverty, the government itself 

is attempting to narrow the range of 

potential gun buyers by broadening 

the categories of persons legally prohibited 

from “possessing” guns. 

This next article illuminates an intriguing 

strategy being used by some 

gun rights activists to maintain 

America’s right to “keep and bear arms” 

– particularly for those who are otherwise 

“prohibited” from “possessing” 

firearms. However, note that I present 

this strategy only as an example of 

American independence, ingenuity 

and persistent resistance to excess 

government – not as legal advice. As 

with virtually all of this publication’s 

articles, do not attempt to implement 

any of the following recommendations 

without doing enough research to 

prove or disprove the validity of the 

article’s assertions or opinions. 

Unknown to most persons (except lawyers 

and those ATF victims incarcerated in 

Federal Prisons) it’s a federal crime for the 

following nine categories of persons to possess 

1 firearms: 

fugitives; 

mental defectives; 

illegal aliens; 

users of drugs or marijuana; 

those who have renounced their citizenship 

[which cititzenship?]; 

former military personnel with dishonorable 

discharges; 

persons subject to domestic restraining 

orders; and, 

persons convicted of misdemeanor 

domestic crimes of violence (threatening your 

wife 20 years ago can be enough); 

persons who have been convicted of 

a crime potentially punishable by more than 

a year in prison (a bad check conviction from 

40 years ago can suffice); 

Title 18 U.S. Code, Sections 922(g) and 

924(e) mandate up to 10 years imprisonment 

for any member of these nine classes of “prohibited 

persons” who “possess” firearms. 

For prohibited persons previously convicted 

three or more times for drug and certain other 

crimes, possession of a firearm can result in 

a mandatory 15 years to life imprisonment 

with no parole. Any person purchasing a 

modern handgun, rifle, or shotgun from a 

retailer must sign an ATF Form 4473 swearing 

that he is not in one of these nine categories. 

Lying on the form constitutes yet another 

federal crime. 

Under these federal firearms laws, a 

current 50-year old grandfather who’s lived 

as a model citizen for the past thirty years 


might sheepishly laugh about being convicted 

three times back in 1968 for selling 

small quantities of marijuana. However, this 

mature model citizen might be shocked to 

discover that, based on his three 30-year old 

convictions for selling pot, he is now prohibited 

from possessing firearms. If caught 

merely “possessing” a gun (even duck hunting) 

he can be classified as an “Armed Career 

Criminal” and subjected to the “enhanced 

penalty” of 15 years to life imprisonment. 

There are tens of millions of Americans 

that fit one of the nine prohibited categories. 

There are also over 10,000 “prohibited persons” 

in Federal Penitentiaries for illegal gun 

possession including over 2,000 with the enhanced 

15-to-life penalty. Horror stories 

abound and I know of two published decisions 

where persons were sentenced to 15plus 

years: a duck hunter caught with duck 

decoys and a shotgun; and a man caught with 

a Model 1908 Colt .25 caliber automatic pistol 

with no ammo, no clip, no grips, and the 

slide rusted closed. 

Obviously, there is a great need for 

Americans to understand this law, especially 

since Congress added those convicted of 

misdemeanor domestic crimes to the list of 

prohibited persons, and also removed the 

former exemption for military and law enforcement 

personnel. 

Antique firearm exception 

Federal law exempts antique firearms 

from all gun controls. 18 U.S. Code Section 

921(a)(16) defines antique firearms as all 

guns made prior to 1899, 2 muzzleloaders 

made anytime, and replicas of pre-1899 cartridge 

firing guns made anytime (provided 

such replica uses cartridges “not readily available 

in the ordinary channels of commercial 

trade”). However, under 26 U.S.C. 5861 

(IRS Code), all cartridge firing machineguns 

and short-barreled shotguns are illegal regardless 

of when they were made. 

Muzzleloaders (so-called “black powder 

guns” loaded from the end where the 

bullet exits) are legal, whether original, or 

replica, regardless of the date of manufacture. 

You can buy them by mail-order. The 

most practical antique guns for self defense 

are the so-called cap and ball revolvers originally 

made between 1840 and 1870 and used 

by Wyatt Earp and other gunslingers of the 

West. Numerous companies make and sell 

replicas of these six-shooters. Many can be 

had for $100 or slightly less. A good choice 

would be the .44 caliber Model 1860 Army. 

To use them you need powder, lead balls, 

wads, and percussion caps, all readily available 

in gun shops and sporting goods stores. 

Cartridge firing guns 

Between 1858 and 1898 millions of 

cartridge firing guns were made by gun 

manufacturers like Smith & Wesson (S&W), 

Colt, Iver Johnson, an Remington in calibers 

like .22, .32, .38, .44, .45 and dozens of 

others. Believe it or not, these original guns 

are not only so abundant that they can be 

purchased for $150 or less at virtually any 

American gun show – they are totally exempt 

from federal gun control regulations. 

At most gun shows you can find very workable 

.32 or .38 S&W revolvers, 12-gauge 

double barrel shotguns, a 7mm German 

Mauser bolt action military rifles, and many 

other firearms for less than $150 – all made 

prior to 1899 and legal for anyone (even “prohibited 

persons”) to possess. 

Ascertaining “antique” status 

If you want a gun exempt from AFT 

regulations, be certain that whatever gun you 

acquire is in fact an exempt antique. Shady 

gun show vendors sometimes sell shotguns 

they swear are “antiques”. Nevertheless, 

you may later discover a “1902” patent date 

stamped into the gun’s barrel which could 

subject you to serious problems should you 

be caught with it and the ATF find out. 

Making sure your new gun is in fact an 

“antique” may take research. A good book 

to have is Flayderman’s Guide to Antique 

American Firearms and their Values.3 In 

it’s Smith & Wesson section for example, it 

lists serial number runs along with manufacture 

dates. For example, any .32 caliber S&W 

Double Action First Model Revolver made 

in 1880 only had serial numbers from 1 to 

30. The “Second Model” made between 

1880 and 1882 had S/N’s 31-22172. The 

“Third Model” manufactured between 1882 

and 1883 had S/N’s 22173 to 43405. Therefore 

any S&W .32 Double Action Revolver 

with a S/N of 43405 or below is a legal antique 

as it was made between 1880 and 1883. 

Another example would be the Model 

1898 Krag U.S. Military .30 caliber bolt action 

magazine rifle made between 1898 and 

1903, S/N’s 110000 to 480000. According 

to Flayderman’s, S/N’s below 152670 are 

“considered antique under Federal Firearms 

law.” Some guns have the manufacture year 

stamped into the frames (i.e. Model 1895 

Mauser 7mm Military bolt-action magazine 

rifles). 

Other guns have no S/N’s at all and 

therefore require further research. For example, 

if you wanted to buy an apparent (but 

unconfirmed) “antique” firearm from a 

gunshop, you could always put down a $20 

deposit to hold a gun, and then send a complete 

description of the firearm to ATF’s Firearms 

Technology Branch 4 and ask for a free 

“classification decision”. If the ATF classifies 

the gun as “antique,” then buy it – if not, 

don’t. 

If you don’t want ATF knowing your 

business, for a fee you can get an antiquity 

decision from any number of antique firearms 

experts. For example, for $20, Smith 

& Wesson 5 will give you a letter stating the 

exact shipping date of any antique firearm 

made by them if you provide a description 

and serial number. 

Finally, if you buy a cartridge firing 

antique firearm by mail-order, you should 

feel secure that it really is a pre-1899 gun. 

Unlike fly-by-night gun show vendors, mailorder 

gun dealers are closely watched and 

know that any mail-order fraud will be quickly 

prosecuted by the ATF. 6 

Ammunition 

Ammunition can be a problem. The same 

statute [18 U.S. Code 922(g) and 924(e)] 

that outlaws prohibited persons from possessing 

modern guns also prohibits them 

from possessing ammunition for modern 

guns (a guy in New England just got 20 

years for possession of a single 9mm cartridge). 

The statute and the ATF’s implementing 

regulation (Title 27, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Section 178.11) defines ammunition 

as “ammunition or cartridge cases, 

primers, bullets or propellant powder designed 

for use in any firearm other than an 

antique firearm.” [Emph. add.] This is no 

problem for muzzleloaders. The ATF concedes 

that muzzleloader paraphernalia is without 

question designed for use in none other 

than antiques. But when it comes to ammunition 

cartridges, even obsolete ones, ATF 

legal counsel takes the absurd position (never 

upheld in any published court decision) that 

“designed for use” really means merely suitable 

for use or otherwise “usable” in a postl898 

gun subject to ATF controls. 7 

For example, the ATF has administratively 

ruled that .50 caliber Remington Army 


centerfire cartridges designed for use in antique 

Remington Rolling Block pistols is 

nevertheless “modern” ammunition because 

it is “shootable” in currently made Sharps 

replica rifles chambered for the .50-70 U.S. 

Military rifle cartridge. That position is ridiculous 

since pistol cartridges are not “designed 

for use” in rifles chambered for a different 

caliber cartridge. ATF ruled similarly 

for .32 and .38 S&W black-powder-loaded 

centerfire cartridges even though such custom-made 

cartridges are obviously designed 

for use in antiques only (this administrative 

ruling has not been tested in court). (Since 

modern revolvers made since 1899 that chamber 

these cartridges use “smokeless” powder 

rather than obsolete “black” powder, this 

writer believes that they may not constitute 

“ammunition” under the federal law definition.) 

With respect to current factory-made 

standard rounds loaded with “modern” 

smokeless (not “black”) powder such as .22 

rimfire, .32 S&W and .38 S&W centerfire, 

7mm Mauser, 12 gauge shotgun, 30-40 

Krag, etc. (all of which are designed to be 

used in both pre-1898 antique and post-l898 

guns of those calibers), the ATF classification 

as “modern” ammunition is probably 

correct. For example, the standard 30-40 

Krag centerfire ammunition currently manufactured 

by the big ammo makers is designed 

for use in all 30-40 Krag rifles – not just pre- 

1899 “antiques,” but also “modern” Krag 

rifles made between 1899 and 1903. 

Obsolete “rounds” (various sizes and 

weights of lead bullets actually fired) are a 

different story. DBI Books, Cartridges of 

the World lists, describes, and gives the history 

of hundreds of obsolete rounds. This 

author is currently asking the ATF to classify 

about 100 obsolete rounds as “antique 

ammunition”. Thus far the ATF has conceded 

that prohibited persons may possess 

.58 US Musket centerfire, .58 Carbine 

centerfire, and .43 Egyptian-Remington 

centerfire because their extensive research 

has not found any post-1898 guns or replicas 

that chamber these rounds. 8 

Incidentally, it took a lawsuit to force 

the ATF to concede in writing that the .43 

caliber Egyptian-Remington round was “antique” 

and the threat of a lawsuit to compel 

concession regarding the other two calibers. 

As for the rest of the obsolete calibers, it 

remains to be seen if the courts will publish 

True Story from California: 

A female newscaster is interviewing 

the leader of a youth club: 

“So, Mr. Jones, what will you do 

with these children on their adventure 

holiday?” 

“We’ll teach them climbing, canoeing, 

archery, shooting.” 

“Shooting? Isn’t that’s a bit irresponsible?” 

“I don’t see why, they’ll be properly 

supervised on the range.” 

“Don’t you admit this is a terribly 

dangerous activity to be teaching 

children?” 

“I don’t see how – we’ll be teaching 

them proper range discipline before 

they even touch a firearm.” 

“But you’re equipping them to 

become violent killers.” 

“Well, you’re equipped to be a 

prostitute but you aren’t one, are 

you?” 

(End of the interview.) 

a decision upholding ATF’s absurd “usability” 

interpretation of the phrase “designed 

for use.” It seems unlikely that a federal 

criminal trial jury would. 

Avoiding ammo problems 

The U.S. Constitution authorizes the 

federal government to prosecute only four 

crimes. However, the Constitution also contains 

the “commerce clause” (Art. 1, Sect. 8, 

Cl. 3) which allows Congress to “regulate 

commerce between the several states and 

Indian Territories.” Broadly construed by a 

corrupt Congress and U.S. Court System, 

the commerce clause has enabled the federal 

government to shove 10,000 federal criminal 

laws down our throats and expand the 

four federal crimes to include everything from 

pot possession to illegal campfires. 

An essential element of proof of the 

crime of unlawful possession of firearms or 

ammunition by prohibited persons is the interstate 

commerce requirement that the illegal 

possession was “in or affecting commerce.” 

This element could be proved by 

possession during an interstate road trip or 

even a ride on a common carrier such as a 

train, plane or bus. But 99% of the time ATF 

proves the commerce element by showing 

that the gun or ammunition moved interstate 

after its manufacture. The U.S. Supreme 

Court has upheld this flimsy concept so if 

the ATF can show that a modern gun made 

by Colt Industries in Connecticut was shipped 

to a dealer in Nebraska (even if that transport 

took place many years ago) and you get caught 

with it in 1998 in any state other than Connecticut 

(site of the gun’s manufacture), then 

the commerce element has been proved. 

Thus, one way for “prohibited persons” 

to legally circumvent federal gun law is to 

possess ammunition (or modern firearms for 

that matter) that have never moved interstate. 

For those who live in the same States as the 

big ammo makers (Winchester-Olin, 

Remington-Peters, Federal, Hansen, CCI, etc. 

) this is not a problem. For those that live in 

states without obvious manufacturers of guns 

or ammunition, there may still be solutions. 

First, you can order a list of all federallylicensed 

ammunition manufacturers in your 

state from the ATF’s Disclosure Branch for 

$25.00. 9 Commercial reloaders must also 

be licensed and are therefore on the ATF’s 

list of manufacturers. To minimize ATF regulation, 

you might acquire your ammunition 

from such an in-state source and be sure to 

never let it move in interstate commerce. 

Another way to minimize ATF regulation 

is to make your own ammunition. There 

are books on this subject such as Duncan 

Long’s Homemade Ammo and Ronald 

Brown’s Homemade Guns and Homemade 

Ammo. Homemade ammo that has never 

moved interstate does not violate federal law 

(unless possessed on a common carrier or 

during an interstate road trip). 10 Just don’t 

move your homemade ammo interstate or 

ATF fanatics might claim that you “designed 

them for use” in modern firearms even though 

you made them for and are using them in an 

antique shotgun. 

Watch your six 

Research and thoroughly understand 

your own state’s law before taking any action 

concerning antique guns or ammunition. 

Many states use federal firearm and ammunition 

definitions verbatim – but exclude antiques. 

Others even count BB-guns and marine 

distress flares as firearms. A call to your 

state’s Attorney General’s Office or local gun 

rights organization should clarify the situation. 

However, don’t call the police station 

as they’ll probably claim that just about anything 

remotely weapon-like is illegal. 

Under federal law you can have any 

muzzleloader and its ammunition. Under fed- 


eral law you can have any cartridge gun made 

before 1899 except machineguns or sawed 

off shotguns. However, ammunition for antique 

cartridge guns is a stickier problem. 

Remember, to violate federal law it must 

be a firearm or ammunition as defined in 

Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 921 and Title 

27 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 

178.11 plus the firearm and/or ammunition 

must have moved in interstate commerce. If 

it’s not a “firearm” (an excluded antique) or 

if it was homemade or came from an in-state 

source and never moved interstate, then you 

can confidently tell the ATF to go fly a kite. 

1 Editor’s comment: Note that this law 

applies to persons “possessing” (not 

“owning”) firearms. Readers of the 

AntiShyster’s “Trust Fever” series should 

recall that all trusts are primarily divided into 

two classes of persons (trustees and 

beneficiaries) and two classes of title to trust 

property (legal and equitable). Trustees 

own or manage the legal title to trust 

property; beneficiaries receive equitable title 

to use or possess trust property. The 

“law’s” persistent use of the term “possession” 

suggests that the “prohibited persons” 

may be “beneficiaries” of some underlying 

government trust. If so, anyone who was 

not a “beneficiary” of the underlying trust 

might not be subject to the trust’s “law” 

against “possessing” firearms. Again, we 

see a hint that government may be using 

trusts to enforce “trust regulations” as if 

they were true “laws”. 

2 Editor’s comment: If the regulations 

applying to “prohibited persons” are based 

on an underlying trust, the fact that pre- 

1898 firearms are not regulated indicates 

those guns are not trust property. This in 

turn implies that whatever trust regulates 

the “possession” of firearms may not have 

been created until 1898 or 1899. Therefore, 

if I were looking for evidence of that 

hypothetical, underlying trust, I’d start my 

search in the Federal government’s records 

of 1898 and 1899. 

3 Available in most gun shops or from 

DBI Books Inc., 4092 Commercial Ave., 

Northbrook, Ill. 60062. 

4 ATF Firearms Technology Branch, 

650 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, 

D.C. 20226 

5 Smith & Wesson, 2100 Roosevelt 

Ave., Springfield, MA 01102 

6 Some mail-order sources for antique 

guns are Dennis Fulmer Antique Firearms, 

P.O. Box 226, Detroit Lakes, MN 56502; 

N. Flayderman and Co., P.O. Box 2397, 

Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33303; and Dale C. 

Anderson, 4 W. Confederate Ave., 

Gettysburg, PA 17325. 

7 Editor’s comment: The fact that 

ATF legal counsel issued an absurd 

opinion presumably provides ATF officers 

with a “reliance” defense should they be 

charged with violating someone’s rights. 

That is, so long as ATF agents can say they 

acted in reliance on their attorneys’ advice, 

they can probably avoid personal liability 

for what might otherwise be clearly illegal 

acts. I wouldn’t be surprised if reliance on 

“legal counsel opinions” is a strategy 

commonly employed by a host of 

government enforcement agencies to shield 

their agents from liability for committing 

unconstitutional acts. Perhaps the solution 

to this problem is not to sue oppressive 

ATF agents, but to sue their lawyers (if 

possible) for knowingly providing 

negligent legal advice that led to illegal/ 

unconstitutional acts. The trick to 

establishing “knowledge” necessary to 

show the attorney (or any other government 

official) acted “willfully” and 

“maliciously” to encourage the violation of 

rights or other illegal acts, might be to 

provide administrative notices to those 

various legal counsel informing them of 

the mandates of the true law and Constitution 

as well as the lack of foundation for 

their positions, etc. Without administrative 

notice, any legal counsel can probably 

evade personal liability for their advice by 

merely pleading ignorance or mistake. 

However, if it can be proved a lawyer or 

government official had proper administrative 

notice of the law, and they nevertheless 

acted in defiance of that notice, that lawyer/ 

official may be subject to criminal 

prosecution for willfully aiding or 

encouraging an otherwise illegal scheme. 

8 The latter is used in Remington 

Rolling Block rifles available for $175 - 

$200 from Sarco, 323 Union St., Stirling, 

N.J. 07980; .43 ammo custom made from 

Buffalo Arms Co., 123 S. Third Ave., 

Sandpoint, ID 83864; other custom 

makers of obsolete ammunition are Second 

Amendment Corp., P.O. Box 224, Cortaro, 

AZ 85652 and Tom’s Brass and Bullet, 

P.O. Box 483, Lancaster, CA 93584). 

9 ATF Firearms Technology; Ibid 

10 Some people believe that you can 

make your own 12-guage shotgun shells. 

According to ATF Publication P5300.4, 

shotgun hulls (casings) without primers, 

lead shot, wads, black powder, and blanks 

are all excluded from the definition of 

ammunition or ammunition components. 

So if you were to take remove the primers 

from the appropriate blanks; install the 

primers into the primer-less shotgun hulls; 

load the resultant shotgun hulls with black 

powder, wad, and shot; and then seal the 

top with glue – Presto! – you’d’ve made 

your own shotgun shells from objects that 

ATF publications say aren’t even ammunition 

components. 


Separation of Church and State 

Silence of the Lambs 

After the Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew 

the Shah of Iran in 1979, the Shah 

remarked bitterly that his “big mistake 

was to stop bribing the Mullahs (Islamic 

priests).” As long as he bribed the 

Mullahs, they didn’t criticize the Shah 

or his regime from their “pulpit”. Result? 

The Iranian people continued to 

endure the Shah’s abuse as merely a 

“political” problem. But once the bribes 

stopped and the Mullahs started 

preaching against the Shah, the Iranian 

people began to see the Shah’s offenses 

as ungodly rather than political, 

and a spiritual fervor abruptly 

ended the Shah’s rule. 

The Shah’s experience is not 

unique. To some extent, the Roman 

Empire was toppled by the Christian 

faith. The American Revolution was 

inspired by the “Black Robed Brigade” 

of American ministers who preached 

fiery sermons against King George. So 

long as the Thirteen Colonies grumbled 

about “mere” politics, English sovereignty 

was secure. But once the 

colonials’ complaints assumed a spiritual 

foundation, the Revolution began 

in earnest and the days of English domination 

were numbered. 

Thanks to public education, mass 

media, and tepid Sunday sermons, virtually 

no one understands that all government 

power is ultimately based on 

the people’s spiritual consent. So long 

as their faith is undisturbed, the People 

will endure almost anything. However, 

every earthly government understands 

that the principle threat to its legitimacy 

and power is the people’s spirituality. 

A man who won’t complain about government 

torture, will fight tanks with 

his bare hands if he believes those 

tanks threaten his faith or his God. Governments 

know such men are dangerous. 

That’s why every major government 

in the world seeks to control their 

people’s spirituality. But such control 

is problematic since any effort to force 

people from one faith or to another, 

sows the wind. As a result, the most 

successful political strategy for dealing 

with the people’s potentially volatile 

spirituality is not to suppress their 

faith with force, but to seduce it, deceive 

it, and most of all lull it into a 

sense of drowsy complacency where 

even the spiritually aware have no 

sense of their true political power. 

Insofar as the first order of business 

for any government is to accommodate 

or control its people’s spirituality, 

all governments are arguably theocracies. 

It may be a tepid, apathetic, 

almost invisible theocracy that claims 

to be atheistic and is specifically designed 

to narcotize our spirituality – 

but it’s still a theocracy. 

The following quotes are excerpted 

from the Nov 30, 1998 Criminal 

Politics magazine and concern the 

conflict between modern churches 

and the IRS: 

The October 29,1998, 

New York Times has exposed the 

most vile attacks on Christian free speech! 

The Christian Coalition, run by Pat 

Robertson, attempted to distribute 45 million 

voter guides through both Catholic and 

Protestant ministries. They were hindered 

and blocked by Jewish groups who hired 

Washington, D.C., powerhouse law firms to 

write letters threatening the revocation of tax 

exemption for any Christian church who distributed 

the voting guides, no matter where 

the source.” 

“These letters were on the letterhead of 

the Americans United For Separation of 

Church and State. The Christian Coalition 

suggests that this is simply a subgroup of the 

American Civil Liberties Union (which files 

hundreds of lawsuits every year against any 

school official who violates their rules as to 

what is considered acceptable prayer). 

“The offending letters were sent to 

80,000 pastors – specially targeted no doubt 

because of their Constitutional/ Political 

views. This confrontational act must result 

in an outcry – or – it will become accepted 

practice. You can then forget about any freedom 

of religion in this country and the IRS 

will simply function as the “Religious Police”. 

. . . 

“The threat to invoke the IRS to harass 

Christian ministers who dare to distribute 

voter guides to their membership . . . . is an 


obvious violation of civil rights – freedom 

of religion – freedom of speech and even 

assembly. Pastors and ministers are not excluded 

from Constitutional guarantees. 

“There are 2.5 million ministers and 

priests of all faiths and these people are under 

a threat of being put out of business with 

the loss of their tax exemption. The loss of a 

tax exemption means that they have no way 

to offer tax deductibility for contributions. 

This is a gross violation of their free speech 

rights. . . . in total conflict with the 1st Amendment 

of the Constitution, calling for Freedom 

of Press and Freedom of Speech and 

Amendments to practice one’s own religion.” 

I disagree. Wanting the benefit of tax 

exemption to increase church member contributions 

(and minimize the church’s tax liability), 

most Christian pastors have applied 

to the government to incorporate their church 

under the Internal Revenue Code as 

501(c)(3) nonprofit or “charitable” corporations. 

However, these applicants apparently 

didn’t read the tax law, didn’t understand 

the consequences of accepting a 

501(c)(3) corporate status. 

Over the years, we’ve come to believe 

that the “church” is the building we “go to” 

on (some) Sundays. But the fact that we “go 

to” church subtly implies that we view ourselves 

as separate from the church. (I am 

here – the church is there – I will “go” from 

here to there to place myself within the physical 

church/building.) 

We’ve forgotten that God’s true church 

is a collection of natural, spiritual people who 

were created by, and therefore worship, Yahweh. 

Yes, there may be temples, altars and 

gold or silver gee-gaws that are owned and 

used by the church/people, but God’s church 

includes only living people – not the surrounding 

buildings, parking lots, and computers 

– and certainly not artificial entities 

like corporations. Clearly, there is no proviso 

for lifeless artificial entities to be members 

of God’s church of living beings. 

Most pastors think government gives 

them tax benefits because government loves 

churches. Bull. Government can get away 

with almost anything (witness Bill Clinton) 

so long as its actions are not seen to violate 

the people’s spiritual faith. Therefore, government 

fears churches, and doesn’t seek to 

help them, but to neuter them by “gagging” 

their preachers with restrictions that attach to 

all 501(c)(3) “benefits”. 

The reason for “separation of church 

and state” is that government fears the church. 

The church is, and will always be, more powerful 

than any government. The Jewish faith 

has lasted over 4,000 years, Christianity is 

2,000 years old, and Islam a “mere” 1,000. 

No modern government dreams of lasting 

so long. Hitler’s “Thousand-year Reich” perished 

in a decade. The Soviet “superpower” 

lasted three generations. The world’s oldest 

existing government is probably the United 

States, just over 200 years old. The enormous 

difference in longevity between faiths 

and governments also implies their relative 

powers. (In the long run, the “gates of Hell, 

Moscow, Peking and Washington” shall not 

prevail. Probably won’t even be remembered.) 

Just as Islamic Mullahs took bribes to 

keep silent about the Shah’s tyranny in Iran, 

American ministers have taken tax benefits 

(bribes) in return for agreeing to devote no 

more than 5% of church assets to political 

activity. In return for the 501(c)(3) tax benefits, 

the corporate churches essentially contracted 

to remain “separate” from (silent 

about) government and politics. 

Result? Church revenue increased and 

religious criticism of government virtually 

disappeared. Since preachers seldom focus 

on “political” issues (like abortion, no-fault 

divorce or oral sex in the White House), the 

congregation is deceived by the preacher’s 

silence into assuming that whatever’s going 

on in government may be nasty but it doesn’t 

rise to the level of ungodliness. Thus, the 

people feel no spiritual compulsion to protest 

and the world remains safe for corrupt 

government. 

So long as a given church remains incorporated 

under 26 USC 501(c)(3), it must 

honor it’s agreement to remain silent about 

government corruption. Any pastor who feels 

compelled to criticize government must either 

resign as an officer of his corporate “church” 

or terminate his 501(c)(3) status and tax benefits. 

Tough choice, hmm? What modern 

preacher wants to surrender all those good 

secular benefits just to criticize government? 

But maybe that’s the point: Count the cost. 

If God moves a pastor to “speak out 

about a given politician” but that pastor refuses 

to speak less he anger the governmentcreator 

that chartered his 501(c)(3) corporation 

– who does that pastor serve? God or 

government? 

It’s kinda funny, but Biblical prophets 

were often insufferable loudmouths who 

couldn’t stop shrieking God’s word at society 

in general – and at government in particular. 

Read the Bible. Find a true prophet 

that didn’t primarily criticize governments 

and politicians. There aren’t any. But thanks 

to the modern “miracles” of incorporation 

and tax benefits, today’s pastors seldom 

speak out against government. 

Shhhh! NO public criticism of government 

by the church. (Keep yer mouth 

shut, pastor, an’ you’ll get a nice, fat tax benefit. 

On the other hand, open yer mouth and 

we’ll send a couple-a d’ boys over to bust 

yer knees – or worse, maybe revoke your 

tax exemption.) 

Criminal Politics cites an 

ex-ample of the “boys” coming 

to enforce their protection agreement: 

“An example is the recent attack against 

the Living Truth Ministry in Austin, Texas 

which was invaded by IRS agents about 2 

weeks before Christmas, 1997. The IRS 

phoned out of the blue and demanded that 

they be allowed to examine and audit the 

books and ministry operations in person.” 

“At that audit, the IRS agent announced: 

“We are exploring whether Living Truth 

Ministries may have violated its tax exempt 

status. It appears that you have a pattern of 

identifying certain threats to Christianity. . . . 

We have reviewed a number of the books, 

audio tapes, videos, etc., offered by your ministry. 

We find you have made disparaging 

remarks about a number of worthy individuals 

and organizations including the Pope, the 

Masonic Order, the Skull and Bones Society, 

the United Nations and what you call the 

New World Order . . . there appears to be a 

pattern of identifying threats to Christianity 

or against freedom, and that would be a violation 

of the IRS code. Churches and other 

501(c)(3) groups are not permitted to do 

this!” [Emph. add.] 

“This is a shocking example of the intimidation 

and threats to Christian ministries 

by the ‘religious police’ operating out of the 

IRS [much like] Stalin’s Soviet Russia or 

Mao Tse Tung’s Red China.” 

Exactly! – except it’s not “shocking”. 

The 501(c)(3) “church” is the American 

equivalent of the Soviet’s “state church”. 

Neither of these entities are churches of God 

but are instead government agencies dedicated 

to giving would-be church members a 

“politically correct” representation of their 

faith. As government agencies, the real pur- 


pose of the Soviet “state church” and the 

U.S. 501(c)(3) “corporate church” is not to 

increase spiritual faith in God, but to dilute 

that true faith with information, propaganda 

or even silence that increases the people’s 

“good faith” in secular government. 

Although similarities between the 

Soviet’s state church and the U.S. 501(c)(3) 

church are large, disturbing and growing, 

there is one difference: American churches 

voluntarily contracted to be muzzled and 

maintain the “separation of church and state” 

(e.g., “silence of church about state”). 

The problem is that ministers don’t understand 

that once they sign up to be 

501(c)(3) corporations, they are no longer 

churches of God but instead government 

agencies. The “minister” of a 501(c)(3) corporation 

is a government agent. As such, 

the law may be immoral, but it is clear: Government 

agents and agencies may not engage 

in political activity on the job. Thus, 

“ministers” have no more business talking 

politics in a 501(c)(3) corporate “church” 

than a Postmaster has talking politics in the 

local Post Office. 

Just because the 501(c)(3) organizations 

don’t understand their true nature as government 

agencies (rather than true churches) 

does not relieve their ministers from honoring 

the 501(c)(3) “bargain”. Ignorance is 

no excuse. You take the tax benefit; you pay 

with your political silence. 

As a government agency, the 501(c)(3) 

corporation is absolutely subject to government 

regulation and has no more rights to 

Freedom of Speech and Religion than a 

Marine Corps recruit in basic training. A 

501(c)(3) “minister” who complains that 

government treats him harshly or denies his 

“rights” is about as silly as a Marine recruit 

complaining that his Drill Instructor has hurt 

his feelings. 

“Hey, Jarhead, this is the Marines! If 

you can’t take the heat, you shouldn’t’ve 

signed up! Nobody put a gun to your head. 

You volunteered into this outfit, so now 

you’re gonna play by this outfit’s rules!” 

Likewise, the minister who’s “shocked” 

by government regulation of 501(c)(3) corporations 

is simply ignorant. Nobody put a 

gun to their heads and forced them to incorporate. 

If ministers don’t want government 

regulation and restriction from political ac- 

tivity, they shouldn’t volunteer to be 

501(c)(3) government agencies. 

Once ministers allow their churches to 

be converted into 501(c)(3) corporations, 

those churches become “creatures/ creations 

of the state”. As such, those creations of 

government are absolutely subjects or servants 

of their new government-corporate 

master rather than subjects/ servants of God. 

Freedom of religion is alive and well in 

the U.S.A. Every one of us is not only free 

to worship God, we are free to choose which 

god we worship. If we choose to worship 

the one true, living God, we might go to 

heaven. If we choose to worship our local 

government-corporate-god, we might get a 

tax exemption. But on this one point both 

God and government-god agree: Hypocrisy 

is intolerable; we are not free to worship both 

God and government. 

We still have Freedoms of Speech and 

Religion – and we also have the right to voluntarily 

contract to restrict our exercise of 

those Freedoms. But we can’t exercise those 

rights in contradictory ways. That is, ministers 

can’t voluntarily contract to restrict their 

Freedom of Speech and still argue they maintain 

absolute Freedom of Speech. Unfortunately, 

most pastors and ministers don’t realize 

that when they signed up for a 501(c)(3) 

income tax exemption they also agreed to 

ignore political issues about 95% of the time. 

Thus, the IRS is not “oppressing” the 

501(c)(3) minister’s right of free speech 

when it tries to stop their political commentary; 

those ministers surrendered that right 

themselves when they voluntarily agreed to 

become a corporate church. The IRS is 

merely enforcing that legal agreement. 

I’m no fan or defender of government, 

but the IRS has every right and duty to vigorously 

prosecute any 501(c)(3) corporate 

“church” that violates the law and their corporate 

charter by engaging in significant political 

activity. 501(c)(3) corporate 

“churches” have no more right to engage in 

political activity (including criticism of government) 

than a licensed driver has to drive 

100 m.p.h. on 65 m.p.h. highway. It’s against 

the law. You take government’s benefit, you 

play by government’s rules. 

Although modern 501(c)(3) “churches” 

assume a pleasing “corporate” form, they are 

counterfeits. They’re created by man, not 

God and therefore subject to man, not God. 

God’s church consists solely of natural, spiritual, 

flesh and blood people – but no artificial 

entities. 501(c)(3) nonprofit, charitable 

corporations may be a kind of “church” but 

they’re not the church of God. As artificial 

entities, they can’t be. 

Unfortunately, both clergy and congregation 

assume that incorporating their church 

is the “modern” way to enjoy the best of 

both the spiritual and secular worlds. Maybe 

so. But if it’s true that man can’t serve two 

masters, those of you who worship in 

501(c)(3) charitable corporations should begin 

to consider the difference between 

government’s secular benefits and God’s 

spiritual blessings. It just might be that you 

can’t have both. And if it’s true that corporate 

churches are counterfeits and thus lead 

church members away from God, what does 

this imply about the spiritual and moral nature 

of corporations in general? 

Criminal Politics Magazine (PO Box 

37812, Cincinnati, Ohio 45222) is 

highly informative and critical of corrupt 

governments. Subscriptions 

$187.50 per year. 

www.criminalpolitics.com. 

Individuals working to reduce government 

interference with the church: 

Pastor Texe Marrs, Living Truth 

Ministries at 1708 Patterson Road, Austin, 

Texas 78733. (512) 263-9780. 

Dr. Greg Dixon c/o Indianapolis 

Baptist Temple, 19th Judicial District, 

2711 South East St, Indianapolis, Indiana. 

Jay Alan Sekulow, Esq. The American 

Center for Law and Justice, POB 

450349, Atlanta, Georgia 31145-0349. 

www.aclj.org. 

The Christian Jural Society News, 

Randy Lee, general delivery, Canoga 

Park Post Office, Canoga Park California. 

818-347-7080. 

Pastor W.N. Otwell, “God Said” Ministries, 

POB 369 Mt. Enterprise, TX 

75681. 903-822-3669. 


Corporate Darwinism 


Those who embrace the Biblical faiths 

understand that the heart of God’s Law is 

personal accountability. You better be good 

because your future in Heaven or Hell depends 

on your acts in this life and God will 

hold you accountable. Even little kids know 

they better be “nice” ‘cuz Santa’s “makin’ a 

list and checkin’ it twice.” Whether you’re a 

devout Christian, pious Jew or rational atheist, 

it’s undeniable that accountability and personal 

responsibility lie at the heart of Western 

civilization. 

But unlike God, corporations don’t enforce 

personal accountability based on moral 

principles. Instead, corporations offer us limited 

liability and personal immunities. Thus, 

in terms of personal accountability, corporations 

and God are exactly – and perhaps 

“spiritually” – opposite. 

Of course, any discussion of the “spiritual” 

implications of corporations seems silly. 

I’m embarrassed to even suggest this line of 

thought. But the Bible does contain a curious 

passage at Ephesians 6:12: “For we 

wrestle not against flesh and blood, but 

against principalities, against powers, and 

rulers of the darkness of this world, against 

spiritual wickedness in high places.” 

If we are engaged in spiritual battles in 

this life, Ephesians says they are not against 

other “flesh and blood” people. But corporations 

are not “flesh and blood”. Thus, if 

spiritual warfare is afoot, the list of man’s 

spiritual adversaries could conceivably include 

corporations. 

And lead us not 

into incorporation 

Yes, it sounds silly to accord spiritual 

attributes to corporations. But here’s an undeniable 

fact: The fundamental corporate 

privilege of limited liability persistently 

tempts personnel to commit acts that are unethical 

or criminal, and if so, ungodly. Although 

the assertion seems bizarre, no one 

can closely examine corporations and ignore 

the corporation’s peculiar tendency to lead 

its executives and employees “into temptation”. 

But what’s “temptation”? A momentary 

impulse to commit an improper act like 

adultery? Virtually everyone – married, 

single, young, old – is regularly attracted to 

friends, neighbors, co-workers, strangers and 

even TV images that we know we should 

not (or can not) touch. But is it “temptation” 

for me to feel an instinctive lust when I see 

an attractive woman? (Lord, I hope not.) 

Nah. The essence of temptation is not 

an internal impulse – it’s an external opportunity 

to evade personal responsibility. 

We’re born with impulses; lots of ‘em. We 

call ‘em instincts. They’re in our genes. But 

“temptation” is a transitory environmental circumstance 

– an external opportunity to express 

our prohibited impulses without fear 

of getting caught. 

For example, I might see scores of attractive 

women in shopping malls, but I won’t 

dare talk to them – let alone consummate an 

illicit relationship. But suppose an attractive 

female co-worker comes to my private office 

after regular business hours and makes it clear 

that she’d like to fool around with no strings 

attached. That’s temptation – not merely an 

internal impulse, but environmental opportunity 

to engage in prohibited behavior without 

personal liability. 

OK, suppose I maintain my integrity 

and refuse her first (attractive) offer, but she 

keeps coming back to my office, making herself 

available, every day for weeks or months. 

Although a single temptation can be resisted, 

persistent temptation is almost irresistible. 

(Ask Bill Clinton.) 

Similarly, since corporations provide 

persistent “limited liability” for their employees, 

corporations “institutionalize” the temptation 

to commit prohibited acts without personal 

responsibility. Every day, the corporate 

executive is faced with the knowledge 

that he could cut a corner, fudge on an inventory 

report, or even commit a crime and – in 

the unlikely event that his errant behavior 

was even noticed – could still evade personal 

liability. 

Of course, modern corporations have 

codes of ethics which they claim are strictly 

enforced. Uh-huh. I recently caught part of 

a Fox Network (where else?) TV show where 

the editor of a homosexual magazine was 

complaining that some New York gay bars 

allow their patrons to engage in nude dancing 

and unprotected sex right there on the 

dance floor. Then Fox flashed to a “classy” 

gay bar where the owner provided pretzel 

bowls full of free condoms and had a “strictly 

enforced” house rule that any nude dancer 


engaging in unprotected sex would be asked 

to get dressed and leave. 

Oh, pleeease. Just because polls indicate 

Bill Clinton is America’s most admired 

man doesn’t mean everybody in this 

country’s a damn fool. Anyone who thinks 

a “house rule” can stop unprotected sex in a 

bar full of nude, dancing gays stoned on booze 

and methamphetamine is an idiot. 

Likewise, you’ve got to be an idiot to 

believe that a “strictly enforced” code of ethics 

will prevent unethical or criminal behavior 

in a corporate environment where the reward 

for no-questions-asked performance 

(based on limited liability) can be fabulous 

wealth. 

The root of it all 

According to some reports, the average 

upper-level corporate executive makes over 

100 times as much money as the average 

American worker. That’s more money in a 

year than two average Americans earn in their 

entire lives. Top corporate executives in the 

largest corporations are sometimes paid over 

$100 million per year. Can you imagine? $2 

million per week. $40 thousand per hour. 

Does anyone seriously believe individuals 

competing for these incredibly lucrative positions 

are likely to embrace (and be inhibited 

by) strict commitments to moral or ethical behavior? 

I don’t. 

And make no mistake; I’m not trying to 

castigate corporate executives. My point is 

that by offering limited personal liability, the 

essential corporate structure (just like gay 

nightclubs that allow nude dancing) creates 

an environment that guarantees: 1) unethical, 

immoral or criminal behavior will be 

commonplace; and 2) a strong personal commitment 

to ethics and integrity is probably a 

career disability. 

It’s the law of the brothel: screw or be 

screwed. That is, once you enter a particular 

environment, that environment will influence 

or even determine your options, choices and 

behavior just as surely Arctic tundra “creates” 

Eskimo parkas and African jungles “create” 

loin cloths. Similarly, the corporate environment 

favors (and thus “creates”) amoral behavior. 

Thus, the likelihood of ethical individuals 

succeeding in amoral corporations is 

akin to that of virgins keeping their integrity 

while getting rich in a whore house. It could 

happen. 

But it ain’t likely. 

Corporate selection 

Unlike flesh-and-blood men and 

women, corporations do not experience genetic 

or cultural predispositions to feel compassion 

or avoid violence. Unlike natural 

persons, corporations are not burdened by 

the moral confusion of juggling the competing 

interests of family, friends, community, 

nation and even species. Instead, corporations 

enjoy a single-minded, amoral appetite 

for profit (as reported on the quarterly and 

annual reports) that not only allows, but ultimately 

compels them to be as ruthlessly efficient 

as great white sharks of the Pacific. 

Of course, no corporation makes decisions 

to act one way or another. Corporations 

are, finally, inanimate, imaginary and incapable 

of conscious thought. Always there are natural 

persons serving as corporate officers or 

employees who actually make the “hard 

choices”. 

But corporations are environments just 

as specific and influential as the Arctic tundra 

or African jungles. Just as physical environments 

determine much of the Eskimo and 

Zulu cultures, corporate ethical environments 

exert “natural selection pressures” which predispose 

corporate personnel to amoral or even 

criminal behavior. 

Further, the corporate environment not 

only provides the temptation to commit unethical 

acts, it also provides the motivation to 

do. Bonuses, “fast track” promotions, perqs, 

company cars, and corner offices – the list of 

corporate “motivators” is substantial and 

more than sufficient to motivate immoral behavior. 

For example, suppose you’re a young 

corporate executive appointed to manage a 

floundering factory in Utah. You’re offered 

a generous $200,000 bonus if you can cause 

that factory to generate a $3 million profit 

rather than the projected $2 million loss. 

You work day and night with dedication, 

integrity, and inspirational leadership to 

turn the Utah plant around. At year’s end, 

you’re just $50,000 short of making the $3 

million profit. You could fudge the books a 

little, increase the plant’s apparent profits by 

$50,000 and thereby win your $200,000 bonus 

– or – you could maintain your integrity, 

admit the trivial $50,000 shortfall and determine 

to try even harder next year. 

Suppose you do the honorable thing 

and admit the $50,000 shortfall (don’t laugh; 

it could happen). Of course, you don’t get 

your $200,000 bonus, but you do win the 

corporate wall plaque for outstanding personal 

performance in a young executive. 

Hooray. You are now our hero. 

Meanwhile, another young executive 

was appointed to manage a floundering factory 

in Florida. He’s also offered a $200,000 

bonus to turn that plant’s projected $2 million 

loss into a $3 million profit. Like you, 

he falls short by $50,000. But instead of 

doing the “honorable thing,” he does some 

“creative accounting” and meets his $3 million 

goal. Result? He not only wins a wall 

plaque, he gets $200,000, a corner office, a 

company car and a “fast track” promotion to 

corporate vice president. He deposits most 

of the $200,000 into a trust for his kid’s college 

education and uses the rest to buy his 

wife a new Jaguar. 

I think it’s fair to say his apparent success 

may seriously challenge your commitment 

to integrity. You played fair and got a 

plaque. He cheated and got rich. That’s not 

an aberration. It’s a lesson. 

So what do you do? 

Report him? It’s almost certain your 

“whistle blowing” won’t be welcomed, but 

will instead be seen as evidence of your inadequate 

“team loyalty”. In fact, it’s likely 

that the executive who appointed you to the 

job in Utah was also in line for a fat bonus if 

you reached your $3 million profit goals. As 

a result of your integrity you not only lost 

your bonus, but your boss’s bonus, too (and 

thus, your promotion possibilities). 

If you insist on doing the “right thing” 

and report your unethical competitor, you’ll 

probably be fired or asked to resign. Of course, 

you can sue for wrongful discharge, and spend 

the next five years skirmishing with corporate 

lawyers over depositions, requests for 

evidence and continuances. During those five 

years, you probably won’t find another corporation 

to hire you for a position and salary 

comparable to what you formerly enjoyed. 

The financial and emotional costs of litigation 

and un- or under- employment may cause you 

to exhaust your savings, lose your house, and 

even suffer a divorce. 

When you finally get your day in court, 

you’ll probably lose and be left wondering 

whether the whole idea of integrity isn’t crazy. 

If you win, the corporation will appeal, and 

appeal again, until maybe, if you’re lucky, 

you’ll get a settlement, perhaps even reinstatement 

at your old job – eight to ten years 

after you were wrongfully discharged. Thus, 

your “victory” might ring a bit hollow. 


Well, if it’s “impractical” to report your 

fellow executive’s ethical lapse, why not forget 

it, act like nothing happened and silently 

“endure” the injustice of his success? Well, 

the sting of watching a competitor prosper 

because he’s immoral rather than talented can 

fester into alcoholism, ulcers and depression. 

You may keep your job, but you’ll never 

again enjoy it. 

OK, if you can’t beat ‘em, why not join 

‘em? Why not learn your lesson, and cheat 

on next year’s bonus competition to ensure 

that you, too, can provide for your kids’ college 

and wife’s new car? Sure, you’ll lose 

your former sense of integrity but, hey, this 

is the big leagues, kid. If you don’t want to 

wind up managing a McDonalds, you gotta 

play to win, buddy. (Besides, nobody’ll know 

but you.) So if you’re like most of us (too 

much ambition and too little character for 

our own good), you’ll probably succumb to 

corporate temptation and start to cheat. 

And why not? (Everybody’s doin’ it, 

right?) And even if you’re discovered, the 

corporation’s limited liability will almost certainly 

shield you from personal liability. 

Worst case scenario? Since the corporation 

won’t risk being sued for admitting in print 

that you’re a crook and the figures on last 

year’s annual report are fraudulent, you may 

be “encouraged” to resign but you’ll leave 

with a glowing letter of recommendation sure 

to win a job at another corporation. 

So why not cheat? When you’re in an 

environment that institutionalizes limited personal 

liability, ethics are no more asset than 

Eskimo parkas in Africa. Thus, where a social 

environment (like a corporate workplace) 

includes limited personal liability, the “natural 

selection” pressures of that environment tend 

to foster immoral or criminal behavior. 

Point: “corporate selection” favors 

employees who are unethical and amoral. 

Corporations aren’t looking for a few (truly) 

good men – they’re looking for a few hot 

shots who can get the job done (no matter 

what) and keep their mouths shut. Today, 

the secret of “How to Succeed In Business 

Without Really Trying” is to be a sociopath. 

By love possessed 

Because corporations are artificial, they 

are by definition amoral – incapable of distinguishing 

between right and wrong and 

thus, incapable of responding to human values 

and moral issues. Corporations merely 

figure the bottom line. Measured solely in 

dollars, a corporation’s decisions are simple, 

mathematical and impersonal to the point of 

being ruthless (hey, it’s just bidness). 

If a worker gets old, the corporations 

fires him. If an immoral act increases profits, 

the corporation does it. If a moral act 

produces a financial loss, corporate logic 

avoids it. In the final analysis, all corporate 

decisions boil down to money. For corporations, 

money’s not the most important thing, 

it’s the only thing. 

This “singleminded” system of values 

allows corporations to act with extraordinary 

efficiency. But that singleminded “love” of 

money also creates problems. 

Suppose it costs $100 in labor to build 

a computer component in Chicago and $10 

to build the same component in Mexico City. 

Once Congress OK’d NAFTA and eliminated 

any trade barriers between the U.S. 

and Mexico, it was certain that the Chicago 

computer manufacturer would relocate to 

Mexico. Corporate logic forbids any other 

course of action. 

Does the corporation owe any loyalty 

to the workers in Chicago who helped build 

the business for the last 20 years? Absolutely 

not. Corporations are artificial entities 

and therefore amoral and incapable of loyalty. 

The issue is pure mathematics. If you 

can make the part cheaper in Mexico and 

generate a bigger corporate profit, the corporation 

must abandon its former workers to 

their impoverished fate. 

Once you understand the inevitable 

logic of corporations and their singleminded 

appetite for money, you can see that NAFTA 

and similar “free trade” agreements were 

never intended to serve the American people. 

Instead, NAFTA was clearly designed to 

serve the multinational corporations which 

wanted to sell high-priced products to rich 

Americans without paying high wages to 

American laborer and high salaries to American 

mid-level executives. 

Point: By passing NAFTA, GATT, 

WTO and all the rest of the “free trade” agreements, 

our government betrayed the trust of 

the American people to serve the interests of 

corporations. Considered closely, this is persuasive 

evidence that our government is no 

longer “of, by and for” the People, but instead 

serves corporations. 

Why did government betray us? Because 

while you and I can vote, corporations 

can provide enormous volumes of the politicians’ 

milk: money. 

What can be done? We can’t 

criminalize corporations. 

Our business structure is 

so “corporatized” and dependant on limited 

personal liability that corporations won’t be 

removed from modern business. 

But even if corporations can’t be eliminated 

from business, they should be removed 

from politics. That is, our laws and lawmakers 

should serve only moral, natural people 

– never amoral artificial entities like GM, 

IBM and Lockheed. 

Politicians excuse their current pro-corporate 

bias by saying corporations are just 

collections of people and thus, representing 

corporations is really just representation of 

people. But corporations are no mere “collections 

of people”. Corporations are artificial 

entities that create very special kinds of 

amoral social environments just like gay bars 

and crack houses. As such, these social environments 

encourage or even demand particular 

forms of behavior which are at best 

amoral, often immoral, and occasionally 

criminal. Supporting the growth of any of 

these “environments” can not foster a stronger 

nation. Living or working in these environments, 

cannot foster stronger individuals. 

We can minimize the adverse influence 

of corporations on government and people 

through campaign finance law reform. In 

essence, since this nation was intended to 

serve “We the (natural) People,” only natural 

people should be allowed to make political 

campaign contributions. No corporation, 

trust or similar artificial entity should be allowed 

to contribute one dime to any politician. 

Result? Politicians would suddenly find 

themselves more interested in serving natural 

people (the only remaining source of political 

campaign contributions) than corporations. 

Since money is all corporations have, 

want or are, if you sever the financial link 

between politicians and corporations, politicians 

won’t pass pro-corporate laws at the 

public’s expense. Thus, our government “of, 

by and for” the corporations, might be restored 

to “of the People, by the People and 

for the (natural, moral, flesh and blood) 

People.” 


In the court of public opinion 

IRS Political Prosecutions 

Interview with Ass’t Attorney General 

Loretta C. Argrett, Tax Division 

The United States Attorneys’ 

Bulletin (USAB) is a 60+ page publication 

written for U.S. Attorneys 

charged with prosecuting Federal 

crimes. The USAB is a remarkably 

well-written and revealing publication 

that offers valuable “intelligence” 

on Federal prosecution objectives 

and procedures. 

The entire April, 1998 USAB issue 

focused on “illegal tax protesters” 

– persons who believe they are 

not required by law or God to file 

and pay income taxes. The following 

article is a collection of excerpts 

from articles in that “illegal tax protestor” 

issue plus my comments. 

The first USAB article is entitled 

“Interview with Assistant Attorney 

General Loretta C. Argrett, Tax Division.” 

The following are edited excerpts 

from an interview of AAG 

Loretta Argrett (“LA”) conducted by 

Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) David 

Nissman (“DN”). All of the san serif 

or [bracketed] text (like this introduction) 

are my insertions; the italicized 

text are my highlights. 

DN: As Assistant Attorney General 

(AAG) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

Tax Division for the past four years, have 

you seen any significant changes? 

LA: We have become more proactive, 

signaling to the IRS that we are willing to 

invest our resources in certain kinds of cases 

that we believe are very important to tax enforcement 

including two major initiatives, the 

Tax Gap Project and the Tax Protester Initiative. 

DN: What is the Tax Gap Initiative? 

LA: The tax gap is the difference between 

the amount of taxes that are due on 

legal source income and the amount that is 

actually paid. That gap is extraordinarily 

large – on the order of about $100 billion 

per year. [That’s about $400 underpaid for 

every man, woman and child in the U.S. or 

$800 per taxpayer.] This gap arises when 

some taxpayers do not report all of their income, 

inflate deductions and reduce their taxable 

income. We believe that prosecution of 

tax gap cases produces maximum deterrence. 

That is why we chose it as an initiative. . . . 

As you’ll see, the primary purpose 

for “Tax Gap” prosecutions is 

not to enforce the law equally 

against all who underpay their income 

taxes, but to use highly publicized 

prosecutions to intimidate all 

Americans (the body politic) into 

paying every dime due to Uncle 

Sam. Insofar as the primary goal of 

Tax Gap prosecutions is to influence 

the body politic, those prosecutions 

are political trials intended primarily 

to achieve political – not legal – results. 

DN: Is the tax protester movement 

growing? 

LA: Unfortunately, yes – that is why 

we chose it as one of our initiatives. The 

IRS is also becoming increasingly concerned 

about the use of offshore schemes to avoid 

the assessment and collection of taxes. We 

are actively working with the IRS to assist 

them with their problems in foreign evidence 

gathering. . . . The IRS also is turning to the 

[DOJ Tax] Division to assist in collecting 

assets that taxpayers are sending or keeping 

offshore to avoid their tax liabilities. . . and 

has asked us to help identify litigation strategies 

that may be used to counter certain types 

of offshore vehicles used to frustrate the 

proper operation of the tax laws, such as 

some foreign trusts. 

Apparently, the DOJ enjoys sufficient 

international jurisdiction to 

investigate and even seize assets 

of foreign trusts. If so, reliance on 

foreign trusts to provide absolute 

shields against IRS scrutiny may be 

misguided. Further, given the IRS/ 

DOJ’s growing focus on offshore 

trusts, Americans should be wary of 

using foreign vehicles. 

DN: We have a public outcry on the 

perception of the Internal Revenue Code and 

this recent legislation with IRS. At the same 

time, we want to get the message out that 

there are [adverse] consequences if you don’t 

pay your taxes. How do you craft this message 

so that it raises consciousness among 

the American people so that they want to do 

the right thing, as opposed to reacting to what 

we’re doing? [I.e., “How can we keep plucking 

the geese without making ‘em squawk?”] 

LA: First, we must always convey, 

through our dealings with the public and with 

our advocacy, that we are being fair and uniform. 

. . . . We work very hard to be certain 

we are taking consistent positions in tax 

cases. I cannot emphasize that too much. 

There can be occasional disagreement between 

the U.S. Attorneys’ offices and the 

DOJ Tax Division office over the appropriate 

disposition of a case, but our position 

will largely be based on whether the particu- 


lar taxpayer’s proposed treatment will be 

similar to that of other similarly situated taxpayers. 

Second, we must convince taxpayers 

that they will be sanctioned if they do not 

pay their fair share of taxes. That is the reason 

we try to get maximum publicity for our 

criminal tax cases. 

Again, “maximum publicity” indicates 

the primary purpose for 

criminal IRS trials is to influence the 

body politic – that’s clearly a political 

motive for political trials that arguably 

generate political prisoners. 

Note that this is not the allegation 

of some crazed patriot but the implicit 

admission of an Assistant Attorney 

General conceding that 1) we 

have political prisoners in the U.S.A.; 

2) these political prisoners are not 

aberrations; but 3) are the result of 

established government policy. 

Note Assistant AG Argrett was 

not interviewed by some layman 

who might miss the implications of 

her comments. She was interviewed 

by Assistant U.S. Attorney David 

Nissman. Does Attorney Nissman 

express the least concern that political 

prosecutions are taking place 

in the U.S.A.? NO! Here we have 

two highly placed government attorneys 

who apparently see nothing 

remarkable in the fact that our 

government has established a policy 

that virtually mandates political 

prosecutions. And they think they’re 

the “good guys”. The implications 

are chilling, shocking to the conscience, 

and tend to diminish public 

confidence in our system of administration 

of justice. 

Further, the government’s 

“maximum publicity” goal may be 

contrary to the defendant’s privacy 

rights. While every trial should be 

“public” and therefore “publicized,” 

the fact that some defendants are 

selectively prosecuted according 

to their PR value (rather than the seriousness 

of their crime) violates any 

notion of equal protection and impartial 

law enforcement. Given the 

adverse notoriety associated with 

most convictions, all defendants 

should enjoy a “privacy” right to 

equal measures of publicity after 

their convictions. 

Of course, the media should be 

free to report any case as much or 

little as they like (though generally 

in proportion to the public’s private 

interests). However, there might be 

privacy right issue if government (to 

serve its own interests) seeks to 

“hype” and stimulate publicity for 

“selected” cases with press releases, 

etc. It’s not government’s business 

to censor or manipulate the news; 

doing so infringes on the First 

Amendment’s Freedom of the Press, 

raises serious issues of media “control,” 

and may raise privacy issues. 

Finally, outside of our traditional work 

environment, we must exhibit a respect for 

the law, including the tax laws, and convey 

that we all benefit from this system—as imperfect 

as it may be. The nation’s future depends 

on that. We don’t want honest taxpayers 

to become disillusioned because they 

believe that dishonest taxpayers are ripping 

off the tax system by not paying their fair 

share, while at the same time enjoying the 

benefits of Government expenditures. 

First, Ms. Argrett’s comment 

about respecting the law “outside 

of our traditional work environment” 

may be only a poor choice of words, 

but it implies that no such respect 

for law is required within their “traditional 

work environment”. Second, 

repeated use of the term “benefits” 

implies that income tax laws are 

based on one or more government 

trusts in which most taxpayers are 

“beneficiaries” (persons who have no 

legal title or legal rights within the 

trust). . . . Finally, the idea that our 

“nation’s future depends” on the 

public’s belief that we all “benefit” 

from the government’s tax laws is 

ludicrous.] 

From our mission-oriented [political] 

viewpoint, we believe [our limited prosecutorial] 

resources should be predominately 

directed to Tax Gap cases, which are those 

cases that are likely to have the greatest deterrent 

effect. . . . We have discussed these 

concerns with IRS management and I note 

that over the last few years the CID has committed 

to increasing the amount of time spent 

investigating tax gap cases. 

At first, it seems strange that 

the DOJ’s primary enforcement efforts 

would be directed against “Tax 

Gap” rather than “Illegal Tax Protest” 

cases. After all, the “Protestors” 

typically file no forms and pay no 

taxes while the “Tax Gappers” 

merely cheat a little. So why go 

after the Tax Gappers (who underpay) 

rather than the Protestors – 

who refuse to file and pay nothing? 

First, Tax Gappers are mere 

cheats who don’t know much 

about tax laws, the Constitution or 

perhaps even God. If detected, 

“Gappers” have little courage, won’t 

fight and will hire lawyers – all of 

which virtually guarantees they’ll 

not only lose, but quickly settle their 

cases on almost any terms the IRS 

offers. After all, what defense can 

“Gappers” have? If they filed their 

forms and paid something, they 

can’t argue they believe the IRS/ income 

tax is somehow unlawful or 

unconstitutional – so the only issue 

is did they cheat? If the IRS has evidence, 

Gappers should be easy to 

convict. 

Protestors, on the other hand, 

are zealots who may be driven by 

genius, patriotism, mental illness or 

religious principles – who truly believe 

they are not required to file or 

pay income taxes. Most importantly, 

unlike the Gappers (who 

merely cheat) Protestors understand 

enough law to be dangerous. I.e., 

Protestors file reams of administrative 

motions, fight in court, and appeal 

all the way to the Supreme 

Court, thus causing the IRS to expend 

substantial prosecutorial resources. 

The IRS probably figures 

they can collect money from hundreds 

(maybe thousands) of 

Gappers with the same expenditure 

of resources that it takes to get a 

final judgment (but no money) from 

a single, semi-competent Protestor. 

Insofar as government is a business, 

it’s not cost-effective to pursue Protestors. 

Moreover, Protestors may 

counter-attack with commercial liens 

(which trash government employees 

credit ratings) or “Bivens” suits that 

can be ruinous for IRS and DOJ personnel. 

There are undoubtedly “horror 

stories” whispered within the IRS 

about unsuspecting agents who 

tangled with tax Protestors who 

filed so many liens or counter-suits 

that the agent’s life became a living 

hell. From the IRS perspective, tax 

collection is something like deer hunting. 

It’s a pretty popular sport until 

you run into a deer that not only 

knows the woods but shoots back 


– then the great white hunters panic 

and run wide-eyed from the woods 

screaming, “Run, you mutha’s – run! 

The damn deer are gonna kill us all!” 

But Assistant AG Argrett said 

or implied that the primary purpose 

for Tax Gap prosecutions is to get 

“maximum publicity” to influence the 

American body politic. If so, the 

primary reason for not prosecuting 

Tax Protestors might be that, unlike 

the Gappers (who are typically ignorant 

cheats who have no defense) 

the Protestors have a defense that 

is typically based on the Constitution 

or Bible and attractive to anyone 

who’s sick of sending 55% of 

his earnings to government. So 

every time the IRS tries a Protestor, 

a jury (perhaps the public, maybe 

even the Judge) will learn something 

about the Constitution and/or the 

Bible – and might even find the Protestor 

“not guilty”. 

Further, if the DOJ wants “maximum 

publicity” to cause Americans 

to pay taxes, Tax Protestor convictions 

offer little publicity benefit – 

who’s impressed if Goliath spends 

a quarter million dollars prosecuting 

some impoverished tax protesting 

“David”? And more subtly, how 

could there be any publicity value 

in convicting tax Protestors since 

“everyone knows” they “must” be 

guilty? See my point? Insofar as 

the public believes taxes must be 

filed and paid, the tax protestors’ 

arguments “must” be nuts. Therefore, 

what PR value can accrue to 

the government for successfully 

prosecuting “crazy” Protestors? 

From the public’s perspective, prosecuting 

tax Protestors should be 

like shooting fish in a barrel. It’s obvious, 

it’s easy, it’s boring. Ergo, no 

PR value. 

On the other hand, Protestors 

offer government a considerable 

publicity liability since, in those rare 

instances when a “David” wins, 

thousands of Americans suddenly 

realize the “crazies” might be right 

and are thereby encouraged to take 

a chance, start studying and stop 

filing. Further, even when government 

convicts tax protestors, the 

mere fact that the government “respected” 

the protest arguments 

enough to hear them in court creates 

a subtly publicizes and legiti- 

mizes for those arguments. 

Lunacy has replaced logic – at 

least within the government. We live 

in “interesting” (politically correct) 

times not seen since Alice last wandered 

into Wonderland. 

A 

second USAB article 

(“Through the Looking 

Glass: Reconciling the Mission 

of the Tax Division with the 

Goals of the United States 

Attorney’s Offices in Tax Prosecutions”– 

catchy title, hmm?) was written 

by Mark E. Matthews, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General of the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) Tax Division. 

In this article, Assistant AG 

Matthews explains that the primary 

reasons for choosing to prosecute 

or reject certain tax cases is causing 

interagency tensions. As you’ll 

read, while the IRS or the U.S. Attorneys’ 

Offices (USAO) might be determined 

to prosecute a particular 

criminal, the DOJ might reject that 

prosecution because it offers little 

publicity value. 

Edited excerpts from Assistant 

AG Matthews’ article follow as well 

as my additional italicized highlights 

and [bracketed commentary]. 

The congenial relationship between the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) Tax Division 

and the local U.S. Attorney begins to deteriorate 

when we [at the DOJ] find it necessary 

to decline a case or a particular count or 

defendant. It becomes particularly more contentious 

when we decline to authorize a plea 

to a tax charge, which the U.S. Attorney believes 

would greatly simplify some difficult 

case in his district. This article attempts to 

explain what you might perceive as a schizophrenic 

Tax Division. . . . I hope that this 

article will provide a useful perspective . . . 

to better evaluate a tax case’s chances [of 

being approved for prosecution] in the Tax 

Division. 

The Tax Division review process can 

only be understood in terms of our mission. 

In all of law enforcement, we represent the 

extreme of general deterrence. We are trying 

to deter more taxpayers (over 200 million) 

with fewer prosecutions (approximately 

1,500) than any other area of law enforcement. 

Nationwide, there are only 

about 1,500 criminal prosecutions 

for income tax violations per year. 

If you happen to be one of those 

1,500 cases, you are in deep trouble 

since that conviction rate is about 

98%. However, given that there are 

somewhere between 20 and 40 million 

non-filers, the odds of being one 

of the “chosen 1,500” are very slim. 

Unlike other areas of law enforcement 

where the goal is usually to stop clearly unlawful 

conduct, we in the tax administration 

business have the goal of influencing hundreds 

of millions of Americans [the body 

politic] to take the affirmative steps of completing 

and filing often complex tax returns 

and making substantial payments to Uncle 

Sam. 

Here, a second top DOJ Tax Division 

official implies that their fundamental 

purpose is political: to influence 

the body politic rather than 

impartially convict criminals.] 

This $100 billion annual tax gap is what 

causes us to place such a premium on every 

criminal tax case. Each tax case must be used 

[not merely prosecuted] to deter people who 

cheat or are willing to cheat on their taxes, 

but against whom we do not have the resources 

to investigate or prosecute. In these 

circumstances, it is easy to understand why 

we consider a tax case that is not publicized 

a waste of resources. Even worse is a tax 

case that, if publicized, would undermine the 

voluntary compliance system. [As sometimes 

happens when prosecuting Tax Protestors.] 

That can occur when the public 

perceives that the tax code has been used 

unfairly, or more frequently, when the case 

and result is such that the public will perceive 

that perpetrators of tax crimes receive 

only a slap on the wrist, implying that tax 

crimes are somehow less serious than other 

Federal cases. 

It is this [public relations] phenomenon 

that sometimes challenges the relationship 

between a U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) 

and the DOJ Tax Division. The USAO tends 

to view a case through a more narrow [nonpolitical] 

lens than the Tax Division. The Assistant 

U.S. Attorney (AUSA) is concerned 

with effectuating substantial justice vis-a-vis 

a particular defendant in a particular factual 

circumstance. While those concerns are important 

to the DOJ Tax Division as well, we 

are much more focused on the impact the 

case will have on the public at large and tax 

compliance more generally. 

Insofar as that impact’s target 

is the “public at large” (body politic) 

the DOJ decision to prosecute 

is primarily political. 


The most dramatic example of this tension 

arises when a Title 18 criminal investigation 

has become more complex than anticipated, 

and the Government is looking for 

an efficient and just way to dispose of the 

case. In this often-repeated theme, a Title 18 

investigation has begun and perhaps even 

been indicted with great prospects, received 

media attention, perhaps based, in an indicted 

case, on a [government?] press release announcing 

the Government’s great efforts to 

address a particularly grave circumstance. 

But unfortunately, something happens on the 

way to the jury. It could be the death of a 

witness; the unavailability of foreign evidence; 

the appearance of a dubious, but perhaps 

convincing alibi; the departure of the 

lead Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) in a 

complex case; etc. The reason doesn’t really 

matter; we often will agree that a serious 

problem has occurred. 

The difficulty for the Tax Division occurs 

when the prosecutor and the defense 

attorney come to an agreement that a tax plea 

is a graceful way out for both parties. Often, 

the defense attorney is content with this result 

because the proposed sentencing guidelines 

will allow for an “acceptable” sentence, 

frequently probation or home confinement. 

But when we evaluate this proposal in 

terms of our tax compliance mission, it presents 

us with great difficulty. We face the 

prospects of having the public perceive that 

a more “serious” Title 18 crime has been 

disposed of with a tax “slap on the wrist” 

[plea bargain]. 

We are concerned that taxpayers will 

perceive that if these bad folks committing 

other crimes are pursued for tax crimes and 

receive small sentences, that they will not be 

pursued and will certainly avoid any jail sentence. 

Such a result is particularly damaging 

to tax enforcement. 

As we begin to discuss these concerns 

with USAOs, we are sometimes confronted 

with an incredulous response along the following 

lines: “Would you rather have us let a 

criminal go completely free (or run a greater 

risk of an acquittal than normal)?” . . . From 

the standpoint of the central mission of the 

Tax Division, the answer is “yes,” we sometimes 

see a greater harm to tax administration 

from accepting that plea than from failing 

to charge the defendant or from dismissing 

the case. 

In other words, to prevent the 

public from “perceiving” that serious 

criminals only get a “slap on the 

wrist” when convicted for serious 

crimes, the DOJ advocates not even 

prosecuting these criminals and giving 

them no slap at all! Apparently, 

our scales of justice have been superceded 

by Nielson Ratings, and 

no modern defense team can be 

complete without a high-priced PR 

agent. 

These kinds of cases also raise another 

important issue for the Tax Division –the 

uniform treatment of taxpayers. Given the 

applicability of our tax laws to all Americans, 

it is exceedingly important that they 

perceive the system as fundamentally fair. 

This means that the Government must act 

uniformly and fairly, and that, all factors being 

equal, the taxpayer referred for criminal 

prosecution in District A gets the same treatment 

as the taxpayer referred for prosecution 

in District B. 

George Orwell would be proud. 

It may be important for taxpayers 

to “perceive” the system as “fundamentally 

fair,” but clearly – if cases 

are prosecuted based on their PR 

potential rather than impartial administration 

of the law, it follows 

that many or most criminal prosecutions 

are dismissed or “underprosecuted” 

because they have no 

PR value. If so, the system is not 

impartial nor is there any real attempt 

to maintain more than the 

“appearance” of fairness. Our criminal 

prosecutions will no longer take 

place in court, but in the Press. 

(Which may explain all the news 

“leaks” that take place during controversial 

trials like the O.J. Simpson 

case and the Clinton impeachment 

hearings.) 

This uniform treatment is a hallmark of 

why the Tax Division was created. The lack 

of a nationwide clearinghouse could (and did) 

generate diverse results that could undermine 

tax compliance. You may present what looks 

like an acceptable tax charge, but the DOJ 

Tax Division may oppose it on uniformity 

grounds. It may be that you propose a case 

with dollar thresholds substantially below 

those normally used by the IRS and the Tax 

Division. Or you may propose a case where 

the evidence of willfulness, while not negligible, 

differs substantially from the degree 

of proof we have required against other taxpayers. 

Or you may propose a criminal prosecution 

in an area of the tax code that has not 

been criminalized before and where there has 

been no antecedent aggressive civil enforcement 

by the IRS. In all of these instances, 

depending on the facts and other circumstances, 

the Tax Division may be much less 

enthusiastic about your case as a matter of 

fundamental fairness to other similarly situated 

taxpayers. 

If “uniformity” is vital to their 

prosecutions, then every defendant 

should seek statistical information 

on the current “uniform” requirements 

for prosecution as well as evidence 

that all “similarly situated” defendants 

have been “similarly” prosecuted. 

Perhaps any defendant who 

could show he was charged outside 

the “uniform” limits, indicted for 

failing to pay less back taxes than 

the current “threshold” requires, or 

even charged based on a substantially 

different “degree of proof” – 

might argue and his case should be 

dismissed or reversed because he’d 

been “selectively” prosecuted. 

Further, if the DOJ only prosecutes 

“maximum publicity” cases, 

it follows that – since IRS publicity 

value is directly proportional to the 

amount of unpaid taxes – under 

their “uniformity” guideline, only the 

richest income tax violators can be 

charged and the IRS should be inhibited 

from indicting average 

Americans for modest amounts of 

money. If so, once the minimum 

“dollar threshold” is identified, the 

public will understand that it can 

avoid paying taxes up to that limit 

and still avoid criminal prosecution. 

For example, suppose the current 

“dollar threshold” is $50,000. 

Once the word got out, the number 

of people willing to risk not paying 

up to $50,000 in back taxes 

would probably increase dramatically. 

Result? No one would be intimidated 

and “deterred” by the 

publicity associated with convictions 

for, say, $55,000 (just $5,000 

over the $50,000 threshold). Result? 

To achieve “maximum publicity,” 

the IRS would have to dramatically 

raise it’s dollar threshold to, 

say, $100,000. 

But once the word got out that 

the new threshold was $100,000, 

even more taxpayers would discover 

they could “safely” evade paying 

up to $100,000 in taxes. Prosecutions 

for $110,000 ($10,000 

over the new-and-improved “threshold”) 

would become boring and lack 

“publicity value”. Therefore, to 


achieve “maximum publicity value,” 

the IRS would have to up the ante 

again to, say, $250,000, . . . and 

then a $1 million, and then . . . pretty 

soon, the logic of “maximum publicity” 

and “uniformity” would force 

the IRS to exclusively prosecute the 

rich until finally, only Bill Gates 

(Microsoft’s $60 billionaire) would 

have enough PR value to be worth 

prosecuting. 

This bizarre chain of logic illustrates 

that the fundamental principles 

of current income tax enforcement 

are irrational, unreasonable 

and ultimately unsustainable. 

Government reliance on “maximum 

publicity” to maintain the “appearance” 

of impartial prosecutions is 

evidence that the system is untenable, 

unstable and near collapse. 

The emperor’s not only nude, he’s 

nuts. 

A more dramatic example illustrates the 

tension. We occasionally see proposed tax 

investigations or charges that involve political 

or other public figures. The structure of 

the entire tax review system, ensures both 

the reality and the public perception that individuals 

charged with criminal tax violations 

are selected for the crimes they commit, 

not because of who they are. No one . . 

. wants a case to be, or to be perceived to be, 

investigated or brought for improper reasons. 

The availability of DOJ Tax Division 

review helps prevent either occurrence. 

Another Orwellian crock; it’s 

hard to read this stuff without wondering 

if the IRS has lost its collective 

mind. Ass’t AG Matthews’ 

whole article states or implies that 

the DOJ’s primary “mission” is to 

prosecute defendants based on 

their publicity value rather than impartial 

enforcement of criminal law. 

Since any defendant’s publicity 

value will necessarily reflect his status 

and name-recognition (“who” he 

is), the government must selectively 

prosecute Willy Nelson and Leona 

Helmsley rather than John Smith. 

Further, if the DOJ selectively 

prosecutes tax cases based on defendants’ 

PR value, that same principle 

may also apply in other areas 

of the law. When Hollywood celebrities, 

professional athletes, rich 

folks and even politicians realize 

their fame has placed them on the 

government’s “most wanted list” – 

not just for tax evasion, but also 

drug use, domestic violence, and 

drunk driving – we may see a highly 

publicized, celebrity-led movement 

to end the IRS and neuter the DOJ. 

There are several other articles 

in the April, 1998 USAB that repeat 

the assertion that there’s no real conflict 

or cause for friction between 

the DOJ’s Tax Division and the 

USAO’s prosecuting attorneys, and 

that really, they are all great friends 

filled with enormous respect for 

each other’s competence and high 

standards. Maybe so, but this mutual 

admiration society is so sweet 

my teeth are beginning to hurt. I 

suspect all this “we’re all on the 

same side” rhetoric is in fact an implicit 

admission of serious interagency 

conflicts. 

But while the DOJ’s Assistant 

AG’s repeatedly praised the US Attorneys’ 

Offices and IRS agents, it’s 

also clear that the DOJ is “signaling” 

its political prosecution policies 

should be respected, acceded to, 

and soon, perhaps even obeyed. 

Apparently, the DOJ is concerned 

that the various independent U.S. Attorneys 

in various Federal “districts” 

are each empowered to prosecute 

whoever they chose within their districts, 

and that these “independent” 

prosecutions are therefore unpredictable, 

not “uniform,” and “insensitive” 

to larger political concerns 

that only the DOJ (from its lofty 

throne in Washington) can see and 

appreciate. 

The USAB article “An AUSA’s Perspective 

on Working with the Tax 

Division,” supports this speculation 

in that it advises all U.S. Attorneys: 

“In your next tax case, consider enlisting 

the assistance of the DOJ Tax Division 

while you are reviewing the case; using its 

technical expertise in devising a strategy and 

conducting a grand jury tax investigation; 

and finally, consider using the technical expertise 

and fresh perspective that a DOJ Tax 

Division attorney can bring to the actual trial 

of the tax case.” 

The DOJ Tax Division’s “expertise” 

and “fresh perspective” may be 

helpful in gaining convictions. However, 

in the context of the total April, 

1998 USAB issue, it appears that 

the DOJ’s real goals for enhancing 

their relationship to the U.S. Attorneys 

may be: 1) to learn who is 

vulnerable to Federal prosecution by 

the U.S. Attorneys, and 2) establish 

Washington’s nationwide influence 

or control over the selection of potential 

defendants which is currently 

divided among the multitude of 

Federal district’s U.S. Attorney and 

exercised independently by each of 

them. 

Perhaps a political struggle is 

underway to consolidate the power 

of selecting who will or won’t be 

prosecuted. Apparently, Washington 

wants that power consolidated 

into a single entity – Washington’s 

DOJ. If this consolidation seems unlikely, 

bear in mind that President 

Clinton already attempted something 

similar when he first took office, 

by firing all previous U.S. Attorneys 

and replacing them with his 

own handpicked prosecutors. Many 

believe this mass firing and replacement 

was a blatant attempt to ensure 

that Federal prosecutors would 

not indict Clinton and cronies in any 

Federal court. 

However, perhaps a couple of 

“bad apples” (latent Republicans, or 

worse, honest men) snuck into 

Clinton’s cadre of Federal prosecutors 

and indicted folks dear to the 

Prez. If so, it might follow that, 

unable to reliably prevent all “unfriendly” 

indictments (even by his 

own handpicked U.S. Attorneys), the 

Clinton administration might move 

to consolidate the entire Federal indictment 

process into a single set 

of politically correct hands (like 

Janet Reno’s). 

If the prosecution selection process 

were consolidated, the DOJ 

would gain enormous power – especially 

since indictments are now 

justified or rejected according to 

publicity and political considerations. 

Under such an arrangement, 

the Attorney General (AG) would 

enjoy true police state power. The 

AG could ensure the administration’s 

friends could never be 

prosecuted (no matter what they 

did) – and their critics could never 

be safe. Such power would truly 

grant a license to steal, even kill, to 

any incumbent administration. 


Keep Your Eye Onnn. . . that 

Gold Fringed Flaaaag! 

The April, 1998 United States Attorneys’ 

Bulletin (USAB), describes Jennifer 

E. Ihlo as the “Senior Trial Attorney, 

Special Counsel for Tax Protest 

Matters (Criminal) Tax Division, Southern 

Criminal Enforcement Section.” The 

USAB implies that Ms. Ihlo is the Department 

of Justice (DOJ) “top gun” for 

“splashing” packs of pesky protestors. 

The following are excerpts from 

Ms. Ihlo’s USAB article, “The Gold 

Fringed Flag: Prosecution of the Illegal 

Tax Protestor,” which I’ve modified with 

my own italicized highlights as well as 

commentary in a san serif type face 

(like this introduction). Footnotes to the 

original article appear as numbers. My 

annotated commentary is identified by 

footnote letters. 

Have you heard the one about the gold 

fringed flag? It goes something like this: 

“This court has no jurisdiction over me because 

the American flag in this courtroom 

has gold fringe on it.” And believe it or not, 

some defendants also argue – with a straight 

face no less – that he or she is not who the 

United States has alleged because their name 

is spelled in all capital letters! Illegal tax 

protesters routinely use arguments similar to 

these as they insist that the Federal Government, 

specifically Federal courts and the IRS, 

have no authority over them. 

Ms. Ihlo opens her article with 

“Have you heard the one about” and 

“with a straight face no less” to signal 

that whatever follows will be too ridiculous 

for any reasonable person to believe. 

Ms. Ihlo thus dispatches the tax 

protestors’ “gold fringed flag” and “all 

capital name” jurisdictional challenges 

with ridicule – not law. However, her 

failure to squarely address these fundamental 

jurisdictional challenges is 

suspicious. By ridiculing these arguments’ 

credibility (rather than legal or 

factual foundation), Ms. Ihlo directly assaults 

belief in those arguments. As 

you’ll see, this issue of “belief” is far 

more important to income tax issues 

than most people imagine. 

In any case, government at least 

owes the American people the courtesy 

of explaining why the Patriot theories 

are invalid, rather than merely ridiculing 

those theories, encouraging 

public ignorance, and thereby indirectly 

causing Americans to become 

“illegal tax protestors”. On the other 

hand, if the gold fringed flag and/or 

upper case name theories are valid, 

government should admit the truth, quit 

the con, and find a new racket. 

At one time or another, everyone complains 

about taxes. Because a cornerstone of 

our heritage is based on the right to free 

speech, simply expressing a disagreement 

with the tax laws or opposition to the enforcement 

of the tax laws is not actionable. 

As a result, only an “illegal tax protester,” 

one who steps outside the bounds of the First 

Amendment and commits a crime in furtherance 

of his or her tax protest beliefs, is subject 

to prosecution. It is only these illegal tax 

protesters that are the focus of this article. 

Finally. A definition of “illegal tax 

protestor”: one who commits a crime 

in furtherance of his protestor beliefs. 

Still, this definition is unsatisfactory. 

Labeling a defendant as an “illegal tax 

protestor” before a trial has proven a 

crime actually occurred is somewhat 

like a prosecutor addressing a defendant 

charged with speeding as a “homosexual 

child molesting necrophiliac 

speeder” throughout the trial. Obviously, 

using such labels before the 

judge or jury have heard any evidence, 

is prejudicial to the defendant and contrary 

to the presumption of innocence. 

The fact is, “tax protest” is one 

thing and “illegal” acts are quite another. 

If failure to file a 1040 is illegal, 

fine – charge the offender with “failure 

to file”. But don’t prejudice his defense 

by branding him with the Scarlet “I” as 

an “Illegal tax protestor” (especially before 

his case has even been tried or 

proved in court). 

Further, while various “illegal acts” 

are fairly well-defined in law, the definition 

of a “tax protestor” is still un- 


clear. For example, in 1994, Republicans 

swept into Congress with their 

“Contract With America” – much of 

which was based on a promise to cut 

taxes. Were all those Republicans and 

their supporters “tax protestors”? 

Sure. But how many Republicans will 

be charged as “illegal tax protestors” if 

they fail to file their 1040s or underreport 

their income? Virtually none. 

Apparently, the “illegal tax protestor” 

label is reserved for Americans 

whose “protests” are outside of mainstream 

political activity. Like most 

other Americans, Republicans (and 

Democrats) typically vote for pleasing 

personalities and catchy political 

phrases, but otherwise have only superficial 

understanding of an 

election’s issues. Like most Americans, 

they’ve never read the Constitution 

and wouldn’t know the tax code if they 

saw it. On the other hand, “illegal tax 

protestors” take their patriotic obligations 

seriously; they read, study and 

can often quote verbatim from the Constitution 

and Internal Revenue Code. 

They don’t throw bombs, they don’t 

shoot people, but they often understand 

the tax laws better than most lawyers 

or IRS employees. 

The real difference between normal 

non-filers (of which there are between 

20 and 40 million) and “illegal 

tax protesters” (of which there are probably 

no more than 100,000) is not their 

acts, but their politics and more precisely 

– their beliefs. In the end, the 

Republicans only protest the tax rate 

(they’d rather pay 15% than 25% to 

Uncle Sam) but not the “system” itself. 

But the tax rate is of minor concern to 

“illegal tax protestors”; their fundamental 

issue is that the “de facto” government 

is a criminal, unconstitutional enterprise 

whose activities are based on 

deceit and violence. Thus, the conflict 

between the Federal government 

and “illegal tax protestors” is a kind of 

holy war between two adversaries who 

are about as prone to compromise as 

the Catholics and Jews. “Illegal tax protestors” 

aren’t people who challenge 

the income tax, they challenge the 

system. 

The IRS identifies an illegal tax protester 

by the type of scheme employed to 

circumvent the payment of taxes. An illegal 

tax protest scheme is any scheme, without 

basis in law or fact, designed to express dissatisfaction 

with the tax laws by interfering 

with their administration or attempting to 

illegally avoid or reduce tax liabilities. 

Note that Ms. Ihlo indicates that 

use of a “scheme, without basis in law 

or fact,” can trigger criminal prosecution 

as an “illegal tax protestor”. A list 

of “schemes” follows and should be 

recognized as potentially dangerous 

“triggers” – unless they are supported 

by a legal or factual “basis”. 

Technology is one factor that appears 

to be contributing to the increase in illegal 

tax protesters. The Internet has greatly increased 

the protesters’ audience by allowing 

virtually instantaneous communication of 

their ideas and beliefs. Technology has also 

increased the sophistication of their attempts 

to frustrate the IRS. . . . 

Schemin’ 

The schemes illegal tax protesters develop, 

sell, or participate in to evade their 

personal income tax liabilities are numerous 

and are limited only by the imagination. Some 

schemes are eventually abandoned as failures. 

Others are simply improved upon or 

resurrected from time to time. 

Church Scheme: The church schemes 

of the 1980s have been abandoned by the 

illegal tax protester movement. . . . The “charitable 

contribution scheme” involved the claim 

that the taxpayer had donated all of his or her 

income to the church by depositing it into a 

bank account that the taxpayer had opened in 

the name of the purported church. The taxpayer 

then deducted this contribution (usually 

equal to all of the taxpayer’s income) on 

his or her income tax return, which resulted 

in no tax owed to the IRS. 

These schemes were easily refuted and 

successfully prosecuted by simply proving 

that there was no real contribution because 

the taxpayer continued to use and enjoy all 

of the alleged church income for his or her 

personal benefit. The key was to focus on 

how the funds were spent rather than complicating 

the case by proving that the church 

was a sham or not legally tax-exempt. 2 

A similar strategy is currently used 

by the IRS to defeat trusts. This is not 

surprising since the organizational 

structure of true churches and trusts 

are almost identical. 

Harassment Schemes: Schemes to 

harass and intimidate tax enforcement offi- 

cials have been the most consistently used, 

although with different techniques over the 

years. One of the earliest schemes involved 

the filing of a Form 1099 reporting amounts 

allegedly paid to an IRS employee, prosecutor, 

or judge. In this early scheme an illegal 

tax protester filed a Form 1099, which falsely 

reported that the named law enforcement official 

earned significant income – usually over 

$1 million. After the illegal tax protester filed 

the harassing Form 1099, he or she alerted 

the IRS to the allegedly unreported $1 million 

income. Sometimes the illegal tax protester 

even requested a reward for supplying 

this information. As a consequence, the illegal 

tax protester hoped that the resulting audit 

of the law enforcement official’s tax accounts 

would scare away the official from 

the case. 

The issue is not use of the 1099, 

but fraud. If 1099’s were based on lies, 

the persons filing those fraudulent 

document deserved to be prosecuted 

and jailed. 

In the early to mid-1990s protesters 

became fond of filing liens against IRS employees. 

This was a common tactic of The 

Pilot Connection Society, an organization that 

was essentially put out of business in 1996 

with the convictions and significant sentences 

of the group’s leaders in the Northern Districts 

of California and Texas. Today, liens 

seem to have been replaced with other types 

of harassing documents such as “common 

law court” documents and “non-statutory 

notices of abatement.” Common law court 

and similar documents, including promissory 

notes and arrest warrants, are used by illegal 

tax protesters to obstruct tax audits or investigations 

and may well give rise to criminal 

charges under the “tax obstruction” statute – 

26 U.S.C. §7212(a). Be aware, though, that 

the [DOJ’s] Tax Division has specific guidelines 

concerning the use of Section 7212(a), 

such as the requirement that the Tax Division 

must authorize Section 7212(a) prosecutions. 

See Tax Division Directive No. 77. 

It’s interesting that use of Sect. 

7212(a) is restricted by Tax Division 

“guidelines”. Why would the Tax Division 

restrict the use of a law apparently 

designed to protect government employees 

from such “harassment” unless 

some of that “harassment” was legal? 

In some instances, the filing of common 

law court and other documents intended 

to harass or impede may not rise to the level 

of criminal prosecution. Even so, these docu- 


ments can be relevant evidence of willfulness 

in the context of prosecuting other criminal 

tax offenses. For example, these documents 

might be used to show that failing to 

file a tax return was not a mistake or accident. 

They may also be used to justify a sentencing 

enhancement for obstruction of justice, 

particularly when the case agent, prosecutor, 

or trial judge is sued just prior to a 

hearing or the trial itself. 

I suspect tax laws are administered 

in courts of Equity, and the foundation 

underlying the income tax system 

is that of a trust. Attorney Ihlo’s 

use of the terms “willfulness,” “mistake” 

and “accident” imply the presence of 

a trust structure in IRS enforcement. 

The concept of “willfulness” is vital to 

trustees (natural persons ulimately 

tricked into becoming taxpayers) 

since, if it can be proved that they 

acted “willfully” when they committed 

a particular offense they may be criminally 

liable. Otherwise, trustees can 

probably avoid personal liability for almost 

any offense so long as they can 

argue their offense was not committed 

“willfully,” but was instead due to ignorance, 

accident or mistake committed 

in “good faith”. Ignorance may be no 

excuse in the eyes of the Law, but in 

courts of Equity (where trusts and beneficiary 

claims against trustee actions 

may be tried), ignorance is a near-perfect 

defense that cloaks every trustee 

with “good faith immunity”. 

An example of the type of common law 

court documents illegal tax protesters use to 

harass prosecutors involves a case that I 

jointly prosecuted with an Ass’t U.S. Attorney 

from the Western District of Texas. In 

this case, the defendant sent each of us a 

promissory note and claimed that each of us 

owed him $2 million – in silver. The promissory 

notes also listed numerous offenses that 

we allegedly committed, including an assertion 

that we had acted in bad faith by representing 

a fictitious plaintiff – the United 

States. The really cagey part, however, was 

that our names had been typed onto the line 

requiring our signatures, under which was 

cited “UCC 3-401.” Uniform Commercial 

Code (UCC) 3-401 provides that a typewritten 

signature suffices as a signature. 

For a natural man, an artificial entity, 

or both? 

Of course, as is typical of an illegal tax 

protester, the defendant picked the portion of 

the law he liked and ignored the parts he did 

not. In this case, he simply ignored the part 

providing that the party has to “adopt” the 

typewritten signature as his or her own. 

Tax Protestors are not alone in using 

legal excerpts out of context; all 

attorneys, including those in government, 

enjoy a similar reputation. 

Although illegal tax protesters are 

happy to sign your name to documents, they 

often insert a form of disclaimer before signing 

their own names to documents. The inclusion 

of “under duress,” “UCC 1-207,” or 

some other form of alteration of the jurat is 

used by illegal tax protesters as an attempt to 

nullify their own signatures. . . . These disclaimers 

are meaningless, of course, except 

perhaps as argument for the Government that 

the defendant acted willfully. 

Bogus Financial Instruments: One 

of the most well-publicized illegal tax protest 

schemes in recent years has been the 

promotion and use of bogus financial instruments, 

including certified money orders, certified 

bank checks, public office money certificates, 

and comptroller warrants. This 

scheme is an attack on both the IRS and the 

banking system, and arose out of the misguided 

theory that United States currency, 

“Federal Reserve Notes,” are not legal tender. 

Not precisely. FRNs are “legal tender” 

capable of transferring equitable 

title to property between the immediate 

“purchaser” and “seller,” but (unlike 

pre-1933 gold or silver coins) they are 

not “tender” which also exchanges legal 

title to the “buyer”. See AntiShyster 

Vol. 8 No. 2 

According to illegal tax protesters, 

United States currency is worthless. 

Not quite. A $1 FRN is currently 

worth about $0.05 as compared to a $1 

FRN in 1933. 

As a result, illegal tax protesters theorize 

that they should have an equal right to 

create money; e.g., these fraudulent financial 

instruments. 

In fact, under the Constitution, private 

citizens have always had the right 

to “create” money by mining gold or 

silver out of the ground and submitting 

their ore to the U.S. Mint to be purified 

and “coined” (certified) into currency. 

Even today, through the use of 

credit or checks, Americans still exer- 

cise a vestigial right to “create” money 

every bit as real as FRNs.] 

Of course, it is not only humorous but 

also good evidence of willfulness when the 

only form of payment illegal tax protesters 

will accept for the purchase of these bogus 

financial instruments happens to be that supposedly 

worthless United States currency. 

Typically, an illegal tax protester will 

purchase a package of instructional materials 

that includes one or more of these bogus 

financial instruments. The instructions tell 

the purchaser to submit each bogus financial 

instrument for significantly more – usually 

double or triple – than the amount of any 

debt to the IRS or private creditor. The instructions 

also recommend that the bogus 

financial instruments be tendered with a “demand 

letter” requesting that the debtor’s account 

be zero-balanced and that a refund of 

any overpayment be issued to the debtor. 

Be extremely cautious of any strategy 

that not only claims to teach how 

to stop paying income taxes, but also 

how to collect a generous “refund” 

from the IRS. The IRS may send a refund 

check, but if that refund was secured 

under false pretences, the fact 

that you sign and cash the check may 

constitute evidence to virtually guarantee 

your criminal conviction for 

fraud. 

Bogus financial instruments presented 

to the IRS are typically prosecuted as a Klein 3 

conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371) if multiple 

parties are charged, or as a false claim for 

refund (18 U.S.C. § 287) [for a single party]. 

. . . On rare occasions, the bogus financial 

instrument is not accompanied by a demand 

letter. This may present proof problems if 

your case involves a false claim for refund 

charge. By itself, the absence of a demand 

letter is not necessarily fatal to this charge. 

However, you must have some evidence to 

prove that the defendant knew that the bogus 

financial instrument was for an amount that 

exceeded the IRS tax debt and that he or she 

expected the difference to be refunded. 

Therefore, examine the defendant’s previously 

filed tax returns to see whether he or 

she [ever?] received a refund. Also, look for 

any notices of deficiency, Federal tax lien(s), 

or other documents that notified the defendant 

of the amount he or she owed to the 

IRS. In addition, the instructional materials 

included with the bogus financial instruments 

often contain a specific instruction that the 

IRS will automatically refund the difference 


etween the defendant’s IRS debt and the 

amount of the bogus financial instrument. 

Proof that the defendant received this instruction 

would make great evidence that the defendant 

intended to obtain a refund, despite 

his or her failure to send a demand letter. . . . 

Non-Resident Aliens: Another 

scheme used by illegal tax protesters involves 

the individual claim that he or she is a “nonresident 

alien” of the United States. In this 

scheme, the illegal tax protester usually submits 

a false Form 1040NR (U.S. Nonresident 

Alien Income Tax Return), claiming exemption 

from the Federal income tax laws 

because he or she is the sovereign citizen of 

a particular state – not a U.S. citizen. 

Not precisely. The issue is based 

on Citizenship of a “State” (a collection 

of natural people) rather than a 

“state” or “STATE” (which is believed 

to be a corporation/ artificial entity). 

Since the principal theory of this scheme 

is state citizenship, look for evidence that the 

illegal tax protester failed to file or pay state 

or other local taxes, such as school or personal 

property taxes. Other evidence showing 

the speciousness of the defendant’s position 

could include a Federal voting record 

or application for a U.S. passport. 

This implies voter registration and 

passport applications may obligate us 

to pay income tax.] 

In non-resident alien scheme cases, the 

filing of a Form 1040NR is often used as an 

affirmative act of evasion. These forms are 

of two types: a false return or a false document. 

The distinction is important in how the 

case is charged and in how the document is 

characterized since tax forms, whether or not 

they contain any tax information, are commonly 

called “returns.” However, simply 

“filing” an IRS form does not necessarily 

make that form a “return” for IRS purposes. 

For example, tax forms that contain insufficient 

information from which a tax can 

be computed are not returns. 4 In some circuits, 

a tax form containing zeros on each 

line is not considered to be a return. 5 The 

Ninth Circuit, however, has held that zeros 

themselves are numbers from which a tax 

could be computed and, if false, should be 

charged as a false return under 26 U.S.C. § 

7206(1) 6 . On the question of whether a document 

constitutes a proper return, the courts 

are split as to whether this question should 

be for the court or the jury. 7 In cases in which 

the filed document is not a return and that 

fact is important to the theory of your case, 

refer to the tax form as a false document, not 

a return! 

Warehouse Banks: One tax avoidance 

scheme that has been resurrected from 

the mid-1980s involves the use of a warehouse 

bank to hide assets. . . . through the 

use of numbered, not named, accounts. Depositors 

have access to their money in two 

ways: (1) upon request, the warehouse bank 

will send cash to a depositor via registered mail 

and (2) a bill-paying service of the warehouse 

bank will write checks on the warehouse bank 

account to creditors of depositors. 8 

In the mid-1980s, most of the accounts 

were held by individuals. The current schemes 

also involve the use of trusts and unincorporated 

business organizations (UBO) to protect 

the identity of the individual. For example, 

a defendant will have all of his or her income 

paid to a trust or fictitious UBO. The income 

of the trust or UBO is then deposited into the 

warehouse bank account. As a result, the paper 

trail becomes much more complex and the 

identity of the taxpayer is further insulated. 

In the past, the operators of this scheme 

have been prosecuted on “Klein” conspiracy 

charges, while the account holders were 

charged with tax evasion. Make sure the facts 

clearly support any decision to charge warehouse 

bank operators and account holders in 

the same conspiracy. Otherwise, you might 

end up with an unwanted severance of defendants 

and indictment counts. 

You can’t have a conspiracy without 

the involvement of at least two parties; 

if the parties are “severed,” the 

conspiracy charge may fail. 

If you are prosecuting a Klein conspiracy, 

you must prove that there was a tax 

motive to the conspiracy. 9 

Trusts: Another well-known and frequently 

promoted illegal tax protester scheme 

involves the use of trusts to hide assets and 

property. Sham trusts, both foreign and domestic, 

have been used by illegal tax protesters 

for years. Once a trust is identified, proving 

it is a sham can be simple. Just look to 

see who is spending and controlling the 

money and assets. Show the jury that the 

defendant did not intend for the property to 

be held in trust because he or she still controlled 

the use of the funds. In many instances, 

the money and property will be controlled 

no differently than if the defendant had never 

formed a trust. It is easier to prove who spent 

the money than it is to prove whether the 

form of the trust was fraudulent. 

Ms. Ihlo’s aversion to “schemes” 

used to avoid paying income taxes is 

matched by the Protestors’ aversion to 

government “schemes” to compel paying 

income taxes. For example, there 

is persuasive evidence that an 

individual’s obligation to pay income 

tax is primarily based on that 

individual’s use of a Social Security 

Number. I.e., Social Security is a 

“scheme” whereby the government offered 

Americans the “benefit” of an old 

age insurance program during the last 

few years of their lives (but never bothered 

to mention that by voluntarily accepting 

the Social Security “benefit,” 

each American also “volunteered” to 

pay income taxes during their entire 

productive life). Also, Ms. Ihlo has already 

implied that voting in Federal 

elections may obligate one to pay income 

tax. If so, is voter registration 

really a government income tax 

“scheme”? 

This is the heart of the government/ 

Protestor conflict. Government 

accuses Protestors of using “schemes” 

to evade lawful taxes; Protestors accuse 

government of using “schemes” 

to impose unlawful taxes. 

At least one side is wrong. 

Compared to the Protestors, government 

has massive power and resources 

and therefore nothing to fear 

– unless the protestors are right. Therefore, 

if the government is the good guy 

in this conflict and truly concerned 

about the growing tax protest movement, 

government could easily afford 

to address each of the Protestors’ fundamental 

arguments in a lengthy, public 

debate that ultimately proves or disproves 

which side is the primary 

“schemer”. The fact that government 

prefers to incarcerate rather than educate 

implies the Protestors are right. 

Tactics and Defenses 

. . . Illegal tax protesters are renowned 

for their penchant to inundate prosecutors 

with paper – frivolous motion after frivolous 

motion. Illegal tax protesters often represent 

themselves, making motion practice 

even more difficult. As a result, trying to 

figure out what their arguments are can be a 

difficult task. 

Instead of motions (which are easily 

dismissed), Protestors might be better 

off to send administrative notices. 

Most of the common tactics and de- 


fenses used by illegal tax protesters have been 

routinely dismissed by the courts. Illegal tax 

protesters, however, ignore these decisions 

and claim that no one from the Government 

will answer their questions. 

Even if IRS agents answer our questions, 

we may not rely on their answers. 

According to the United Block Co. Inc. 

vs. Helvering Commissioner of Int. Rev. 

decision of 1941, “taxpayer accepts 

advice of revenue officials at peril of 

taxpayer.” I.e., even if government answers, 

there’s no assurance the answers 

are correct, nor are IRS agents 

liable for giving faulty advice. 

Some of the more common tactics and 

defenses raised by illegal tax protesters and 

rejected by the courts are: (1) the income tax 

is voluntary, 10 (2) wages are not income, 11 

(3) the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly 

ratified, 12 and (4) the IRS has the duty to 

prepare tax returns for the taxpayer. 13 

Good faith vs. true faith? 

One defense that must be carefully 

handled is the “good faith” defense, which is 

used to refute willfulness. Illegal tax protesters 

routinely attempt to prove that they “believed” 

they did not have to file tax returns or 

pay taxes. Many of the reasons they use, 

such as the ones mentioned above, may seem 

unbelievable. Nevertheless, this is an issue 

that must go to the jury. In the seminal case 

of Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 201 

(1991), the Supreme Court held that a 

taxpayer’s “belief’ that he or she was not 

required to file a tax return, however incredible 

such a misunderstanding of and beliefs 

about the law might be, does not have to be 

objectively reasonable. Rather, the standard 

is subjective. 

Still, this defense is not insurmountable. 

(Cheek claimed that he did not file tax 

returns because he believed that he was not a 

taxpayer within the tax laws, that wages are 

not income, that the Sixteenth Amendment 

does not authorize the taxation of individuals, 

and that the Sixteenth Amendment was 

unenforceable. Cheek, 498 U.S. at 195.) 

[Please see the following article, “Good Faith 

vs. True Faith” for further consideration of 

the faith/belief elements of modern tax prosecution.] 

In an attempt to present a good faith 

defense, most illegal tax protesters will attempt 

to introduce copies of the Constitution, 

the IRS Special Agents Handbook, various 

court decisions, protester publications, 

as well as other documents. The admissibil- 

ity [but not validity] of these documents is 

generally left to the discretion of the court. 14 

To limit or prevent an illegal tax protester 

from introducing these documents into evidence, 

consider arguing that (1) the content 

of these documents are more prejudicial than 

probative 15 [the Constitution is “prejudicial”? 

Ha!] and (2) the admissibility of these documents 

invades the province of the court to 

instruct the jury on the law. 16 [The law is 

only marginally relevant in courts of Equity.] 

The key is to distinguish between a misunderstanding 

of the law versus a disagreement 

with the law. Whether to object to the 

admission of these protester documents [the 

Constitution and IRS “Handbook” are “protestor 

documents”?!] however, is a trial strategy 

that varies from case to case and circuit 

to circuit. 

Whether or not the documents themselves 

are admitted into evidence, a defendant 

will generally be allowed to testify about 

his or her beliefs during the prosecution period 

and what he or she relied on to form 

those beliefs. 17 Evidence about what the law 

is or should be may be excluded. However, 

evidence that is relevant to a jury’s determination 

of what a defendant thought [believed] 

the law was may not be excluded. 18 A defendant 

who testifies that he or she knew the law, 

but disagrees with – or does not like – the law, 

is not entitled to a good faith instruction. 19 

I suspect judges give a “good 

faith instructions” to juries to provide 

a handy excuse to find the defendant 

Not Guilty of a criminal offence by virtue 

of their defendant’s intent. If you 

wanted to extend the spiritual interpretation 

of these trials, the “good faith 

instruction” is something like a blessing, 

benediction, or even a “Papal indulgence” 

wherein the penitent (now 

seen to be a “remorseful” member of 

the state’s church of “good faith”) 

might be ordered to say 100 Hail 

Reno’s rather than go to jail. If you got 

“good faith,” baby, you can’t be convicted 

of a crime. The problem is that 

statutory “good faith” and spiritual 

“true faith” in God are mutually exclusive. 

If legal documents, protester publications 

or similar protester-type documents 

[articles of the defendant’s belief/faith] are 

introduced or if the defendant is allowed to 

testify about what the law is, ask for a limiting 

instruction. [Apparently, only the lawyers 

and judges can testify on “what the law 

is”. The rest of us are bound like medieval 

serfs to unquestionably believe and obey our 

“high priests”.] Such an instruction should 

remind the jury that the document/statement 

is the defendant’s understanding of what the 

law was; that the jury is the judge of the 

facts, not the law [Which “law”? The 

judge’s? The legislatures? The Constitution? 

The statutory “faith”?]; and that the document/statement 

was admitted solely for the 

purpose of showing the defendant’s state of 

mind and not to prove the actual requirements 

of the law. 

Finally, because illegal tax protesters do 

not limit their illegal schemes to the Federal 

arena, do not forget to look for documents 

that may be on file with a state or county 

government, such as state tax returns or property 

tax filings. These records, or the lack 

thereof, may serve as evidence of willfulness 

[lack of statutory “good faith”] in the Federal 

case. 

Ms Ihlo apparently refers to Protestors 

who argue they are “Citizens” 

of a constitutional “State” (like “Texas”) 

and therefore not liable to pay Federal 

income tax. But Ms. Ihlo misstates that 

argument by alleging the Protestors 

claim to be “citizens” of a corporate 

“state” (like “TEXAS,” “STATE OF TEXAS” 

or “TX”) which they believe is simply a 

franchise (harlot) of the “mother” corporation 

called “UNITED STATES”. 

Whether the Protestors are right or 

wrong remains to be seen. But their 

arguments usually have much more 

complexity and legal depth than Ms. 

Ihlo implies. . . . In a sense, Protestors 

are statutory non-believers. What does 

any belief-based government do with 

infidels? Jail ‘em. At best. 

Coordination and 

communication 

As important as coordination and communication 

have been to the expansion of 

the illegal tax protester movement, both have 

also been critical to the United States’ attempt 

to bring illegal tax protesters into compliance 

[belief] with the tax laws. Providing 

coordination and promoting communication 

is a principal role of the Tax Division. With 

roughly 20 years of experience in prosecuting 

these cases, the Tax Division has amassed 

a collection of responses to the motions filed 

by illegal tax protesters and is currently developing 

a motions bank of these materials. 

Identification of nationwide schemes to avoid 

overlap and successive prosecution issues is 

also one of the Tax Division’s core functions. 


Is that “motions bank” open to public 

inspection or Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA) requests? It should be 

available to the public as an aid to potential 

consumers of “un-tax” strategies 

being sold by various “un-tax” promoters. 

Conclusion 

Given the absurdity of many [not all?] 

illegal tax protester arguments, the potential 

for danger and the inevitability of being buried 

under tons of paper, what will you do 

when you find yourself assigned to prosecute 

an illegal tax protester for criminal violations 

of the internal revenue code? Hopefully, you 

will roll up your sleeves and prepare yourself 

for the deluge of frivolous motions. You can 

also call the DOJ Tax Division with any questions 

you have and take advantage of the experience 

we have amassed. 

As time consuming as the investigation, 

trial preparation, and trial of these cases 

can be (and yes, illegal tax protesters will 

appeal and appeal and appeal), pursuit of the 

illegal tax protester can result in some of the 

more rewarding tax trials you may have. The 

bizarre theories keep the cases more interesting 

than other tax cases and often provide 

great stories. [!] Their unyielding opposition 

to any form of governmental authority also 

makes these defendants a unique brand of 

white collar criminal [in 1776, King George 

probably said the same thing about Washington, 

Jefferson and Payne], and the completion 

of a successful prosecution against them 

provides much satisfaction. 

Ohh – how exciting! Sounds like a 

promo for colorful vacations in the Sierra 

Madres to hunt the “wily Tax Protestor”. 

It all sounds very grand – but 

at no point does Ms. Ihlo uniquivocably 

declare the Protestors are wrong and 

the IRS “hunters” are right. 

1 

See, e.g., In re Robnett, 165 B.R. 

272, 274 (9th Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Connor, 

898 F.2d 942, 943 (3d. Ci), cert. denied, 

497 U.S. 1029 (1990); Lonsdale v. U.S., 

919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990); 

U.S. v. Sloan, 704 F. Supp. 880, 881 

(N.D. Ind. 1989). 

2 

See, e.g., U.S. v. Ebner, 782 F.2d 

1120 (2d Cir. 1986); and U.S. v. Dube, 

820 F.2d 886 (7th Cir. 1987). 

3 

U.S. v. Klein, 247 F.2d 908 (2d Cir. 

1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 924 (1958). 

4 

See U.S. v. Porth, 426 F.2d 

519,523(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 

824(1970); U.S. v. Daly, 481 F.2d 

28,29(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 

1064 (1973); U.S. v. Schiff, 612 F.2d 73, 

77 (2d Cir. 1979); U.S. v. Green, 757 F.2d 

116, 121 (7th Cir. 1985); U.S. v. Kimball, 

925 F.2d 356, 357(9th Cir. 1991) (en 

banc); and U.S. v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 

835 (7th Cu. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 

916 (1981). 

5 See U.S. v. Mosel, 738 F.2d 157, 

158 (6th Cir. 1984); U.S. v. Smith, 618 

F.2d 280, 281 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 

U.S. 868 (1980); U.S. v. Rickman, 638 

F.2d 182, 184 (10th Cir. 1980). 

6 

U.S. v. Long, 618 F.2d 74,75 (9th 

Cir. 1980). 

7 

See U.S. v. Goetz, 746 F.2d 

705,707(11th Cir. 1984) (holding that the 

issue of whether a document is a proper 

return is a jury question); and U.S. v. 

Grabinski, 558 F. Supp. 1324, 1332 (D. 

Minn. 1983) (holding that the determination 

of what is an adequate return is a legal 

question). 

8 See U.S. v. Becker, 965 F.2d 383, 

385 (7th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 

971 (1993); and National Commodity and 

Barter Ass’n v. U.S., 951 F.2d 1172, 1173 

(10th Cir. 1991). 

9 

U.S. v. Pritchett, 908 F.2d 816 

(11th Cir. 1990). 

10 

See, e.g., U.S. v. Richards, 723 

F.2d 646, 648 (8th Cir. 1983); U.S. v. 

Tedder, 787 F.2d 540, 542 (l0thCir. 1986). 

11 

See, e.g., U.S. v. Becker, 965 F.2d 

383, 389 (7 th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 

U.S. 971 (1993); U.S. v. Connor, 898 F.2d 

942, 943-44 (3d Cir.) cert. denied, 497 

U.S. 1029 (1990); U.S. v. Burton, 737 

F.2d 439, 441 (5th Cir. 1984). 

12 

See, e.g., U.S. v. Benson, 941 F.2d 

598, 607 (7 th Cir. 1991); U.S. v. Collins, 

920 F.2d 619,629 (10 th Cir. 1990), cert. 

denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991); In re Becraft, 

885 F.2d 547, 548-549 (9th Cir. 1989); 

and U.S. v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43,44-47 (2d 

Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 827 (1988). 

13 

See, e.g.. U.S. v. Stafford, 983 

F.2d 25,27 (5 th Cir. 1993); U.S. v. Powell, 

955 F.2d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 1992); and 

U.S. v. Barnett, 945 F.2d 1296, 1300 (5th 

Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 941 

(1992). 

14 

. U.S. v. Willie, 941 Fid 1384, 

1398(10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 502 

U.S. 1106(1992); and U.S. v. Payne, 978 

F.2d 1177, 1182(10th Cir. 1992), cert. 

denied, 508 U.S. 950 (1993). 

15 See Payne, 978 F.2d at 1182; and 

U.S. v. Barnett, 945 F.2d 1296, 1301 (5th 

Cir. 1991), cert. denied,503 U.S. 941 

(1992). 

16 

See Willie, 941 F.2d at 1396. 

17 

See Payne, 978 F.2d at 1182; and 

Barnett, 945 F.2d at 1301. 

18 

Stafford, 983 F.2d at 27; and 

Powell, 955 F.2d at 1214. 

19 See U.S. v. Dack, 987 F.2d 1282, 

1285 (7th Cir. 1993); U.S. v. Powell, 955 

F.2d 1206, 1212(9 th Cir. 1992); and Willie, 

941 F.2d at 1392. 


This next article will probably 

seem at least a little “goofy” to some 

readers. Well, perhaps it is. Another 

one of my “half-baked” rambles. 

Nevertheless, if you read closely 

you might find the germ of an intriguing 

insight. 

In the previous article (“Keep Your Eye 

Onnn . . . that Gold Fringed Flaaag!”) 

Department of Justice attorney Ihlo distinguished 

between “misunderstanding” the 

law (which can get you fined) and “disagreeing” 

with the law (which can get you jailed). 

Ms. Ihlo implied that the fundamental difference 

between “misunderstanding” and “disagreement” 

involves intent – the essence of 

all criminal acts. 

For example, if I accidentally fire my 

gun and kill my neighbor, I’m in serious 

trouble, but since the killing was unintentional, 

I won’t be tried as a criminal. On the 

other hand, if I intentionally shoot at my 

neighbor, I have committed a criminal act 

(attempted homicide) and can be jailed even 

if the bullet misses and my neighbor is unhurt. 

Similarly, if a taxpayer fails to file or 

pay income taxes due to his “misunderstanding” 

of tax laws, he has merely committed an 

unintentional mistake in “good faith” and 

therefore can’t be tried criminally and sub- 

Is Good Faith 

a False Religion? 


jected to incarceration. But if a Protestor 

“understands” the tax laws but disagrees with 

them and therefore intentionally refuses to 

file or pay, his intentional “disagreement” 

may subject him to criminal prosecution and 

incarceration. 

This distinction between mistake and 

disagreement might allow “pragmatic” defendants 

facing criminal prosecution to base 

their defense on their (alleged) uncertainties 

concerning tax law. As evidenced by reading 

a large number of conflicting IRS books, 

case law and/or the answers to questions directed 

to IRS officials, it’s not too hard to 

argue that the tax law is so ambiguous, contradictory 

and confusing that an unintentional 

misunderstanding of the law (and resultant 

failure to file or pay income taxes) is not 

only possible but inevitable. (Does anyone 

truly “understand” the entire tax law?) 

However, most Protestors are more passionate 

than pragmatic. They’re often motivated 

by a strong (if confused) sense of patriotism, 

morality or faith in God. They don’t 

merely “believe” they’re not liable to file or 

pay income taxes, they often believe the government 

itself is a criminal or Evil enterprise 

and any cooperation with that enterprise is 

not only wrong but sinful. 

Right or wrong, for such “true believers” 

the income tax is not the issue or the 

problem; it’s merely a symptom of something 

deeper, darker and dangerous to all 

Americans. As such, it’s almost impossible 

for some Protestors to “play it smart” and 

defend their failure to pay income taxes as a 

mere mistake based on “good faith” belief. 

In a sense, such Protestors will not – can not 

– trade their “true faith” in God (or the Constitution) 

for the government’s “good faith” 

defenses. And so they may be driven by 

compulsions of personal integrity or spiritual 

faith (which even they don’t fully comprehend) 

to defy the government in order to 

serve their integrity or their God. Although 

their defiance is intentional, few appreciate 

that their intent is often not to evade taxes, 

but to avoid supporting a corrupt/Evil government 

and more precisely, to thereby serve 

their own God. 

The average American juror (who’s 

never read the Constitution and rarely reads 

the Bible) will view the Protestor’s defiant 

rhetoric as the political equivalent of “speaking 

in tongues” or evidence of mental instability. 

But ultimately – whether he knows it 

or not – the Protestor is condemned by his 

sense of morality and spirituality. Protestors 

just can’t stand to kiss the Devil. 

Initially, the idea that many “illegal tax 

protestor” prosecutions pivot on spiritual 

issues seems absurd. But even 

judges intuitively sense the spiritual nature 

of these conflicts. For example, Dr. Peter 

Rivera is a fine husband, father and brilliant 

physician who – based on extensive study 

of tax laws and the Bible – stopped paying 


income taxes. Dr. Rivera was eventually tried 

and convicted for tax evasion. At his sentencing 

hearing in Dallas (1/4/99), Dr. Rivera 

continued to espouse his patriotic and spiritual 

beliefs. The judge replied that if Dr. 

Rivera had shown the least “remorse” (secular 

repentance) his sentence might’ve been 

reduced. But because Dr. Rivera maintained 

the same beliefs he held before the trial began, 

he was sentenced to the maximum of 36 

months. 

Thus, that Federal judge exercised a 

power similar to that applied during the Spanish 

Inquisition to heretics who were tortured 

until they “recanted” their “heretical” (politically 

incorrect) faith or died. Nothing new 

under the sun, hmm? In 15 th century Spain 

and 20 th century America, be you Spanish 

Jew or American “Illegal Tax Protestor,” your 

beliefs can cost your freedom. 

Some of DOJ attorney Ihlo’s 

most remark-able comments involved 

the Cheek case (who avoided conviction by 

arguing he truly believed he need not file or 

pay income tax) and her advice that federal 

prosecutors’ should avoid challenging the 

Protestor’s beliefs. Government’s recognition 

of “belief” as a valid defense supports 

some Protestors’ arguments that all confrontation 

with government is primarily spiritual, 

not legal. (After all, if “belief” is so crucial 

to trials that even federal prosecutors must 

avoid it, is it so farfetched to argue that there 

may be a “spiritual” foundation for all our 

courts?) 

Unfortunately, secular belief is a twoedged 

sword. The government’s willingness 

to recognize defendants’ “beliefs” not 

only offers an “easy out” for Protestors (or 

should we call ‘em “Protestants”?), it also 

protects the government’s ability to enforce 

unconstitutional laws. 

For example, suppose a brilliant Protestor 

presents evidence and argument sufficient 

to prove the income tax is unconstitutional. 

If that argument were validated by 

any jury or appellate court, the entire income 

tax system would collapse. But. Suppose 

prosecutors were able to convince the jury 

that the brilliant defendant – no matter how 

persuasive his evidence and arguments – 

merely “believes” the income tax law is unconstitutional. 

Then, based on his “beliefs,” 

that one defendant might escape prosecution 

– but his argument and evidence (reduced to 

a “mere” personal belief) could not topple 

the system. Result? Shielded by “belief” 

from objective truth, the IRS could continue 

to impose an unconstitutional income tax on 

200 million Americans. 

Further, just as my “belief” that the income 

tax is unconstitutional may protect me 

from criminal prosecution for failure to file, 

an IRS agent’s “belief” that I was reaching 

for a gun when he raided my home can protect 

him from prosecution for shooting me 

dead. My “good faith belief” that I need not 

file income taxes and the IRS agent’s “good 

faith belief” that an innocent person was 

reaching for a nonexistent gun, are two sides 

of the same “holy war”. 

Insofar as I rely on a “good faith” defense, 

I must also accept the government’s 

“good faith” defenses. I doubt this is a good 

trade, if only because the government is 

trained in this secular “good faith” and we 

are not. Without that training, we are about 

as effective in our government courts as 

Catholics arguing their “good faith” in Jesus 

to a Sanhedrin court in Israel. Thus, I think 

we should reconsider our willingness to accept 

a government based on “good faith”. 

Does the government use “be 

lief” as an excuse for seemingly criminal 

acts? Of course. Waco was a classic 

example, but we still see it in the headlines 

every few months. Police kill some innocent 

person while serving a warrant at the 

wrong address. Will any Police Officer be 

jailed or even charged for killing that innocent 

person? Not likely. 

Police are routinely shielded by their 

“good faith immunity” if they claim: 1) they 

“truly believed” the warrant was lawful (even 

if it wasn’t); or 2) they “truly believed” they 

were serving the warrant at the correct address 

(even if it wasn’t); or 3) they “truly 

believed” the innocent party they killed was 

reaching for a gun (even if no gun could be 

found). Successful prosecution of such “true 

believers” is almost impossible unless they 

admit they did not “truly believe” in some 

information on which they acted. But, so 

long as they maintain their “good faith,” the 

officers will usually be exonerated. 

Do you see the religious nature of this 

secular “good faith”? Much like a Christian’s 

belief in Jesus will protect him from Hell, 

those government agents who truly believe 

in the government’s church of “good faith” 

can’t be jailed. 

B ut what is “good faith”? 

Well, if you want to understand the 

meaning of any “faith” (even if you’re an 

atheist), read the Bible. 

For example, my interpretation of the 

term “faith” is derived in part from John 

14:21, 23 & 24 (NIV), where Jesus says, 

“Whoever has my commands and obeys 

them, he is the one who loves me [and] will 

be loved by my Father . . . . If anyone loves 

me, he will obey my teaching. . . . He who 

does not love me will not obey my teaching.” 

[Emph. add.] These verses makes it fairly 

clear that if you want to be loved by God and 

invited into Heaven, you must obey the commands 

and teachings of Jesus. 

From this I infer that the essence of 

“faith” (that which will get you to Heaven) is 

obedience. But mere obedience doesn’t always 

indicate real love for your master. Tell 

your son to clean the garage when his pals 

are playing football. He may do it, but his 

grumbling obedience won’t necessarily 

prove he loves you. Likewise, there’s a bunch 

of folks who obey the Ten Commandments, 

but do so only with a great deal of reluctance 

or doubt (I mean, what’s the big deal if I 

have sex with my secretary? After all, we’re 

using condoms.) 

So, I begin to suspect there may be 

“faith” and also “true faith” (which is similar 

to secular government’s “good faith”). I find 

clues to the nature of Biblical “true faith” 

(and by implication, secular “good faith”) in 

John 16:30 (NIV) where (just days before 

the crucifixion) the disciples say to Jesus: 

“Now we can see that you know all 

things and that you do not even need to have 

anyone ask you questions. This makes us 

believe that you came from God.” [Emph. 

add.] 

Jesus reply? John 16:31: “You believe 

at last!” [emph. add.] 

I interpret this to mean, “You believe 

finally,” and more, “You believe truly.” 

In other words, the disciples’ finally 

proved their true faith in Jesus because they 

no longer felt obligated to question anything 

Jesus said. They believed without question. 

That’s “true faith”. 

In conjunction with John 14:21-24, (supra), 

the primary expression of “true faith” 

is to obey God’s commands and teachings, 

without doubt and therefore without question. 

Thus, the essential expression of true 

faith is “unquestioning obedience”. 


Is our government’s secular 

“good faith” different from Biblical “true 

faith”? Yes – but only in the sense that 

“unquestioning obedience” is due government 

rather than God. 

For example, who is the 20th century’s 

poster boy for “good faith”? Adolph 

Eichmann. As he explained at the 

Nuremburg trials, he “vas jest vollowink 

oerderrs”. That’s the essence of every “good 

faith” defense you’ll ever hear from any government 

official. He was just following orders 

without question – as any true believer 

in the secular “church of good faith” (AKA 

government) must. 

Eichmann’s problem was that he tried 

to plead Nazi “good faith” in an Allied tribunal-church. 

Won’t work. Allies can only 

recognize Allied “good faith”; to recognize 

(and thereby validate) any expression of Nazi 

“good faith” would’ve been heresy. You can’t 

have two “good faiths” in the same courtchurch. 

As with all religions, to acknowledge 

one faith is to deny all others. In Rome, 

you are a Catholic or you will burn in Hell. 

In Jerusalem, you are a Jew or you will burn 

in Hell. In Mecca, you are a Moslem or you 

will burn in Hell. In Nuremburg, you embrace 

the Allied “faith” or you will burn (or 

hang) in Hell. 

The same “good faith” that made 

Eichmann a secular saint in Nazi Germany, 

made him a demon in the Holy Church of the 

Allied Powers. Eichmann’s “good faith” (just 

following Nazi orders) defense was as sure 

to get him hung in an Allied court as Martin 

Luther’s challenge to Papal infallibility was 

certain to cause his excommunication. In a 

sense, Eichmann wasn’t hung for killing 

Jews; he was hung for secular blasphemy – 

he professed his Nazi “good faith” in an Allied 

“church” – even after Nazi “religion” 

was exposed as a false god. 

Thus, it follows that the op 

posite of “good faith” (bad faith) is a 

failure to believe without question whatever 

secular government-god has jurisdiction over 

you. By refusing “unquestioning obedience” 

to any religion/government, you show “bad 

faith” and can expect to treated just like a 

Jew in the Spanish Inquisition. 

Any lack of “good faith” challenges the 

entire system. It is the maximal heresy. Any 

challenge to “good faith” suggests the government 

is not infallible. That’s secular blasphemy. 

This is part of the reason you can’t 

sue the government itself (unless it agrees to 

be sued) since the government-god is by definition, 

infallible (godly), and therefore never 

wrong or liable to suit. 

However, you can sometimes sue government 

agents, if you can show they acted 

“in bad faith” (questioned or refused to obey 

their orders). Without “good faith,” government 

agents lose all of their usual privileges, 

advantages and institutional support. Government 

can no more accept or defend an 

agent lacking “good faith” than the Catholic 

church can defend a priest found to be a Satanist. 

It is anathema. No defense is possible. 

The offender is cast out and abandoned 

by his former church or government 

to be tried by other courts, other jurisdictions, 

other gods – and even by Law. 

If this interpretation of “good 

faith” is valid, it suggests that the first 

defense against any government claim or 

prosecution should be to analyze and, if possible, 

challenge the “good faith” of the agent 

or prosecutor who brings those charges. 

For example, suppose a traffic cop fails 

to test his radar gun with a tuning fork (as 

required by his police department regulations- 

Bible) before he sallies forth to issue speeding 

tickets. Is he merely “negligent”? Was 

this “harmless error”? Or did he act in “bad 

faith”? That is, by failing to test his radar 

gun, did he forget or refuse to “obey the 

commands and teachings” of his governmentgod? 

I don’t know. But I have a hunch that a 

defendant who challenged an officer for a 

lack of “good faith” might do much better 

than a defendant who challenged the officer 

for mere “negligence”. Note that it’s the 

same act in either case (failure to tune the 

radar gun). However, by alleging “bad faith,” 

you invoke the “thought-essence” necessary 

to file criminal charges. Mere negligence is 

an unintentional mistake, but “bad faith” is a 

crime, a secular blasphemy that the government-god 

simply can’t endure. Any officer 

who acts in “bad faith” is a secular blasphemer 

whose person and acts must be 

“vomited” out of the government-god’s 

courts. 1 

The problem with a legal sys 

tem that’s based on personal belief is 

that the system itself can’t be challenged or 

corrected by common people. The same 

“good faith belief” that shields Protestors 

from prosecution for violating an unconstitutional 

law, also shields that unconstitutional 

law from being overturned. As long as our 

arguments are reduced to issues of a mere 

layman’s personal belief, we can’t reach the 

Law. Our beliefs may protect us from prosecution, 

but they are of no more force than 

those of a drunken Italian preaching to the 

Pope. You’re a mere layman – whadda you 

know? 

Thus, in a system based on secular belief, 

we can’t touch the law. Can’t debate it, 

expose it, disprove it or change it. Even our 

most brilliant challenges are ultimately dismissed 

as mere “misunderstandings”. In the 

secular church of “good faith,” objective truth 

becomes irrelevant. Evidence unnecessary. 

Your belief that the 16 th Amendment was 

never properly ratified is just as valid as a 

Hindu’s belief that cows are sacred. 

Likewise, in a judicial system based on 

“good faith” and personal “belief”, no matter 

how much evidence you accumulate, you can 

no more prove in a court of Equity that the 

16 th Amendment was not properly ratified 

than the Hindus can indict McDonalds for 

murdering cows. In the secular “church of 

good faith,” the government is “god” and 

thus just as unchallengeable as the God of 

the Bible. So long as “good faith” is unchallenged, 

all your complaints against government 

are no more forceful than those Job lodged 

against God. 

According to the Bible, God is incapable 

of unfaithfulness (bad faith). According 

to the courts, our government is similarly 

incapable of committing a crime or acting 

in “bad faith”. That’s why we can’t sue 

our government-god any more than you can 

indict Yahweh. In the end, even if you seem 

to right, you are nevertheless wrong and mistaken 

because, like all laymen, “you just don’t 

(can’t) understand” (obey without question) 

your government-god. 

The logic of this speculation implies that, 

as citizens, we are by definition presumed incapable 

of “understanding” (true “good faith”) 

and thus plagued by inadequate faith in our 

government-god. Therefore, government 

would have no obligation to waste much time 

hearing our petty (unfaithful) complaints. 

Further, the mere fact that we’d even dare complain 

could be viewed as evidence of our own 

“bad faith” (we’re not obeying without question, 

are we?) and thus render us due for some 

serious “repentance” to save our seclular 

“souls”. (Ever heard of a “penitentiary”?) 


For example, suppose a police officer 

tickets you for driving 40 m.p.h. in a school 

zone. But you’re certain you didn’t go over 

22 m.p.h. and so resolve to fight it out in 

court. If we apply this government-as-god 

analogy, your case might break down like 

this: 1) the government is god; 2) the police 

officer is an agent-priest of that governmentgod 

(presumably) acting in “good faith”; 3) 

you are an ignorant, unwashed layman – and 

if you persist in challenging the government 

and its “priest,” you will seen as 4) an uppity, 

ignorant, unwashed layman acting in “bad 

faith” (refusing to obey without question) 

and thus in dire need of some serious repentance. 

Note that the essential issue is not 

whether you were driving 22 m.p.h. or 40 

m.p.h., but whether you or the “priest” are 

acting in “good faith”. In court, only one 

party can act in good faith; the other, by definition, 

must be acting in bad faith or he 

would’ve admitted his offense, settled our of 

court (or dismissed the charges) and thereby 

rendered the court hearing unnecessary. (The 

hearing itself is proof that one of the parties 

is acting in bad faith.) Thus, no matter what 

he says or did, if the police officer-priest’s 

presumed “good faith” goes unchallenged, 

you must be guilty of “bad faith” (which is 

somewhat like being a mouthy Jew in 

Mecca). 

It might follow, however, that a key to 

blunting government charges is not to deny 

the charges, but to challenge the “good faith” 

of whatever individuals are responsible for 

making and prosecuting those charges. If 

you can show the cop or prosecutor acted in 

“bad faith,” suddenly they assume the role of 

the mouthy Jew in Mecca. Whether you drove 

40 m.p.h. in a school zone becomes a triviality 

compared to government’s “prime directive” 

of excommunicating the unfaithful (those who 

exhibit “bad faith”) from the ranks of the government-church. 

Properly supported, a mere 

claim of government “bad faith” might be 

enough to destabilize or even derail an attempt 

at prosecution. 

I 

admit this line of speculation 

seems bizarre – even to me. But based on 

the Cheek defense of “belief” and DOJ attorney 

Ihlo’s advice to U.S. Attorneys to avoid 

“belief” issues, it’s apparent that “belief” and 

“good faith” are more powerful courtroom 

issues than most of us suppose. 

More importantly, we might want to 

consider the evidence that government regards 

itself as god-like as well as the consequences 

of living under a government-god 

that denies the existence of a superior God. 

Insofar as government sees itself as our only 

god, how can common people defend them- 

selves against government abuse? Without 

recognizing a higher God, a higher authority, 

when government assumes the position 

of our only god, there can be no freedom, no 

liberty and no alternative to unquestioning 

obedience (good faith) to that governmentgod. 

1 And how could you defeat an 

official’s claim of “good faith”? Perhaps 

with administrative notices. But we’ll talk 

about that in the next AntiShyster – Vol. 9 

No. 2. 


I Caught IRS Agents 

Cheating on their Taxes! 

by Marvin Bryer 

While two of the previous articles 

illuminate the IRS commitment to enforcing 

tax laws against “illegal tax protestors,” 

I wonder if they’re equally motivated 

to enforce tax laws against their 

own IRS Agents. 

Marv Bryer is a former systems analyst 

for banks who became tangled in 

a California child custody case concerning 

his grandchild. Based on his 

background in banking and professional 

capacity for logical analysis, 

Marv uncovered evidence that the 

judge who heard his grandchild’s custody 

case had taken a bribe. Based on 

this discovery, Marv uncovered a slush 

fund for the Los Angeles County judges 

and even forced the Bank of America 

to release all their records of that slush 

fund! The idea that anyone could force 

a bank to release records on judicial 

corruption strikes me as extraordinary. 

But Marv has an incredible talent 

for investigation. Working mostly by 

himself, and using his banking background 

to “follow the money trail,” he’s 

uncovered more spectacular evidence 

of government corruption in the 

last two years than most investigators 

find in a lifetime. Of course, to date, 

the mainstream media has ignored his 

discoveries. But a major national magazine 

may finally publish some of Marv’s 

best work in the near future. 

In the meantime, the following article 

is not Marv’s best work, but when 

you read and understand its implications, 

I think you’ll agree that even 

Marv’s “second class” work is extraordinary. 

With a little luck and a little more 

time, Mr. Bryer may have to change his 

name to “San Andreas” for causing a 

political earthquake in California that 

registers nine on the government’s 

Richter Scale. 

Back in 1997, I uncovered 

a judicial slush fund in Los Angeles 

County. This slush fund was used by a Los 

Angeles Superior Court employee named 

Gregory Pentoney to launder bribes to child 

custody evaluators and divorce court judges 

in order to “fix” child custody cases. 

Based on my investigation, I sued Mr. 

Pentoney. Four months later, the L.A. District 

Attorney raided Pentoney’s office in 

the court house! Records were removed. I 

caused an audit to take place, and on August 

28, 1998, Pentoney was arrested for 

bribery, falsification of public records, and 

the theft of $1.5 million. 

However, I believe Pentoney’s hiding 

millions more. That’s why I reported him 

to the IRS. But the IRS did nothing. 

So I began to investigate the IRS. 

T he following information 

outlines my investigation strategy, results 

to date, and demonstrates how much 

power “ordinary” citizens have – if we care 

to use it. 

During my initial investiga-tion of the 

L.A. County judicial slush fund, I found a 

research book called the “Cumulative List 

of Tax Exempt Organizations” published by 

the U.S. Treasury. This book lists all taxexempt 

charities. In tax law, a “charity” is 

defined in 26 USC Section 501(c)(3) of the 

Internal Revenue Code. Much of my research 

into the L.A. slush fund (and ultimately 

the arrest of Superior Court employee 

Pentoney) used that Cumulative List to ascertain 

that the alleged “charity” being used 

to launder judicial bribes did not in fact 

exist. (I later learned that suspicious “charities” 

are being used by a number of organizations 

to possibly conceal illegal activity. 

You might be surprise to learn how many 

obscure “charities” are operating out of your 

government buildings. The “Cumulative 

List” is crucial to identifying potentially 

corrupt “charities” in your community or 

state.) 

Later, I also found an organization 

called Tax Analysts (800-955-3444) which 

sells a CD-ROM called the “IRS Exempt 

Organization Master List”. This CD-ROM 

contains a constantly updated list of all currently 

registered U.S. 501(c)(3) nonprofit 

corporations and charities. This remark- 


able CD-ROM can be instantly searched 

by organization name or even address. 

Once I started investigating the IRS, I 

decided to search the CD for “Internal Revenue 

Service” and – surprise, surprise! – I 

discovered a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization 

called the “Internal Revenue Service - 

Certified Public Accountants” located at 300 

N. Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, California. 

The address was particularly curious 

since 300 N. Los Angeles St. was also the 

address for the Los Angeles Federal Building 

where immigrants go to get their green 

cards so they can legally pick grapes. If they 

don’t pay taxes on their grape-picking wages, 

the IRS can also audit them in the 300 N. 

Los Angeles Federal Building. 

As I later discovered, the owners and 

officers of the “Internal Revenue Service - 

Certified Public Accountants” (IRS-CPA) 

charity were also IRS agents. It thus appears 

that some of the IRS agents who conduct 

tax audits at the 300 N. Los Angeles 

Federal building also operate the IRS-CPA 

“charity” – right in the same room where 

you get audited. (Perhaps if you’re audited, 

you can “donate” to your IRS agent’s favorite 

“charity” and get a more favorable 

audit!) In any case, using government buildings 

to conduct personal business (even that 

of privately-owned charities) usually constitutes 

an misappropriation of tax revenue 

and is illegal. 

Incidentally, once I realized that a private 

nonprofit organization was being operated 

out of a federal building, I began to 

search the CD-ROM “Master List” by entering 

the addresses of other city, county or 

federal courthouses and office buildings. I 

was surprised to discover a host of private 

“charities” and “nonprofit corporations” being 

operated from government facilities – 

not only in California, but also in several 

other states. 

Something seemed “fishy” about a private 

“IRS-CPA” charity operating out of a 

federal building, so I decided to investigate 

further. To investigate a corporation, you 

first need to understand how they are created. 

Here’s how corporations are formed 

in California: 

First, you write Articles of Incorporation 

and file them with the California Secretary 

of State (who is responsible for state 

regulation of corporations). Naturally, incorporation 

fees are strictly enforced – but 

verification of information supplied on the 

application is at best “relaxed”. In fact, it’s 

doubtful that anyone in the Secretary of 

State’s office closely reads whatever is filed 

as the “Articles of Incorporation”. As a result, 

you can probably incorporate using the 

White House address even if you don’t live 

there. 

Second, you apply to the IRS for an 

Employer’s Identification Number (“EIN” 

– the equivalent of a social security number 

for your corporation). I believe the application 

is filed on a SS-4 form. You send it to 

the IRS and they send you an EIN. 

Third, you file with the California State 

Franchise Tax Board, which decides 

whether your corporation is exempt from 

paying state income tax. Here, there’s also 

little verification of application information. 

You could probably incorporate using the 

La Brea Tar Pits (where you can’t even 

stand) as your business address, but as long 

as you pay the fees, your application will be 

accepted. 

Fourth, submit records to the IRS. You 

send all of the state forms and – to be a tax 

exempt charity – you send IRS form 1023. 

The IRS should review everything you submit 

– but often they only check to see that 

the proper blanks were filled in. Again, if 

an address is required and you write “La 

Brea Tar Pits” – fine. It doesn’t matter if 

you live there or not. 

Of course, the advantage to 

registering as a 26 USC 501(c)(3) 

nonprofit/ charitable corporation is that your 

organization may be exempt from any obligation 

to pay income taxes. Since 501(c)(3) 

“charitable” corporations may be exempt 

from paying income tax (and their reporting 

requirements are also “relaxed”) they offer 

certain advantages if you’re interested in 

money laundering. 

However, there is one small disadvantage 

that’s generally overlooked by nonprofit 

applicants. Apparently, much like an infinite 

number of monkeys on an infinite number 

of typewriters will eventually produce a 

perfect copy of Hamlet – our Congress will 

also occasionally pass sensible laws. Recognizing 

the relaxed reporting and tax requirements 

for 501(c)(3) charitable corporations 

invite abuse, Congress also included 

Section 6104(e) (“Public Inspection of Cer- 

tain Annual Returns and Applications for 

Exemption”) in the Internal Revenue Code: 

“During the 3-year period beginning 

on the filing date, a copy of the annual return 

filed under section 6033 (relating to 

returns by exempt organizations) by any 

organization to which this paragraph applies 

shall be made available for inspection 

during regular business hours by any individual 

at the principal office of the organization. 

. . .” 

In other words, anyone who walks into 

the principal office of any 501(c)(3) charitable 

organization can demand to see their 

entire income tax returns for the last three 

years. If you don’t think that law gives 

ordinary Americans some substantial 

power, you should stroll into one of 

California’s city or county Bar Associations 

(which are generally registered as 501(c)(3) 

“charities”), and demand to see their income 

tax returns for the past three years. I guarantee 

that just the look on their faces will 

make your trip worthwhile. First they gape, 

then they think you’re nuts – but when you 

show ‘em the law, they really start to sputter. 

Of course, the average person isn’t 

likely to “connect the dots” between Section 

501(c)(3) (which is located near the 

front of the massive tax code) with Section 

6104(e) (which is nearer the tax code’s end). 

But once you make the connection, you have 

a powerful investigation tool to get copies 

of an organization’s tax records and then 

use those records to focus additional investigation 

efforts. For corrupt “charities,” the 

prospect of releasing their income tax returns 

to private individuals or groups bent 

on serious investigation is scary. 

And if you’d like to connect one more 

“dot,” consider 26 USC 6685 (“Assessable 

Penalty With Respect to Public Inspection 

Requirements for Certain Tax-Exempt Organizations”) 

which reads in part: 

“. . . any person who is required to comply 

with respect to any return or application, 

if such failure is willful, shall pay a penalty 

of $1,000 with respect to each such return or 

application.” 

Apparently, any 501(c)(3) “charity” 

that refuses to provide it’s records for public 

inspection shall be fined $1,000 for each 

refusal. 

You may even have the right to file for 

a cash reward on IRS form 211. Fill out the 

form and ask the IRS to collect all funds the 


“charity” cheated on and give you your cut. 

(It may take some time to collect, but some 

of these cash rewards just might seriously 

enhance your retirement.) 

Based on my legal right to inspect 

the IRS-CPA’s income tax return 

records, on October 22, 1998, I sent 

the following request: 

The Internal Revenue Service – 

Certified Public Accountants 

300 N. Los Angeles Street – Room 5077 

Los Angeles CA 90012 

Dear Internal Revenue Service - Certified 

Public Accountants: EIN 95-3276035 

Pursuant to USC Title 26, Section 6104 

(e) et seq., please provide a copy of: 

1. Your 1023 form. 

2. Your letter of determination ruling. 

3. All correspondence to and from the 

IRS regarding your organization. 

4. The last three years of your 990 

or 990EZ or whatever form you filed in lieu 

of a 990. 

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information 

Act, provide a copy of the agreement 

between the government and your organization 

allowing the 300 N. Los Angeles 

building to be used for your charity. 

Thank you, 

s/ Marvin Bryer 

In response to my request, I 

received the following reply: 

December 3, 1998 

Dear Mr. Bryer: 

We are writing in response to your letter 

of October 22, 1998. 

1) In regard to your request for a form 

1023 for our organization, please find enclosed 

a copy of section 6104(e) of the Internal Revenue 

Code, which provides that this request 

is not applicable. 

2) In regard to your request for our 

letter of determination ruling, please find 

enclosed a copy of the letter. 

3) In regard to your request for copies 

of our correspondence to and from the IRS, 

please find enclosed a copy of the aforementioned 

determination letter, along with 

a copy of section 6104(e), which provides 

that this request is not applicable. 

4) In regard to your request for a copy 

of our forms 990, please be advised that 

our revenue is not sufficient for our organization 

to meet the filing requirements of 

section 6033 of the Internal Revenue Code. 

5) Please note that the Freedom of 

Information Act does not apply to exempt 

organizations. 

Yours truly, 

S/ Lawrence G. Edgar 

Co-President 

Internal Revenue Service - 

Certified Public Accountants 

The IRS-CPA’s “Co-President” 

(also an IRS agent) refused to disclose 

the paperwork they submitted – to 

themselves (the IRS) – to become a taxexempt 

charitable corporation. He also implied 

the IRS-CPA isn’t covered by the tax 

code. Who does he think he’s fooling? I 

didn’t fall off the proverbial turnip truck. 

All tax exempt organizations have to show 

the papers they filed to become exempt. In 

this case, we’re talking about – at minimum 

– their 1023 application form filed with the 

IRS to be registered as a tax-exempt organization. 

Since they won’t provide that 

original form, maybe these guys don’t have 

one! Perhaps the agents need time to manufacture 

records that don’t (yet) exist! 

In any case, their response did disclose 

that Lawrence G. Edgar was the IRS-CPA’s 

“Co-President”. Now I have my legal sights 

on IRS agent Edgar and I don’t mean to 

sound cocky, but he doesn’t know what he’s 

in for. Mr. Pentoney (who managed the 

L.A. County Judges’ slush fund I found in 

1997) also tried to hide his financial records 

from me – then he went to jail. I refuse to 

be cheated by any government agent. 

Since the IRS-CPA charity 

claims to be a corporation, I went to 

California’s Secretary of State (Bill Jones) 

and paid $4 for a “status inquiry” and a 

copy of the IRS-CPA’s corporation papers. 

Bill says there’s no record of any California 

corporation called the “Internal Revenue 

Service Certified Public Accountants”. This 

means the IRS-CPA is not incorporated in 

California and may be guilty of incorporation 

fraud. 

However, if the IRS-CPA isn’t a legitimate 

corporation, it’s probably an association. 

The power to sue an association 

can be devastating since there’s no corporate 

immunity and therefore each member 

of the association may be personally liable 

for the association’s debts, fines and obligations. 

Incidentally, IRS agent Lawrence 

Edgar mailed his letter of refusal to me in a 

weirdly colored pink envelope. I investigated 

and learned the pink envelope is government-issue 

and intended for inter-office 

mail. Looks like the IRS-CPA “charity” 

used the IRS property paid for by taxpayers 

to tell me his “charity” is exempt from 

Internal Revenue Code disclosure requirements. 

Just like using a federal building for 

personal use, private use of government 

property (including pink envelopes) is also 

a no-no. 

Since the IRS-CPA “charity” 

refused to show their records, I determined 

they were in violation of IRS reporting 

law [26 USC 6104(e)]. Therefore, I 

reported them to the IRS. On December 

21, 1998, I filed a complaint on the IRS- 

CPA with the IRS: 

To: The IRS at 300 N. Los Angeles Street, 

Los Angeles CA 90012 Administration 

room 5078 

COMPLAINT REGARDING TAX FRAUD 

BY AN IRS AGENT: 

An Internal Revenue Service agent 

named Lawrence Edgar is operating a charity 

scam inside a federal building. See Exhibit 

1 – his letter to me. 

Edgar alleges his corporation is a 

“charity”, so I am giving the IRS a donation 

of $10 to submit to Edgar’s corporation. 1 

Frankly, I consider his IRS corporation to 

be a FRAUD. 

I have detected that IRS agents are giving 

continuing legal education seminars with 

judges and lawyers who launder the money 

collected into a “court” slush fund. I suspect 

Edgar may be involved, but I have to 

prove that. 

I have reported the [slush] fund to the 

IRS to no avail. Obviously there is a coverup. 

I will be escalating this to my Senators 

and House of Representatives and I will 

ask for a NEW HEARING regarding the 

internal workings of the IRS. Frankly, the 

system does not work and persons are selectively 

incriminated while IRS agents and 

judges are excluded from law enforcement. 

The “charity” I am reporting calls itself 

the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 


-CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS. 

See the attached letter sent to me by 

Lawrence Edgar. 

As you can see, Edgar is operating out 

of the Federal Building at 300 N. Los Angeles 

Street where my letter is being submitted. 

Mr. Edgar Falsely believes he can 

deny providing me with his corporation’s 

1023 form. That is a violation of the TAX 

CODE. Please note that Mr. Edgar can be 

sued and this will reflect on the IRS. 

His corporation was ruled on by the 

IRS in 1978. Its EIN is 95-3276035. 

It alleges to be an EDUCATIONAL 

organization. Its donations are deductible. 

However, it is virtually impossible to give 

to this “worthy” charity because EDGAR 

and his corporation will not disclose their 

actual address within the Federal Building. 

Also, there is probable cause of mail 

fraud and misappropriation of federal property. 

The [IRS-CPA] letter to me was mailed 

[postmarked] from El Segundo but was addressed 

from your address [in Los Angeles]. 

My tax dollars paid for the Federal 

building which is also my property as a 

taxpayer. I will not agree to fund Edgar’s 

corporation scheme. 

S/ Marvin Bryer 

Cc: Senator Diane Feinstein 

331 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20510 

Senator Barbara Boxer 

112 Hart Senate Building 

Washington DC 20510 

If you use my investigation 

strategy, you may also uncover enough 

evidence to restore some semblance of accountability 

and justice into our tax system. 

I suspect the entire IRS-CPA “charitable 

corporation” is a scheme to dupe the 

public. If so, I plan on shutting the IRS- 

CPA down. Like I said, IRS agent Edgar 

doesn’t know what he’s in for. 

Let the games begin. 

1 Editor’s note: Marv Bryer likes to 

send checks to suspect organizations since, 

when his checks later clear his bank and 

are returned to him, their endorsements 

reveal valuable information about the 

name(s) of the person(s) signing the check 

and the location of the bank account(s) 

they’re deposited into. Thus, writing a 

check to a suspect organization can be a 

first step in “following the money trail”. 


$$$ vs. $$$ $$$ 

$$$ 

Because the AntiShyster attempts 

to explore concepts near (beyond?) the 

“cutting edge” (lunatic fringe?) of law 

and politics, it’s not possible to know 

for sure whether the ideas and implications 

presented in our articles are true, 

false or some of both. The following 

article amplifies a personal hypothesis 

concerning the nature of our currency 

that was first explored (and presented 

more fully) in AntiShyster Vol. 8 No 2. 

Take every word with salt. 

FRN$ Make $ham Tru$t$? 


According to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 

all rights flow from title. For example, 

my “right” to drive or sell my car, is based 

on my “title” to that car. So long as I have 

valid title, I have the right to drive or sell that 

car. But since I lack title to your car, I have 

no right to drive it. If I attempt to drive or 

sell a car for which I have no title, I can be 

charged with a crime. The same is true for 

houses, computers or any other form of property. 

Rights flow from title. If you have no 

title, you have no rights. 

The relationship between title and rights 

is also seen in the ancient principle that the 

person who owns the money also owns 

whatever that money is used to buy. For 

example, if I give an employee $100 and 

send him to town to buy some groceries, 

who owns the groceries? My employee or 

me? Even if the receipt carries the employee’s 

name, if I owned the money, the groceries 

are legally mine. (But do I really own that 

money?) 

That same principle applies to the purchase 

of automobiles with bank loans. Because 

the bank “owns” the money you borrowed 

to purchase the car, the bank also owns 

title to the car – at least, until you repay the 

loan used to buy the car. If the bank owned 

the money, the bank owns the car. (But does 

the bank really own the money?) 

At first glance most people would say 

the relation between title and rights seems fairly 

clear. But it’s actually quite subtle and confusing 

since few of us realize that every property 

contains two titles: legal (ownership and 

control) and equitable (mere use or possession). 

While most of us understand whether 

we have a “title” to a particular piece of property, 

few of us bother to ask what kind of title 

we have. Determining the kind of title we 

have is important since our rights concerning 

a particular property vary hugely depending 

on whether we have: 1) legal title; or 2) equitable 

title; or 3) both titles to that particular 

property. (Although we assume we have legal 

title, I suspect that we usually have only 

equitable title.) 

The difference between legal and equitable 

title can be superficially illustrated by 

comparing the rights of a father who “owns” 

his car to the rights of his teenage son who 

wants to use that car. If the father has legal 

title, he owns the car and can do whatever he 

wants with it, whenever he wants. While he 

may give his son equitable title to use the car 

for his Friday night dates, that equitable title 

is always subject to Dad’s absolute control 

and revocation. The person holding legal 

title always holds superior, controlling rights; 

the person holding equitable title has inferior 

and conditional rights. Dad can stop Jr. from 

using Dad’s car anytime Dad wants, for any 

reason Dad thinks is appropriate and Jr. has 

virtually no recourse. (Figuratively speaking, 

the guy with legal title is always the 

“man”; the guy with equitable title is always 

the “boy”.) 

The man who owns the money 

. . . 

If you read the text on the Federal Reserve 

Notes (FRNs) in your wallet, you’ll 

see, “THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL 

DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.” Most people 

regard this statement as an assurance that 

our paper “money” is still “good as gold”. I 

disagree. I’m sure that pre-1933 gold coins 

were lawful “tender” (with which we could 

buy legal titles to property). However, I suspect 

“legal tender” (a kind of legal fiction 

that is enforced by law) is a disability since 


the person using this inferior form of money 

can only purchase equitable title to property. 

(As you’ll see, the distinction between “buy” 

and “purchase” may be huge.) 

I suspect the “legal tender” statement 

on every FRN is the government/ Federal 

Reserve System’s way of providing legal 

notice (just like the warnings on packages of 

cigarettes) that FRNs are not as “good as 

gold” and should not be used unless you 

are willing to accept the “legal tender” disability. 

I suspect FRNs are an inferior form of 

currency (not true money) because the Federal 

Reserve System loans FRNs into circulation. 

Because FRNs are loaned into circulation, 

they are similar to cars purchased with 

bank loans (since the money used to buy the 

car belongs to the bank, title to the car remains 

with the bank until the original loan is repaid). 

Similarly, until the original loan that placed 

those FRNs into circulation is repaid, legal 

title to the physical pieces of green paper you 

carry in your wallet remains with Federal Reserve 

System. 

Thus, you and I may get to “use” (have 

equitable title to) the FRNs in our wallet (just 

as we can “use” the car while we’re still making 

payments on the bank loan), but legal title 

to those FRNs remains with the Federal Reserve 

System (just as title to your car remains 

with the bank). This implies that whenever 

we “purchase” property with FRNs, legal title 

to that property goes to the Federal Reserve 

System (the party that owns the money, owns 

whatever that money is used to buy). As a 

result, we only receive the inferior equitable 

title (possession and use) to the property. 

If this hypothesis is valid, legal title to 

everything we’ve ever “purchased” with 

FRNs (our houses, cars, boats, clothes, etc.) 

may belong to the Federal Reserve System. 

And although we get to “use” all that property 

and think of it as our own, we have no 

more legal rights to “our” property than the 

teenage boy has to his father’s car. 

Legal exchange vs. 

equitable transfer 

True “money” (gold and silver) is 

known as a “medium of exchange”. The 

term “exchange” is significant, since each 

transaction involving legal title is apparently 

described as an “exchange” while transactions 

merely involving equitable title are 

called “transfers”. I.e., you “exchange” legal 

title to property, but you merely “trans- 

fer” equitable title/ possession to property. 

To broadly (and imprecisely) illustrate 

the difference between exchange and transfer 

of title, suppose a father owns a car and 

has two teenage sons. One son wants to use 

the car on Friday night, the other wants to 

use the car on Saturday night. 

The father/owner agrees. In a sense, 

the father/owner grants equitable title (use of 

the car) to his first son for Friday night and 

then “transfers” that equitable title (right to 

use the car) to his second son for Saturday 

night. 

Although equitable title to the car was 

transferred from one brother to the other, 

legal title was never exchanged since it remained 

at all times with the father/owner. 

No exchange of legal title could occur unless 

the father actually sold the car to one of 

his sons (users) – thereby giving that son the 

right of absolute ownership without any of 

Dad’s superior control and no obligation to 

“share” his car with his brother. 

In an actual “exchange” of legal titles, 

the parties are called the “buyer” and the 

“seller”. In a transfer of equitable title (the 

right to possession and use) the parties are 

identified as the “transferor” (seller) and 

“transferee”. An exchange of title will always 

include the legal title and may include 

the equitable title. However, a transfer of 

title will never include the legal title and can 

only signal movement of the equitable title. 

In a transfer there may be no “buyer” 

since that term (and also “buy”) signals the 

exchange of a legal title. Instead, in a transfer 

of equitable title there is a “seller” and a 

“purchaser” – one who merely secures equitable 

title to property. Note that while the 

terms “buy” and “buyer” seem to imply the 

exchange of legal titles to property, “purchase” 

seems to indicate only the “transfer” 

of a property’s equitable title (and thus only 

the right to use – not control – the property) 

If the difference between buying and 

purchasing seems unlikely, read your credit 

card applications, statements and terms. 

Every credit card transaction is a “purchase” 

– you “buy” nothing with credit cards. 

Certificates of (which?) title 

The distinction between legal exchanges 

and equitable purchases is illuminated 

by Article 6687-1(24)(a) of Vernon’s 

Texas Civil Statutes (1994). That article declares 

that an automobile’s Certificate of Title 

must include: 

“The name and address of the purchaser 

and seller at the first sale or transferee and 

transferor at any subsequent sale.” [emph. add.] 

The “first sale” refers to the transaction 

between the new car’s manufacturer (seller) 

and the first person to “purchase” – not buy 

– the vehicle. All subsequent “sales” of the 

(now) “used car” will be between “transferor” 

and “transferee”. 

So suppose you “buy” a new car in 

Texas with FRNs. Note that the first transaction 

listed on the Certificate of Title must 

identify the “seller” (the car’s manufacturer 

who by virtue of “creating” the car has both 

legal and equitable title to the vehicle) and a 

“purchaser” (that’s you – the guy who thinks 

he’s buying legal title and true ownership of 

the car, but is actually only purchasing equitable 

title and use of the car). 

Because you are identified as the car’s 

“purchaser,” you only received equitable title 

to the car in the first place and therefore can 

only “sell” equitable title in “subsequent 

sales”. Thus, all subsequent sales are actually 

just transfers of equitable title between 

“transferors” to “transferees”. 

But why did the Texas statute distinguish 

between the car’s original “purchaser” 

and all subsequent “transferees” and 

“transferors”? If all of these parties only 

receive equitable title to the car, why not call 

them all by the same name? 

I suspect the answer involves the identity 

of the party that actually winds up with 

legal title to “your” car – the corporate STATE 

OF TEXAS. By designating you as the “purchaser” 

of the new car, the STATE is telling 

you that you’re only getting equitable title 

(use) of “your” car, not actual ownership 

(legal title). The STATE of course, is depending 

on your ignorance (concerning the 

significance of titles and the meaning of terms 

like “purchase”) to conceal the fact that the 

STATE receives legal title to your car and 

you get squat (equitable title, mere “use” of 

the car). Since ignorance is no excuse in the 

eyes of the law, your assent to merely purchase 

“your” car eliminates or reduces any 

claim that you were defrauded of legal title. 

I.e., by agreeing to be the “purchaser,” you 

agreed to receive only equitable title. 

OK, if the car manufacturer sells both 

equitable and legal title to his car, how did 

the STATE get the legal title? Since the 

STATE didn’t pay for the legal title, I suspect 

that the legal title was probably donated 

to the corporate state. 


The concept of “donation” may be important 

since no one but the Federal Reserve 

System can “buy” legal title to property with 

FRNs. Thus, it may be impossible for you, 

me, or even the government to trade even a 

trillion dollars (FRNs) for legal title to a bicycle. 

The only way we could get legal title 

to someone else’s property is by: 1) buying 

(not purchasing) the property with lawful 

money (gold or silver); or 2) if the actual 

owner donates that property to us without 

taking any FRNs in return. (Because legal 

title to FRNs belongs to the Federal Reserve 

System, the first time we trade a single FRN 

for property, legal title to that property probably 

goes to the Federal Reserve System. 

Remember – the man who owns the money, 

owns whatever it buys.) 

OK, who could’ve donated the legal title 

to “your” car to the STATE? The car manufacturer 

had original legal title and therefore 

an agreement between the manufacturer and 

corporate STATE might explain and legalize 

the donation. However, I doubt that a direct 

donation from the manufacturer could be 

achieved without committing fraud against 

the alleged “buyer” (actually, purchaser) of 

the car who assumed “tax, title and license” 

meant “tax, legal title and license”. 

If I had to guess, the donation was made 

by the Federal Reserve System who received 

legal title to “your” car by virtue of your 

voluntary use of FRNs to purchase “your” 

car. That is, as soon as you complete the bill 

of sale and designate your payment in $ FRNs 

(not $ lawful money), the evidence of the 

Fed’s ownership of legal title to “your” car is 

apparent. 

Note that until 1933, all lawful money 

(gold, silver) of the United States was designated 

by a capital S with two, superimposed 

vertical lines: $. This designation was originally 

a capital “U” superimposed over a capital 

“S” which together stood for “U.S.” (and signified 

dollars of the United States). Over time, 

the bottom of the “U” disappeared and convention 

reduced the “U” to two vertical lines: $. 

Since 1933, our FRNs have been designated 

with a capital S and single vertical line 

($) – presumably, to distinguish this “legal 

tender” from lawful money. I find it helpful to 

remember that lawful money is designated 

with two vertical lines ($) and will convey 

two kinds of title (legal and equitable) to a 

“buyer” while FRNs are designated with just 

one vertical line ($) and will transfer only one 

title (equitable) to the “purchaser”. 

More importantly, every time you designate 

the price of a transaction in $, you are 

conceding the transaction took place with 

money owned by the Federal Reserve System. 

Thus, if the price on your receipts and 

bills of sale are designated in $ (rather than 

$), they don’t prove that you own that property. 

Instead, they prove that the Federal 

Reserve System (which owned the money 

used in the transaction) owns legal title to 

“your” property. By accepting a receipt with 

a price denominated in $ FRNs, you prove 

you agreed to only purchase equitable title. 

Thus, the receipts government advises you 

to keep to “prove ownership” of property 

may actually prove you don’t own “your” 

property. (Interesting possibility, no?) 

In fact, most automobile title applications 

ask you list the price of the car for “tax 

purposes”. A lot of people cheat on the price 

to reduce the tax. But the numerical size of 

price may be a triviality compared to the 

price’s denomination (lawful money “$” 

or FRNs “$”). It’s possible that by admitting 

any value for that car denominated in 

FRNs may be the key factor to conceding 

the Federal Reserve System owns legal title 

to the vehicle. This raises the possibility that 

denominating the price of a car in lawful 

money ($) instead of FRNs ($) might lay a 

foundation for claiming legal title. 

In any case, once it’s clear that the car 

was purchased with FRNs rather than bought 

with lawful money, legal title to the car should 

accrue to the Federal Reserve System. Then, 

based on another agreement between your 

corporate STATE and the Federal Reserve 

System, legal title might be automatically “donated” 

by the Fed to the STATE. 

Result? The STATE gets legal title, actual 

ownership and absolute control of “your” 

car. Your title to “your” car is merely equitable 

and analogous to that of the teenage 

boy using his daddy’s car for a date. If daddy 

sez you must wear your seat belt, you must 

wear it or lose the equitable right to use 

“daddy’s” car. Likewise, if the STATE-daddy 

sez you can’t drive over 65 m.p.h. or must 

keep your taillights in repair, you must do so 

or risk being punished for not properly operating 

or maintaining the STATE-daddy’s 

car. Thus, virtually all traffic and auto maintenance 

regulations may be based on the fact 

that you don’t actually own legal title to 

“your” car – the STATE does since you used 

FRNs to merely purchase the car’s equitable 

title. 

If use of FRNs affects legal title for 

automobiles, the same principle should apply 

for houses, buildings, bicycles, computers 

and all other forms of tangible property. 

In fact, legal title to everything you purchase 

with FRNs would instantly accrue to the Federal 

Reserve System (and perhaps later, to 

the corporate STATE if the Fed donated that 

legal title). If so, you and I have been reduced 

to the status of children, serfs or slaves 

by use of FRNs. 

Sham trusts 

If you and I don’t own legal title to 

(virtually) any of our property, how can we 

create a legitimate trust? As I understand 

trusts, the Grantor (who creates the trust) 

must own legal title to any property he donates 

into a trust. But if a Grantor purchases 

property with FRNs, he apparently doesn’t 

have legal title to that property. Without legal 

title, I doubt that anyone can legally 

“grant”/ donate a particular property into a 

trust. Implication? Except for trusts containing 

property granted/donated by the Federal 

Reserve System, virtually all modern 

trusts may be shams if the alleged “Grantor” 

purchased the donated property with FRNs. 

If the Grantor didn’t actually own legal title 

to the property donated, the trust could not 

receive both legal and equitable titles and then 

divide them (the hallmark of trusts). Thus, if 

the grantor only “owned” equitable title to 

“his” property, he could not create a trust and 

any attempt to do so would be a sham. 

If this speculation is valid, those of you 

who rely on trusts to shield your property 

from government – or even from other private 

individuals – may be trusting in a faulty 

shield. 

Conversely, those of you who wish to 

attack seemingly impregnable trusts might 

be able to do so by simply determining 

whether the original Grantor used FRNs to 

purchase whatever property he “donated” into 

the trust. If the alleged grantor merely purchased 

property, he can’t donate legal title to 

that property since he never had legal title in 

the first place. Thus, the trust (which must 

hold both legal and equitable titles) is a sham, 

and might be easily “cracked” in court to 

expose trust property to suit. 

Good for the gander 

Since legal rights flow from legal title, 

loss of legal title due to use of FRNs may be 

devastating to our presumed “rights”. How- 


ever, if we lose legal title and legal rights by 

using FRNs, so does government. 

For example, if government builds a 

new street or highway and pays for it with 

FRNs, legal title to that highway should go 

to the Fed Reserve. If so, even if the government 

deposits whatever equitable title it has 

to that highway into a National Highway 

Trust, that trust might still lack legal title to 

the highway property (since equitable title 

was all the government had to donate). If so, 

that Trust, government and their agents 

should have only equitable interest or rights 

in the highway and therefore, only have equitable 

rights to enforce trust rules against 

people who commit traffic offenses, infractions, 

etc. This implies that government and 

its agents (police) might have no legal right 

to stop, ticket, arrest, charge or convict individuals 

who commit an offense while driving 

on the highway. 

Determination of who or what holds 

actual legal title to land may play an important 

role in determining the government’s territorial 

jurisdiction. For example, suppose 

the Federal government purchased a parcel 

of land to build a Federal building. Unless 

legal title to that land is subsequently donated 

to the Federal government by the Federal 

Reserve System, it appears that the gov- 

ernment might only have equitable title to 

that land and perhaps only an “equitable jurisdiction” 

over offenses committed on that 

property. It’s theoretically possible that virtually 

all Federal territory purchased with 

FRNs might only include equitable (not legal) 

title and therefore include only equitable 

jurisdiction. Similarly, most modern state 

and municipal territorial jurisdictions might 

also be only equitable. 

However, if the Federal Reserve System 

actually receives legal title to property 

by virtue of purchasing property with FRNs, 

government might still be able to acquire legal 

title to property if the Federal Reserve 

System donated that legal title after the government 

purchased equitable title. 

Wheels within wheels. Mysteries 

cloaked in enigmas shrouded with 

FRNs. The whole argument is speculative, 

complex, confusing – and quite 

possible wrong. Nevertheless, the 

possibilities and insights are intriguing 

and undoubtedly point us toward a better 

understanding of the relationships 

between our money, currency, purchases, 

property and rights. 


Letters 

I’ve received numerous comments 

from readers who – like me – 

regard the insights in Vol. 8 No. 2 

(which focused on money) as remarkable. 

The following letter is 

typical of those that commented on 

the “IMF Colonizes Korea” article’s 

analysis of the International Monetary 

Fund’s (IMF) agreement with 

Korea. This agreement (which was 

not supposed to be made available 

to the public) revealed that in order 

to receive the “benefit” of billions 

of dollars in credit from the IMF (a 

trust) to shore up the sagging Korean 

economy, Korean leaders had 

to agree to surrender the financial 

and political levers of national 

power to the IMF. 

If the IMF agreements to help 

Indonesia, Russia and other 

troubled economies are similar to 

the Korean agreement, the IMF is 

not really “here to help us,” but rather 

to conquer sovereign nations 

through the use of credit and by 

their debts render them vassals to 

the New World Order. 

In 1998, the IMF made another 

“offer they can’t refuse” to Japan. 

For a while, Japan refused. The following 

letter from a subscriber in 

Japan supports the monetary insights 

exposed in Vol. 8 No. 2, as 

well as additional insights into the 

real purpose behind the IMF (a trust, 

incidentally) and the “benefits” of 

debt-based currency. 

What an “odyssey”! What a 

“voyage”! Issue Vol. 8 No. 2 [dealing 

with the nature of money] was sort of 

like being hit with a 200-mph tsunami. 

I’m enclosing a short article (“Castro: 

IMF the kiss of the devil”) printed in an English 

newspaper (Asahi Evening News) here 

in Tokyo. The article reads: 

“Salvador, Brazil – Cuban leader Fidel 

Castro blamed U.S.-led globalization for the 

world’s economic turmoil and blasted financial 

bodies like the International Monetary 

Fund (IMF) . . . . ‘The markets are falling. 

This is the inevitable consequence of (market) 

rules but also of globalization, of the 

new world order,’ he said. ‘The IMF is the 

kiss of the devil. It kills those who embrace 

it while pretending to help.’” 

I couldn’t believe the article was printed! 

The sad truth is Castro is probably correct in 

his assessment of the nefarious operations 

of the IMF. 

Essentially, these “aid” agencies are accountable 

to no one except other institutions 

of the same type. It really does seem incredible 

that we have allowed agencies like the 

IMF to act as our go-betweens with a virtually 

unrestricted mandate to make secret deals 

that effect millions of people (like the recent 

“aid” to Korea). At our expense, too! 

According to author Graham Hancock 

(Footprints of the Gods), “These institutions 

have perfected the art of bureaucratic impenetrability 

. . . international civil servants on 

the one hand working in a veil of secrecy, 

and gangsters and sycophants on the other 

who are often the recipients of the aid.” 

Horror stories abound all over the world 

where agencies such as the UN, EDF, FAO, 

USAID, IDA, IMF and others target the ineptitude 

and ignorance of leaders in foreign 

countries and systematically turn them and 

their unknowing populations into welfare recipients. 

Look at the tragedy they unleashed 

in Indonesia! 

Ezra Pound often argued . . . begged . . 

. No! Demanded a “standard”. Your publication 

is my standard. In war there is NO 

negotiating or compromising with the enemy. 

The truth – ALWAYS! God bless! 

T.R. Cowan 

Hamura-shi, Tokyo, Japan 

Thank you. In addition to the fragrance 

of far-eastern flattery, Mr. 

Cowan’s letter also offers a lot of insight. 

For example, I’m fascinated to 

find that the “evil communist” Fidel 

Castro is not only critical of the IMF but 

also “globalization” and the “New World 

Order” (NWO). That’s an eye-opener. 

After a lifetime of hearing the media 

preach that all Communists want a 

one-world government, I’m surprised 

to find Fidel favors national sovereignty 

over globalism. Who’d’ve 

thought a Cuban Commie could be just 

as critical of the NWO as most American 

“right-wing” constitutionalists? 

Is Cuba still isolated (years after the 

Cold War’s end) because Cuba is Communist 

– or because Castro is critical of 

globalization and retains enough political 

charisma to pose a public relations 

threat to the IMF and NWO? Was Castro’s 

primary offense being a Communist – or 

being a Cuban patriot unwilling to surrender 

his nation’s sovereignty? 


This year in Congress, the 

Republican Party ran from support 

of firearms’ freedoms. That was one of 

the major reasons so many expected GOP 

victories did not materialize. However, 

staunch pro-gunners such as Reps. Ron Paul 

(TX), Helen Chenoweth (ID) and Roscoe 

Bartlett (MD) were reelected. Ron Paul’s district 

leans Democratic and a tremendous effort 

to beat him was mounted. The voters 

clearly appreciate a humble man who is steadfast 

in his defense of the Constitution. Please 

pray for the Lord’s protection of Ron Paul. 

Paul has organized a think tank, the Liberty 

Study Committee, to supply ideas, bill 

analysis and pro-Constitutional legislation 

for conservative congressmen. Neither party 

produces such material. Pray that the Lord 

will use the LSC to encourage more congressmen 

to join Ron Paul in defending the 

constitutional liberties of the people. 

Sen. Bob Smith (R-NH) continues to 

take the lead in the defense of the Second 

Amendment. He plans to introduce Bradyblocking 

legislation to keep the FBI from 

having the money to register gun owners. 

As of this month the FBI will process all 

instant background checks on gun buyers 

and promises to break federal law by keeping 

the names on a registration list. Smith’s 

bill could conceivably pass over the 

President’s veto, but it will be an intense 

battle. Smith’s measure was offered as an 

amendment to an appropriations bill and 

passed in the Senate with a veto-proof majority 

(69-31). It died in the House. Please 

pray for Sen. Smith and for the 

Representative(s) who will have to collaborate 

with Smith in the House. 

Please continue to keep Gun Owners 

of America in your prayers. We know that 

the finances that pay our bills come ultimately 

from God. We also need His wisdom and 

guidance as we engage the forces of tyranny 

here in Washington and in many other government 

centers around the country. 

Larry Pratt 

Gun Owners of America 

703-321-8585 

Thanks! I received your 

latest issue of AntiShyster and it 

truly made my Christmas. I thank you from 

my heart. I make $25 a month as a law clerk 

here and I admire your publication so much. 

I wrote you about 6 months ago. I’m the one 

that was caught with 13 grams of pot and 

pled for 115 lbs. and got sentenced for 40,750 

lbs. and had my appeal dismissed for an “in- 

telligent” waiver of appeal in my plea trap! 

My wife of 17 years abandoned me and filed 

for divorce. My court appointed a—h—e 

filed a reply to the divorce and didn’t bother 

to show up and they took all my stuff and 

now I cannot even get an address for my 3 

children because the %$%#$@ Judge will 

not look at my motions! There are no Texas 

law books here (just federal) so I’m stumped 

on what to do now. It has been a year since I 

have not seen my children. If anybody can 

help me on this please write. 

My “liar” duped me into pleading guilty 

for the 115 lbs. for a promised sentence of 2 

or 3 years. On a snitch’s word I got sentenced 

for 20 tons. I got an affidavit off the 

snitch but the 5th Circuit appeals said my 

waiver was voluntary and dismissed my appeal. 

I put in a writ for certiorari to the Supreme 

Court but it was DENIED. I have a 

§2255 Habeas left but am waiting till I get 

more knowledge of the tricks and evil traps 

of the persecuters. I would like to offer my 

research services to you, if you need Federal 

research I would be glad to find a case for 

you. N/c. Your magazine is my payment. 

I would like to see more Federal and 

prisoner articles as this is where we are literally 

fighting for our lives. This is the trenches. 

The Fed has narrowed our time for habeas 

corpus to 1 year. Over that – tuff. The only 

thing is there is no state books at the fed. My 

state case is going to go down the tubes for 

lack of knowledge. I miss my kids so much 

– do you know why the State Court does not 

see or respond to my motions? I cannot get 

an answer or ruling, any aid will be appreciated. 

May God bless you and yours. Oh, the 

Attorney (State) General has been sending a 

bunch of cons here the child support ultimatums 

and your article was very helpful. God 

bless and don’t forget about the litigation 

engines in prison fighting the US with no 

ammo. 

Sincerely, 

Angel Lerma 

Federal Medical Center 

Fort Worth, Texas 

The idea that any private person 

should be imprisoned for using 

– or even selling – marijuana (which, 

so far as I know, has never caused 

a single death) while government 

welcomes (and taxes) the corporate 

sale of tobacco (which reportedly 

causes about 400,000 American 

deaths each year) and alcohol 

(which causes roughly 50,000 fatali- 

ties each year) is too bizarre to be 

shrugged off as merely absurd. The 

real reasons may be debatable but, 

unquestionably, drug laws applying 

to marijuana are intentionally draconian, 

arbitrary, excessive and arguably 

a violation of the constitutional 

prohibition against “cruel or 

unusual punishment.” 

But if the excess of mandatory 

sentencing guidelines were not 

enough, lying and trickery by government 

prosecutors is not only a 

violation of prosecutorial fiduciary 

obligations to “ensure that justice 

is done” rather than convictions at 

any cost– in some instance (like Mr. 

Lerma’s) it raises some interesting 

questions that suggest an underlying 

intention to deceive or defraud 

the American people. 

For example, if Mr. Lerma was 

sentenced for possessing over 20 

tons of nonexistent marijuana – 

what happened to all that imaginary 

grass? Has it been included in 

some bureaucrat’s report used to 

justify sending tax dollars to a particular 

drug enforcement agency? 

Has some federal agency taken 

credit (perhaps even received a 

commendation and plaque suitable 

for framing) for removing those 20 

nonexistent tons from our nation’s 

streets? 

A couple of years ago, we published 

excerpts from a study conducted 

by a sitting judge who was 

concerned with the obvious excessive 

sentences handed out in drug 

courts. According to that judge, if 

you added up the weight of all the 

drugs seized in all the criminal prosecutions 

for drug use, you’d find the 

average “evil” drug user was convicted 

for possessing only a few 

grams of “prohibited substance” 

(just as Mr. Lerma alleges in his case). 

The judge complained that, if you 

divide the weight of marijuana removed 

from the streets by the number 

of associated convictions, it averaged 

out to something like a paper-clip’s 

weight in drugs seized for 

each year of incarceration. While 

President Clinton takes political campaign 

money from the Red Chinese 

army, we are jailing people for years 

based for possessing a quantity of 


marijuana similar to the amount of 

loose tobacco found in the bottom 

of any spent package of Camels. 

Is it possible that an occasional 

huge exaggeration of the amount of 

drugs seized in a plea bargain case 

(where there’ll never be an actual accounting 

of those drugs under oath in 

a court) helps government “cook” their 

books and create the statistical appearance 

that the average drug conviction 

removes a significant amount of drugs 

from the streets? 

For example, by adding Mr. Lerma’s 

alleged 20 tons of imaginary marijuana 

to the actual weight of grass seized 

from the next 999 drug convictions, 

the average amount of grass seized 

would be a minimum of 20 pounds (almost 

10 kilos) per conviction. 

Well, if statistics indicate the average 

drug convict is guilty of possessing 

at least 20 pounds of prohibited 

substance, then clearly they must be 

drug dealers and very bad men (or 

women). Joe Sixpack and Suzy Secretary 

will not only thank their beloved 

government officials for removing so 

much marijuana and so many evil drug 

dealers from the streets, they might 

even support increased funding for 

more equipment, personnel, and promotions 

in our sacred Holy drug war. 

In short, if Mr. Lerma’s allegations 

are correct, perhaps the reason no one 

will hear his motions for appeal is that 

government needs, has used, and 

doesn’t dare expose the 20 nonexistent 

tons of marijuana. After all, what 

can anyone do with 20 nonexistent 

tons of marijuana – except use ‘em as 

fictional evidence in a report or statistical 

analysis to exaggerate some government 

drug agent or agency’s performance. 

I don’t know how to go about it, 

but if I were Mr. Lerma, I’d start looking 

to see who profited from the removal 

of the 20 nonexistent tons of grass. 

Who used those 20 imaginary tons in 

his reports? That person or agency is 

just might be responsible for ignoring 

his appeals. 

But no matter what kind of excess, 

idiocy or injustice occurred in Mr. 

Lerma’s case, he is finally guilty of accepting 

a plea bargain with our judicial 

system. Mr. Lerma agreed to go to jail. 

No matter how wrong the government 

may be, the ultimate fact is this: Mr. 

Lerma agreed to go to jail. 

Our criminal justice system is absolutely 

dependant on terrorizing impoverished 

defendants with the threat 

of excessive punishments for what are 

often insignificant crimes. This is especially 

true in the arena of drug use. 

Faced with terrifying prospect of being 

convicted in court for possessing 

13 grams and being sent to jail for ten 

years, almost anyone would agree that 

a two or three-year plea bargain (no trial) 

looks pretty good. Thus, virtually all 

defendants are “scared” into signing 

plea bargains rather than straining the 

“limited resources of our judicial system” 

with a trial that allegedly guarantees 

conviction and a sentence five 

times longer than the plea bargain. 

Nevertheless, Mr. Lerma’s lost his 

wife and kids. The consequences of 

his agreement and incarceration go far 

beyond just missing a couple years of 

freedom. 

What’s the solution to the injustice 

of excessive mandatory sentences? 

Don’t plea bargain. For example, if just 

20% of all the people receiving traffic 

tickets would take their case to court 

without an attorney, and then appeal 

their cases when they’re found guilty, 

and appeal again and again until the 

Supreme Court refuses to hear their 

case and they actually had to pay their 

$200 fine, the whole traffic court scam 

would collapse. No municipality can 

afford spend $5,000 in legal cost litigating 

$200 traffic tickets. 

Same thing in criminal law. We can 

complain forever that our courts and 

legislators passed onerous laws and 

exact excessive fines and penalties, 

but nothing will change until we’d 

rather fight than bitch. The quickest 

way to end oppressive drug laws is to 

encourage drug users to go to trial and 

risk being sentenced for ten or twenty 

years rather than plea bargaining for 

two or three. 

Would there be casualties? Yes. 

At first, some decent people would be 

subjected to life-destroying periods of 

incarceration. They’d be forgotten and 

abandoned by their families and friends 

and in the end spend much of their 

lives in prison with nothing to sustain 

them other than the knowledge that by 

sacrificing their lives, they were saving 

the lives of thousands of others. 

But once government realized 

that the average marijuana user would 

insist on a jury trial (and already, some 

juries are refusing to convict) and drag 

the government through five years of 

appeals, and tie up some prison bunk 

for another twenty years, the government 

would become suddenly “liberal” 

and “humane” and at least legalize the 

private use of marijuana. 

Government shears us like sheep 

because we bleat but never bite. We 

lack courage or integrity. Afraid to risk 

resisting a gross injustice, we instead 

agree (pleas bargain) to accept a small 

injustice. But who can legitimately 

complain about a huge injustice if we 

routinely agree to the little injustices? 

Government knows most Americans 

don’t have the guts to fight. That failure 

in courage guarantees we’ll be bullied 

and exploited until our lives are 

gone or we find the will to fight. 

To escape a gross injustice, Mr. 

Lerma agreed to accept a lessor injustice. 

No matter what level of government 

corruption sent Mr. Lerma prison, 

in the final analysis, he’s in prison because 

he agreed to go. Like most of 

us, he’d rather sign (the plea bargain) 

than fight. And who can blame him? If 

he gets out in three years, he may still 

restore some measure of his relationship 

with his wife and kids. Obviously, 

that chance would be hugely reduced 

if he were imprisoned for ten years 

rather than three. Unfortunately, almost 

no one will still care for us after 

we’ve been missing for ten years. Life 

goes on. 

And yet, if we actually stand up 

and fight rather than surrender, maybe, 

just maybe, our wives and children 

might see a reason to remember us. 

“Yes, my dad’s in jail, but by God, the 

old bastard stood up and fought – and 

his courage makes me proud.” 

Does anyone really think that way 

(except in the movies)? Probably not. 

But if it’s unlikely that anyone will truly 

recall our clumsy attempts at courage, 

it’s certain that no one wants to remem- 


er our surrenders, acts of cowardice, 

and thereafter, us. 

“You expected much, but see, it 

turned out to be a little. What you 

brought home, I blew away. Why?” declares 

the Lord Yahweh. “Because of 

my house which remains a ruin, while 

each of you is busy with his own 

house.” Haggai 1:9 

We agree to plea bargains so we 

can quickly get back out to work on 

our own “houses” (lives and families). 

But in doing so, we sign away something 

precious (our integrity? dreams?) 

to an adversary whose spiritual credentials 

are at best ambiguous. And more 

importantly, by focusing only on our 

selves and our immediate family, we 

neglect larger obligations to our neighbors, 

nation and God. 

Nobody wants to make the kind of 

self-sacrifice necessary to stop government 

abuse. And yet, self-sacrifice 

is the only solution. That sacrifice does 

not necessarily require fists, guns or 

bombs. Ghandi simply sat down and 

refused to move, work, or assent to British 

injustice. It took time, but eventually 

the Brits simply packed up and left. 

Once Indians stopped empowering the 

English with agreements to accept injustice, 

the English lost the source of 

their power and had to leave. 

Same is true in the U.S.A. 

I hear unconfirmed rumors that – 

Omigosh! – concentration camps are 

being built right here in America by our 

evil government. But I know those rumors 

aren’t true. Oh, there may be concentration 

camps, but it’s not government 

that’s building them. It’s you and 

me, every time we take the easy way 

out, every time we empower our adversaries 

with our signatures, agreements, 

applications and quiet assents 

to injustice. 

Are there concentration camps in 

America? I don’t know. But every time 

we send a $75 check in the “convenient 

envelope” after being ticketed 

for not wearing a seat belt, we’re increasing 

the probability that there will 

be camps. Every time we plea bargain, 

we help build those camps. And rightly 

so. Camps are for cowards. 

Based on allegations of drug use, 

drug dealing, trading top secret missile 

technology to Red China for campaign 

contributions, and even murder, 

some people believe President Clinton 

is the biggest psychopath we’ve ever 

had in the White House (and that’s saying 

something). But no one accuses 

Clinton of cowardice. It seems crazy, 

but during the Lewinski scandal, 

Clinton wouldn’t even admit to the 

House of Representatives that he’s the 

nation’s chief law enforcement officer. 

The guy’s got nerve. 

Will Clinton ever do time? Not unless 

he shows fear. He may be the biggest 

crook America’s ever elected, but 

so long as he shows courage, his approval 

ratings will remain high and the 

probability remain small that he’ll be 

convicted for even a parking ticket . 

On the other hand, the vast majority of 

convicts in federal and state prisons 

aren’t there because they were convicted 

in a court, but because – out of 

fear – they signed a plea bargain and 

agreed to accept incarceration. 

There’s a lesson there. Americans 

would rather be led by a courageous 

crook than a good man filled with fear. 

Whether you’re a good man or bad, 

courage can take you to the White 

House and fear will put you in prison. 


Your Money’s 

No Good Here! 

Here’s an administrative notice 

that’s reportedly worked in Texas to 

stop enforcement of traffic ticket fines 

and similar fees or monetary penalties. 

The notice boils down to this: 1) the 

State of Texas is prohibited by state 

law from accepting anything other than 

“lawful money of the United States” as 

payment for fines, fees and penalties; 

2) such “lawful money” is defined by 

federal law as gold or silver coins; 3) 

the government removed virtually all 

gold and silver coins from circulation; 

Therefore 4) it is impossible to pay 

Texas fines in “lawful money”; 5) no 

person can be jailed or otherwise penalized 

for failing to do the impossible; 

and thus 6) the “Accused” can not be 

forced to pay his traffic fine in “nonlawful” 

money such as Federal Reserve 

Notes. In sum, the State of Texas appears 

paradoxically prohibited from 

collecting fines in modern currency. 

This argument sounds farfetched, 

but I know several individuals who’ve 

used it successfully to avoid paying 

traffic tickets (one reportedly used this 

argument over a dozen times, and each 

time the government’s collection effort 

simply disappeared). 

Note that this strategy does not 

purport to stop prosecution, conviction 

or assessment of fines– only collection 

of fines. 

Anyone wishing to test this strategy 

in Texas should confirm the relevant 

cites are currently accurate. 

Anyone outside of Texas who wants 

to test this strategy should fish through 

his state’s laws to discover if his state 

government is also prohibited from 

accepting fines, fees, etc. in anything 

but “lawful money of the United States” 

and then use whatever cites create 

proper administrative notice for his 

state. 

Finally, this strategy is reprinted 

here almost exactly as it was found. 

However, I disagree with the capitalization 

used in the phrase, “the Constitution 

for the united states of America” 

– in my opinion, “united states” should 

be capitalized. 

City of Dallas, 

State of Texas, ACCUSER 

V. 

John Doe 

In Propria Persona, ACCUSED 

Cause # 123456789 

NOTICE OF DESIRE TO PAY ALL TRAFFIC 

FINES, FEES, COSTS AND PENALTIES 

I, John Doe, ACCUSED, give this, my 

“NOTICE OF DESIRE TO PAY ALL TRAFFIC FINES, 

FEES, COSTS AND PENALTIES” to the Judge of 

the Court, on this the 28 th day of February, 

1999. 

However, due to the Constitution for 

the united states of America, at Article 1, 

Section 10, Clause 1, which mandates that 

“No state shall make any Thing but gold and 

silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts,” 

said Clause remaining UNREPEALED to 

date, and 

Due to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 

at Article 43.02, which states that all 

fines, taxes, penalties and remunerances 

“shall be collected in the lawful money of the 

United States only”, said Article remaining 

UNREPEALED to date, and 

Due to Federal Law, Title 12, Section 

152, which defines “Lawful Money of the 

United States” to ONLY be “gold coin” and 

“silver coin”, said section remaining UN- 

REPEALED to date, and 

Due to 48 Stat. 2, (March 09, 1933) 

and 48 Stat. 113, (June 05, 1933) all gold 

coin was removed from common circulation, 

at par, at the banks in America, said Statutes, 

remaining UNREPEALED to date, and 

Due to Public Law 8931, (July 23, 

1965) Senate #2080, and Public Law 9029, 

(June 24, 1967) Title 50, Section 9898 H, 

and 60 Stat. 596, all silver coin was removed 

from common circulation at par, at the banks 

in America, said Public Laws, Sections and 

Statutes remaining UNREPEALED to date, 

I, the accused, AM THEREFORE 

CONSTRAINED BY THE LAW FROM 

PAYING THIS CLASS C fine, fee, cost or 

penalty. 

Since Federal Reserve Notes, or checks 

or money orders payable only in Federal 

Reserve Notes are not within the definition 

of those things allowed by law to be received 

by the court, any threat to incarcerate me for 

“failure to pay” those things will be deemed 

to be an attempt to solicit an honorarium in 

violation of Texas Penal Code, Title 8, Section 

36.07 or 36.08. 

This is neither contempt, nor default, 

but merely a declaration that until Congress 

returns America to a Constitutional monetary 

system, it is impossible for me to pay fines, 

and IMPOSSIBILIUM NULLA OBLIGA- 

TIO EST, that is; There is no obligation to do 

impossible things. 

Further, ACCUSED sayeth naught 

S/ John Doe 


Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. 

How do crazy people go through the forest? 

They take the psycho-path. 

How do you get holy water? Boil the hell 

out of it. 

What do Eskimos get from sitting on the ice 

too long? Polaroids. 

What do you call a defective boomerang? A 

stick. 

What do you call Santa’s helpers? Subordinate 

Clauses. 

What do you call four bull fighters in quicksand? 

Quatro sinko. 

What does it mean when the flag is at halfmast 

at the Post Office? They’re hiring. 

What kind of coffee was served on the Titanic? 

Sanka. 

Disorder in the Court: a 

Collectionof “Transquips” Collected 

by Richard Lederer, reprinted in N.H. Business 

Review: 

Q. Did you ever stay all night with this 

man in New York? 

A. I refuse to answer that question. 


man in Chicago? 

A. I refuse to answer that question. 


man in Miami? 

A. No. 

Q. What is your brother-in-law’s 

name? 

A. Borofkin. 

Q. What’s his first name? 

A. I can’t remember. 

Q. He’s been your brother-in-law for 

years, and you can’t remember his first name? 

A. No. I tell you I’m too excited. (Rising 

from the witness chair and pointing to 

Mr. Borofkin.) Nathan, for God’s sake, tell 

‘em your first name! 

Q. Are you married? 

A. No, I’m divorced. 

Q. And what did your husband do before 

you divorced him? 

A. A lot of things I didn’t know about. 

Q. Mrs. Smith, do you believe that 

you are emotionally unstable? 

A. I should be. 

Q. How many times have you committed 

suicide? 

A. Four times. 

Q. Doctor, how many autopsies have 

you performed on dead people? 

A. All my autopsies have been performed 

on dead people. 

Q. When he went, had you gone and 

had she, if she wanted to and were able, for 

the time being excluding all the restraints on 

her not to go, gone also, would he have 

brought you, meaning you and she, with him 

to the station? 

MR. BROOKS: Objection. That question 

should be taken out and shot. 

Here’s an exchange involving a child: 

Q. And lastly, Gary, all your responses 

must be oral. O.K.? What school do you go to? 

A. Oral. 

Q. How old are you? 

A. Oral. 

The following was just posted on the Postnet 

Forum of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: 

* 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad 

name. 

* 50% of all lawyers graduated in the 

lower half of their class. 

* 50% of lawyers lose their suits. 

True stories: 

Police in Oakland, California spent two 

hours attempting to subdue a gunman who’d 

barricaded himself inside his home. After firing 

ten tear gas canisters, officers discovered 

that the man was standing beside them, shouting 

“Please come out and give yourself up!” 

In Ohio, an unidentified man in his late 

twenties walked into a police station with a 

9-inch wire protruding from his forehead and 

calmly asked officers to give him an X-ray 

to help him find his brain, which he claimed 

had been stolen. Police were shocked to learn 

that the man had drilled a 6-inch deep hole in 

his skull with a Black & Decker power drill 

and had stuck the wire in to try and find the 

missing brain. 

In Medford, Oregon, a 27-year-old jobless 

man with an MBA blamed his college 

degree for murdering three people. “There 

are too many business grads out there,” he 

said. “If I had chosen another field, all this 

may not have happened.” 

Police in Los Angeles had good luck 

with a robbery suspect who just couldn’t 

control himself during a lineup. When detectives 

asked each man in the lineup to repeat 

the words, “Give me all your money or I’ll 

shoot,” the man shouted, “That’s not what I 

said!” 

A bank robber in Virginia Beach got a 

nasty surprise when a dye pack designed to 

mark stolen money exploded in his Fruit-ofthe-Looms. 

The robber apparently stuffed 

the loot down the front of his pants as he 

was running out the door. According to a 

police spokesman, “He was seen hopping 

and jumping around with an explosion taking 

place inside his pants.” Police have the 

man’s charred trousers in custody. 

A man spoke frantically into the phone, 

“My wife is pregnant and her contractions 

are only two minutes apart!” 

“Is this her first child?” the doctor 

asked. 

“No, you idiot!” the man shouted, “this 

is her husband!” 

In Modesto, CA, Steven Richard King 

was arrested for trying to hold up a Bank of 

America branch without a weapon. King used 

a thumb and a finger to simulate a gun, but 

unfortunately, he failed to keep his hand in 

his pocket. 

Yesterday scientists revealed that beer 

contains small traces of female hormones. 

To prove their theory, the scientists fed 100 

men 12 pints of beer and observed that 100% 

of them gained weight, talked excessively 

without making sense, became emotional, 

couldn’t drive, couldn’t think, and refused 

to apologize when wrong. 

No further testing is planned. 

Why do they have Interstate Highways 

in Hawaii . . . ? 


y Edward Lotterman 

The following is a hugely edited version 

of a 1996 paper entitled “Farm Bills 

and Farmers, The effects of subsidies over 

time” presented by Edward Lotterman, Agricultural 

Economist for the Federal Reserve 

Bank of Minneapolis. Mr. Lotterman’s paper 

explains the apparent demise of the family 

farm as primarily due to massive technological 

innovation that was both inevitable 

and relatively benign. Mr. Lotterman argues 

that the loss of family farms is not as 

severe as most people believe since “proportionally” 

family farms make up virtually 

as much of the American farm industry as 

they did in 1933. 

However, having worked on a farm for 

several years and met ranchers from around 

the country, I found Mr. Lotterman’s tendency 

to “sanitize” the farm crisis somewhat 

perplexing. Technically, he may be 

correct, but the problem goes far beyond the 

effects of technology or free market competition. 

As I learned in 1970, farmers have 

been reduced to the status of sharecroppers. 

Unlike previous generations, modern farmers 

rarely own their land. They work it and 

posses it but legal title typically belongs to a 

bank or some distant corporation. 

I’ve modified the substance of Mr. 

Lotterman’s insighful essay with my own 

[bracketed] comments concerning the farm 

crisis and its relationship to banking. 

U 

.S. agriculture is a marvelous 

success in terms of producing 

large quantities of food and fiber at low cost 

to consumers. Indeed, the average U.S. 

household now spends less than one-eighth 

of its income on food, a proportion that is 

The Grapes of 

Technology 

unprecedentedly low both in recorded history 

and in comparison to other high-income 

countries. 

Ironically, the enormous success and 

efficiency of American agriculture has impoverished 

the American farmer. Millions 

of family farmers have gone out of business 

since 1920, and the number of family farms 

continues to decline steadily. 

While this decline in the absolute number 

of family farms is often cited as a social 

tragedy, it is not without parallel in other sectors 

or other countries. Indeed, for general 

living standards to rise, productivity must 

increase. The fact that 2 percent of the population 

can now feed the country vs. 30 percent 

in 1933 indicates dramatic increases in 

productivity. Moreover, other sectors, especially 

retailing, went through similar patterns. 

[For example, the various “mom ‘n pop” family-owned 

stores on Main Street went broke 

and were replaced by giant corporate megamarkets 

like Walmart located at the outskirts 

of town. Mr. Lotterman implies that our 

sympathies and political concerns for failed 

family farmers are misguided since this widespread 

attrition is caused primarily by technology 

and virtually inevitable.] 

Nevertheless, from the Eisenhower 

years on, the need to “preserve the family 

farm” or “farming as a way of life” has been 

sounded in public debate over agricultural 

legislation. The idea of family farming as a 

socially desirable and morally superior mode 

of production is deeply rooted in American 

culture and can be traced back to Thomas 

Jefferson and other 18th century writers. 

Well into the second half of the 20th century, 

many urbanites had farm roots, being children 

or grandchildren of active farmers, and 

frequently had great sympathy for them. 

Most people believe the Great 

Depression started with the 

1929 stock market crash. However, for farmers, 

the Great Depression started in 1921 

when agricultural prices plummeted 30% 

percent from the previous year and did not 

recover. Government didn’t respond meaningfully 

to the farmers’ plight until President 

Franklin Roosevelt started his “New Deal” 

in 1933. Included in the New Deal was the 

Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) which 

authorized direct payments to farmers who 

curtailed crop and livestock production. This 

destruction of food and fiber at a time when 

the President himself described much of the 

populace as “ill fed, ill clothed and ill housed,” 

caused much criticism but did briefly boost 

depressed prices. 

The AAA also established “support” 

prices for six basic agricultural commodities 

relative to the “parity,” or the price of the 

commodity relative to the general price level 

in the 1910-1914 period. Under this “parity” 

program, farmers were guaranteed to receive 

the same relative price for their products 

in 1935 as they received in 1914. If the 

average prices for industrial products and/or 

urban labor in 1935 was 20% higher than in 

1914, then government guaranteed price support 

for farm products in 1935 at levels be 

20% higher than they were in 1914. 

The AAA certainly met with some success. 

Output restrictions from 1933 through 

1937 probably raised farm incomes, albeit at 

the cost of higher prices to consumers. However, 

some historians argue that this cost was 

lower than government would have faced if 

the rural to urban displacement vividly portrayed 

in Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath 

had become even more widespread. In policy 

wonk terminology, the AAA was a cost-ef- 


ficient way to transfer income to low-income 

rural families. [Thus, farm support programs 

were first intended as welfare for the 30% of 

Americans who were impoverished farmers.] 

But laws and policy solutions intended 

to deal with acute short-term problems, such 

as near-starving rural populations in 1933 

(or a wave of farm and farm bank failures in 

1984-85) are seldom effective in easing 

longer-term questions such as the social costs 

of structural change induced by technological 

innovation. 

Since the early 1800s, the United States 

has been a fertile bed for new agricultural 

technology. Farmers and non-farm inventors 

produced a stream of new machines to 

apply animal and fossil fuel energy as a replacement 

for human effort. Such labor-replacing 

innovation continued in the present 

century and was bolstered by advances in 

biology and chemistry that boosted output 

per acre through hybrid and genetically engineered 

seed, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. 

New technology also allowed the same 

acreage to be cultivated by many fewer people. 

The decline in farm populations and increase 

in the size of farms that began by 1920 continued 

largely unabated by policy interventions 

up to the present. The effect of such 

technological innovation was to increase productivity 

so rapidly that federal programs to 

restrict output were frequently overwhelmed. 

Thus, 60 years of federal programs did 

little to slow the reduction in farm numbers. 

In other words, in many of the last 60 years, 

government’s agricultural policies may not 

have been particularly important. 

Consistent with this legislative 

ineffectiveness, prosperity did 

not return to rural areas until the outbreak of 

World War II. During that war, market prices 

exceeded the 1910-1914 “parity” level and 

therefore AAA legislation was moot in regard 

to costs to the U.S. treasury. However, 

the AAA remained in force for nearly 60 

years and laid a time bomb for subsequent 

Congresses and administrations. 

During mid-1950s, U.S. agriculture was 

beset by a period in which product prices 

were too low to pay prevailing prices for 

land and still provide a living for many farm 

families equal to that enjoyed by urbanites. 

Post-WWII Europe and Asia were well on 

the way back to feeding themselves, and a 

new wave of technological innovation in the 

form of hybrid seed, chemical pesticides and 

synthetic fertilizers was expanding output per 

person and per acre. 

Farmers were producing too much. 

New technology meant that fewer farmers 

could meet the food needs of the nation and 

that something had to be done to ease the 

financial pain of all concerned caused by this 

fundamental change in our social structure 

(the 30% of Americans who were farmers in 

1933 decreased to less than 2% today). During 

the Eisenhower administrations, most 

farm programs were justified as necessary 

to ease excess labor out of agriculture. It 

was essentially an agrarian version of the 

debate about whether automation would lead 

to chronic unemployment of industrial workers. 

These sentiments persisted through the 

Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations. 

During the Eisenhower administrations 

the Food for Peace program was passed as a 

“humanitarian” foreign aid program, but its 

chief purpose was disposal of surplus food. 

Under the existing legislation, farmers could 

take out loans on commodities stored after 

harvest. But if the market price of the commodity 

remained below the loan rate, or price 

per unit advanced on the stored crop, the 

farmer could simply forfeit the crop to the 

government in full payment of the loan. This 

loan provision was a thinly disguised measure 

by which government fixed a minimum 

price by guaranteeing to purchase any quantity 

of farm output at the loan rate. [By “fixing 

the minimum price,” government also indirectly 

guaranteed bank loans to farmers and 

fostered unreasonable credit for farmers.] 

Of course, if this loan rate were substantially 

above the free market price for food, 

farmers would have an incentive to produce 

more than markets would normally absorb. 

That is precisely what happened – with a 

vengeance – during the Eisenhower years. 

Bin sites, fields of round grain bins or 

Quonset huts filled with government-owned 

grain, sprang up on the outskirts of nearly 

every farm town. “Humanitarian” donations 

or sales of commodities at giveaway prices 

were a way to dump these surpluses outside 

the country behind the fig leaf of helping the 

poor and downtrodden. But surplus disposal 

was the most important, if not the only, objective 

of the act. [Presumably, risk-free farm 

loans were also an important consideration.] 

U.S. agriculture remained relatively 

stable until 1972-1973 when the Soviet 

Union surreptitiously purchased wheat and 

corn in international markets in such massive 

quantities as to cause unexpected increases 

in market prices. Commodity brokers 

[and their bankers] might have experienced 

substantial losses if they had to buy 

grain at unexpectedly high prices to cover 

their initial commitments to provide Russian 

grain at low prices. However, the U.S. government 

adopted an export subsidy program 

to cover the difference (losses) between the 

companies’ domestic purchase costs and in- 

ternational sales price. This open-ended subsidy 

covered trading firms’ losses and meant 

that taxpayers [rather than commodity brokers 

and their bankers] ended up absorbing 

the loss. 

Changes in international financial 

relations following the demise of 

the post WW II Bretton Woods arrangements 

also affected American agriculture. Under 

Bretton Woods, the exchange rates of major 

currencies were fixed relative to the U.S. 

dollar and the dollar was tied to gold at the 

rate of $35 per ounce. In the 1960s, the U.S. 

ran persistent balance of payment deficits and 

its gold holding shrank. When the U.S. withdrew 

from these arrangements in 1971 and 

1973, the U.S. dollar declined in value relative 

to other currencies. This initially made 

U.S. agricultural commodities more attractively 

priced to foreign buyers, and exports 

boomed. 

This expansion of agricultural exports 

raised real commodity prices and (with increasing 

general inflation, the OPEC oil embargo 

and a great popular flurry about declining 

natural resource supplies) contributed 

to an upward spiral in real land prices and 

sparked the most intense period of investment 

[bank loans] in machinery, farm buildings 

and rural housing in 60 years. [This 

boom/ inflation era provided farmers with 

easy credit and long-term debt that would 

later prove ruinous.] 

But in the 1980s, the dollar began to 

rise against other currencies, cutting into U.S. 

exports. Grain prices dropped as many importing 

countries went into recession or debtinduced 

austerity. Many farmers who purchased 

land in the 1970s believing that inflation 

and grain prices would remain high began 

to default on their debts. 

By 1985, many farm businesses were 

in liquidation, land prices had fallen by 30% 

to 50% from their peak, and dozens of agricultural 

banks were failing. One reaction 

was the Export Enhancement Program, a new 

export subsidy to help sell U.S. grain abroad 

when domestic prices were above prevailing 

prices in international trade. [Arguably, the 

foundation for our current “international free 

trade” was laid in our early attempts to protect 

farmers from the impact of technology 

by increasing their foreign markets. Presumably, 

to open foreign agricultural markets 

to American farmers, government had 

to agree to open our domestic industrial markets 

to foreign competition.] 

Massive treasury outlays ($26 billion 

in 1986) and an easing of the slump in exports 

halted the downward slide in farm incomes 

and farmland values by the late 1980s. 

[Thus, while government support might not 


prevent farm foreclosures, it could still minimize 

bank losses due to diminishing “value” 

of farmland previously used as collateral for 

long-term bank loans.] But between 1985- 

1995, congressional and public concern over 

federal budget deficits grew to a point where 

substantial outlays for farm price support became 

a major target. The upshot was the 

1996 “FAIR” act, a seven-year winding 

down for most grain support programs and 

the apparent end of a 60-year period of government 

action in the agricultural sector. 

As you’ve probably guessed, I suspect 

it’s more than “coincidental” that government 

farm support programs seem to inevitably 

support banks more than farmers. This 

pro-bank bias isn’t necessarily sinister. After 

all, it’s entirely possible that harm to 

rural communities might be hugely magnified 

if community banks were as decimated 

as family farms. Thus, protecting banks 

might be sound social policy. 

What follows are a few more excerpts 

from Mr. Lotterman’s essay (and my comments) 

which hint at the close relationship 

between farm programs and bank support: 

In 1933, farm families made up 

nearly a third of the population and 

their average incomes were substantially below 

those of urban households. But as a proportion 

of the population, farmers shrank 

steadily over time, and average farm incomes 

rose so that after the 1970s they were as high 

or higher than non-farm incomes. 

However, by the 1980s, family farm 

incomes were above the national average – 

but only because of the off-farm earnings of 

household members. 

[Average family “income” does not reflect 

average family investment. In 1970, 

average farm families managed land and 

equipment that was probably worth 

$200,000, while average non-farm families 

net worth (their home equity, cars, saving, 

etc.) was probably less than $20,000. Although 

a comparison of farm family investments 

to urban family net worth can be misleading, 

there is something clearly wrong if 

a farm family that works 50 to 60 hours a 

week managing a $200,000 investment only 

makes as much income as a family with 

$20,000 net worth. The farmer’s labor may 

have generated an income comparable to the 

non-farm workers income, but the farmer 

received virtually no profit from his investment. 

Who did? Banks.] 

In any program that sought to raise incomes 

by raising prices, the most benefits would 

accrue to those who produced [borrowed] the 

most. Large producers were seldom those with 

low incomes [or low credit ratings]. 

Saving the family farm is frequently 

cited as a motivation for farm policies. But 

federal tax policies from the 1950s into the 

1980s had offsetting effects. The increasing 

size of farms was one symptom of the disappearing 

family farm that successive farm bills 

were intended to slow. But high marginal tax 

rates combined with liberal depreciation rules 

for purchased machinery made the after-tax 

cost of new machinery or facilities considerably 

lower for higher-income large farmers 

than for lower-income small farmers. Some 

studies showed that the after-tax costs of new 

machinery were 40% lower for high-income 

[high credit] farmers than for those with low 

incomes. Such subsidies to capital intensity 

implicit in the tax code produced greater 

movement to large farms than would have 

occurred if tax rules had been size-neutral, 

and ran directly contrary to the implicit and 

explicit objectives of successive farm bills. 

[Mr. Lotterman’s use of the term “capital 

intensity” is peculiar. At first, you might 

think “capital intensity” implies “wealthy 

farmers,” but on reconsideration it also includes 

those farm entities that have the greatest 

access to credit. Thus, a “capital intensive” 

farm (and all its attendant advantages) 

was one that was closely “connected” with 

banks and “subsidies to capital intensive” 

farms would indirectly accrue to bankers.] 

However, if one looks at the proportion 

of farm output produced by “family 

farms” where the bulk of management, control, 

labor and equity is supplied by household 

members, then the majority of agricultural 

production still takes place on family 

farms. 

[Just because a “family” provides the 

“bulk” of the management and labor on a 

farm does not constitute a “family farm”. The 

definition for “family farm” does not depend 

on biological relationships among farm workers, 

but rather on who OWNS the particular 

farm and what family might inherit that farm. 

The term “family farm” is imprecise and potentially 

deceiving since, unless the definition 

of family farms centers on family ownership, 

any impoverished association of 

loosely related sharecroppers could be defined 

as a “family farm”. Just because my 

son or daughter might work with me on the 

same farm does not mean it is a “family 

farm”. A true “family farm” is one where the 

patriarch (or matriarch) owns legal title to 

the farm land and can therefore pass that legal 

title directly on to his/her heirs. Mere 

management of a farm by a particular family 

does not equal ownership, and inheritable 

legal title/ ownership is the essence of “family 

farms”. A true family farm is one where 

a biological family owns the farm and is solely 

entitled to the profits thereof. Families who 

merely manage or labor on the same farm, 

do not qualify as “family farmers” so much 

as sharecroppers.] 

Is government protection for banks that 

loan credit to farmers a sound social policy? 

Perhaps, but over the years of publishing 

the AntiShyster, I’ve learned that banks – 

big banks, the Federal Reserve, the International 

Monetary Fund and banks so big they 

are almost unknown – lie at the heart of 

virtually all of our constitutional problems. 

It’s not the economy, stupid – it’s the money, 

the paper money . . . and the coalition of 

banks and government officials that make 

us use it. 

As we’ve explained and explored in previous 

issues of the AntiShyster (notably Volume 

8 No. 2) it is 1) certain that all property 

rights flow from title, and 2) probable that 

Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are trust instruments 

that convey only equitable (not legal) 

title to the purchaser. If so, legal title 

(real ownership, control and legal rights) to 

whatever we purchase with FRNs accrues 

to the Federal Reserve, and we only receive 

equitable title (possession) to our property. 

I suspect that the real evil of Franklin 

Roosevelt’s New Deal was that it ultimately 

made sharecroppers of all of us. By using 

paper FRNs and bank credit, we’ve lost legal 

title to our property and therefore also 

lost most of our legal rights. We’ve been 

reduced from Freemen with unalienable rights 

to serfs with privileges. This reduction is 

especially clear in the case of farmers. 

Frankly, I don’t much care if the average 

farmer has to live on less than minimum 

wage. His income is not my problem. But I 

deeply care that the average farmer no 

longer owns legal title to his land. Through 

FRN-based purchases and bank loan defaults 

on their grandfather’s land, farmers 

have lost their legal title to their land. 

Through the shiny apple of credit-based purchases 

they’ve gained only the equitable illusion 

of ownership. 

I suspect the heart of the family farm 

crisis revolves around the fact that “family 

farmers” no longer own nor profit from their 

farms. As you’ll read in the next article, It is 

the loss of ownership and therefore profits 

that has crippled the American family farmer. 

First, they lost their land to the banks. More 

recently, they’ve lost their land to corporations. 

But so long as farmers don’t own 

their land and the profits therefrom, those 

farmers are destined for poverty. 


This next report was presented to the 

National Farmers Union on February 5, 

1999 and originally contained over 9,000 

words (I’ve edited it down to less than half 

that size). As you’ll read, “corporatizaton” 

of the food system threatens the family 

farmer, rural America and indirectly, all 

Americans. Closely read, this report illustrates 

1) how our political structure and standard 

of living depend on private ownership 

of the “means of production” (land, labor, 

agriculture and factories) and 2) how multinational 

corporations inevitably deprive local 

people of the ownership, profits and benefits 

of their own efforts. 

This report provides surprising insight 

into the corporate forces behind the “global 

plantation” on which farmers (first) and you 

and I (later) may one day serve as serfs. 

Although farmer Brown may be first to get 

the ax, you and I are not mere observers in 

a distant, urban audience – we’re all standing 

in the same line, waiting our turn to get 

(at best) whatever the farmer got. 

Bracketed comments, blue text, and italicized 

highlights are my additions. 

The organizational structure of the national/global 

food system is dynamic. New 

firm names emerge (often as the result of 

new joint ventures) and old names disappear 

– but underlying these name changes is a 

growing concentration of ownership and control 

of the food system. These structural 

changes (aka, “the industrialization of agriculture,”) 

are so strong that they often undermine 

the desired and expected outcomes of 

Concentration of 

Agricultural Markets 

by Dr. William Heffernan, 

Dr. Robert Gronski, Dr. Mary Hendrickson 

much of the agricultural policy developed 

over the past couple of decades. 

Few Americans understand the magnitude 

of the changes in our food system and 

their implications for agriculture and longterm 

sustainability of the food system. It is 

almost heresy to ask if these changes are 

what the people of our country really want 

or – if not – how we might redirect the change. 

The changes are the result of notoriously 

short sighted [corporate] market forces and 

not the result of public dialogue, the foundation 

of a democracy. 

Concentration Concentration of of power 

power 

For well over a decade, several of us at 

the University of Missouri have reported the 

concentration ratios of the largest four processors 

of the major commodities produced 

in the Midwest. We liken the food system to 

an hour glass in which farm commodities 

produced by thousands of farmers must pass 

through the narrow part of the glass that is 

analogous to the few firms that control the 

processing of the commodities before the 

food is distributed to millions of people in 

this and other countries. We focus on the 

largest four processing firms because the 

economic literature in the mid-1980’s indicated 

there was general agreement that if four 

firms had 40% of the market, that market 

was no longer competitive. 

When we began collecting data in the 

mid-1980’s, this information was relatively 

easy to obtain in trade journals, government 

reports, annual reports from corporations and 

other secondary sources. Over time, this information 

has become [suspiciously] more 

difficult to obtain. Trade journals have come 

under pressure to not publish some of this 

information and government agencies often 

say that to reveal the proportion of a market 

controlled by a single firm in such a concentrated 

market is revealing “proprietary information”. 

I once appeared on a four-person panel 

to discuss the concentration within the beef 

sector. Although each panelist calculated a 

different percentage of the market controlled 

by the largest four beef slaughtering firms, 

we all agreed the top four had at least 75% of 

the market. 

In a democracy where we expect the 

citizens to be involved in setting national 

policy, it is absolutely necessary that they 

have accurate information on the major causes 

for change. The public must have better data. 

I urge Congress to seek better data and make 

it available to the public as it debates the relationship 

between concentration, agricultural 

policy and rural issues. 

Today, data indicate that four firms control 

over 40% of the processing of the major 

commodities produced in the Midwest. The 

data suggest vertical integration in the food 

system. For example, Cargill Inc. ranks in the 

top four firms producing animal feed, feeding 

cattle and processing cattle. 

Multinationals 

Multinationals 

We’ve already noted the difficulty of getting 

information in America. Getting global 

information is far more difficult. To understand 

the U.S. food system, one must understand 

the global food system; to understand 

the global food system, one must understand 


the operations of the major global firms such 

as Cargill, Archer Daniel Midland (ADM), 

and ConAgra. For example, Cargill has operations 

in 70 countries and is a privately held 

firm. How do we get all of the necessary information? 

We have exposed the tip of the 

iceberg, but exposure only indicates the type 

of information needed to understand the global 

food system. 

In the past, most global grain firms were 

family-held operations that maintained low 

visibility and were secretive about their transactions. 

These firms operated in one or two 

stages of the food system and in only a few 

commodities. Today, the system is much 

more complex and involves biotechnology, 

production, and even highly processed food. 

Increasingly, these firms are developing 

a variety of different alliances with other 

players in the system. Acquisition is still a 

common method of combining two or more 

firms, but mergers, joint ventures, partnerships, 

contracts, and less formalized relationships, 

such as agreements and side agreements, 

are also utilized. We will use the concept 

“cluster of firms” to represent these new 

economic arrangements. 

The term “alliance” describes the 

emerging food system that is “seamlessly 

integrated” from gene to shelf. As this system 

evolves, even the price of the livestock 

feed and its ingredients, such as the corn, 

will not be known to the public, because (like 

today’s broilers) those product will not be 

sold. The firm owns the chick and sends it to 

their processing facility from which it 

emerges, perhaps in a TV dinner. The only 

time the public will ever know the “price” of 

animal protein is when it arrives in the meat 

case. Thus, there will be no [free] markets in 

agriculture and no “price discovery” from 

the gene, fertilizer processing and chemical 

production to the supermarket shelf. 

In a food chain cluster, the food product 

is passed from stage to stage, but ownership 

never changes and neither does the location 

of the decision-making. Starting with the intellectual 

property rights that governments [and 

taxpayers] give to the biotechnology firms, 

the food product always remains the property 

of a firm or cluster of firms. The farmer becomes 

a “grower” [sharecropper] providing 

the labor or some of the capital, but never 

owns the product as it moves through the food 

system and never makes major management 

decisions. 

The system is still evolving and it’s not 

yet possible to determine how many clusters 

may evolve, but experiences in other economic 

sectors (like the auto industry) suggest 

we won’t see monopolies evolve. Even 

at the global level, where there are no antitrust 

regulations, “oligopolies” [an economic 

system where only a few sellers sell a standardized 

product] – not monopolies – tend 

to emerge. 

We predict the development of four or 

five food clusters. We assume the number of 

clusters will be limited because it will be difficult 

for any new or emerging cluster to obtain 

the monopoly power that accompanies 

the intellectual property rights that lead to 

control of the food gene pool. 

Food Food Chain Chain Clusters 

Clusters 

Cargill/Monsanto. The 1998 joint 

venture between Monsanto and Cargill established 

one of the clusters. Cargill had 

already established its own food chain as 

one of the world’s largest seed firms with 

seed operations in twenty-three countries. 

However, Cargill did not have access to biotechnology 

and the new genetic products it 

would produce. As the Wall Street Journal 

(9/29/98) pointed out, “most seed companies 

have either aligned themselves with, or 

been acquired by, crop-biotechnology juggernauts 

such as Monsanto Co., DuPont Co. 

and Dow Chemical Co.” Thus, Cargill sold 

their international seed operation to Monsanto 

and their domestic seed operation to AgrEvo, 

a Berlin-based joint venture between Hoechst 

and Schering. Cargill then formed a joint venture 

with Monsanto which had the intellectual 

property rights to develop the genes and 

had a very comprehensive array of seed firms. 

Perhaps most importantly, the Cargill/ 

Monsanto cluster is now obtaining control 

of the “terminator gene” that can be inserted 

into plants to cause all of their seeds to be 

sterile. No longer will Monsanto have to 

depend on access to farmers’ fields for collection 

of tissue samples to make sure farmers 

don’t keep seed from one year’s crop to 

plant the following year. Use of the terminator 

gene will mean that all crop farmers must 

return each year to obtain their seed from 

seed firms, just as corn producers have done 

for the past half-century. 

Corporations the size of Cargill have 

access to such large sums of capital that they 

can usually acquire whatever assets are necessary 

to survive. The Cargill/Monsanto 

cluster unites giants in their respective stages 

of the food system. They have a complete 

food chain, but since they know very few 

clusters will survive, they continue to pursue 

other firms through acquisitions, joint 

ventures or other arrangements to increase 

their economic power. 

ConAgra currently ranks second behind 

Philip Morris as the leading food processor 

in the U.S. In its 1998 Annual Report, 

ConAgra claimed it had acquired or 

created joint ventures with approximately 150 

companies during the past 10 years and generated 

earnings growth at a compound rate 

of 15 percent for 18 consecutive years. 

ConAgra processes food farther down the 

food chain than Cargill and ultimately sells 

labeled food items that most consumers recognize 

as Armour, Swift, Butterball, Healthy 

Choice, Hunt’s, and many others. 

Novartis/Archer Daniel Midland. 

Novartis is a Swiss firm with agribusiness 

operations in 50 countries worldwide – primarily 

in crop protection chemicals, seeds and 

animal health. The company claims, “the largest 

R&D budget in the life sciences industry.” 

Their emphasis on R&D is reflected in their 

collaboration with the University of California-Berkeley, 

where they recently signed a 5year 

$25 million research agreement to work 

“in all areas of functional genomics related to 

agriculture, including gene-library construction, 

sequencing, mapping and bioinformatics.” 

(Chemical Market Reporter 11/ 

30/98) 

Archer Daniel Midland (ADM) has 

entered the Chinese market through its oilseed 

refining, feed and broiler processing 

operations, where ADM is the junior partner 

with the Chinese government and a local processor. 

In discussing China’s dilemma of balancing 

the need for food security with economic 

security, Martin Andreas, ADM’s 

spokesman, commented “It means that China 

is resigned to importing food and paying for 

it with products made from their overabundant 

supply of cheap labor.” (Journal of Commerce 

2/17/98) 

Data are very difficult to obtain, particularly 

reliable data about global operations. 

For instance, who are all of ADM’s European 

Union cooperative partners? How do 

ADM’s operations in China impact farmers 

in the United States? What role does ADM’s 

own brokerage firm, among the top 40 largest 

in the US, play in currency and grain 

futures trading, particularly when ADM is a 

major grain handler and processor in Eu- 


ope, North and South America and Asia? 

There are a host of other major players 

in the food system which are not included in 

our three food chain clusters (Cargill/ 

Monsanto; ConAgra; and Novartis/ADM). 

Most likely, some of these will join together 

to form new food chain clusters, while others 

may join the clusters we have identified. 

Three Three implications: 

implications: 

First, a very small number of dominant 

food chain clusters appear to be emerging. 

Some are organized around one or two dominant 

players as exemplified in the cases of 

Cargill/Monsanto and ConAgra. At least 

during the formative period, these clusters 

generally consist of a dominant firms from 

the biotechnology area, grain trading and 

processing area, and meat production. 

Second, the food system is becoming 

very complicated and difficult to describe because 

there are no individualistic firms out 

there competing with one another. The whole 

system is woven together by a host of working 

relationships between firms. For example, 

knowing that Japan’s Nippon Meats has a 

twelve to fifteen year joint venture with Cargill 

producing broilers in Thailand makes it hard 

to believe there are no constraints in the competition 

they exercise in America as Nippon 

becomes a U.S. hog producer and processor. 

One is left asking: Just how much [free market] 

competition is there in the system? 

We know there are rivalries between 

firms and in some cases the firms spend millions 

of dollars in court to settle their differences. 

But perhaps society would benefit 

most if the differences were settled in a competitive 

[free] market! 

Third, since food chain clusters are 

formed through major management decisions 

made by a small core of corporate executives, 

there is little room left in the global 

food system for independent farmers. Experts 

tell farmers they must give up their independence 

if they “want to maintain economically-viable 

farming operations.” 

In most livestock commodities, the production 

stage is integrated into the larger food 

system. Ninety-five percent of the broilers 

are produced under production contracts with 

fewer than 40 firms. The production system 

is about the same for turkeys and eggs. At 

the end of low hog prices (which may last 

for at least another year) there will be few 

independent hog producers remaining. The 

issue is not who can produce hogs most effi- 

ciently. The issue is who has the deepest pockets 

and largest market share. 

Even now, market access for independent 

producers who don’t have special relationships 

with feed or slaughtering firms has 

become a problem. Twenty feedlots feed about 

half of the cattle in the US and these are 

either owned by the slaughtering firms or 

have contracts with the processing firms. 

Operators of “independent lots” tell us that 

they seldom see buyers from more than one 

firm. [This implies that instead of profiting 

from competitive bids from several buyers, 

livestock on “independent lots” tend to be 

sold for whatever low price the “one buyer” 

cares to bid. Result: independent family 

farmers are forced to sell at a loss and eventually 

lose their farms.] 

Vertical ertical integration 

integration 

Two recent technologies will hasten the 

process of vertical integration in the crop 

sector. The first is biotechnology and the terminator 

gene that places the farmer at the 

mercy of the food cluster for seed to plant 

the crop. If firms in the processing stage of 

the cluster require crops composed of specific 

genetic material and the farmer can’t get 

that specific, patented seed, he/she has no 

market access. 

The second technology is precision 

farming’s global positioning system. It is no 

longer necessary for the farmer to have personal 

contact with their land and crop to make 

appropriate management decisions. Most decisions 

can now be made in a corporate office 

– perhaps in a distant city. Soon, the 

person operating the corn planter (with a 

computer on board reading from a satellite) 

will not know much about the fertilize or 

chemical being applied to the field – just like 

the grower does not know much about the 

feed fed to the birds he/she cares for but 

does not own. The crop farmer who actually 

works the land will be paid on a piece-rate 

basis just like the grower. As a result, we 

increasingly hear predictions that we’ll only 

need 20,000 to 30,000 farms in the United 

States to produce for the global food system. 

[That’s an average of just 400 to 600 farms 

per state.] 

Family Family vs. vs. corporation 

corporation 

Many different groups and individuals 

in this and other countries are expressing 

serious concerns about the “globalizing” food 

system. One concern focuses on conse- 

quences for rural communities. 

Today, most rural economic development 

specialists discount agriculture as a contributor 

to rural development because of the 

food system’s emerging structure. Formerly, 

in most family businesses – such as family 

farms, family grain elevators, or a family 

grocery stores – the family subtracts its annual 

expenses from its income to determine 

profits. Those profits are then distributed 

locally among labor, management and capital. 

For the economic well-being of the family 

and the rural community, it made little 

difference how the profits were distributed 

among labor, management and capital since 

the local family spent most of their profits in 

their local community. Thus, the rural community 

retained all of the profits related to 

the three factors of family production, and 

those profits circulated more in the community. 

Not just the family farms, but all of the 

family businesses providing the agricultural 

infrastructure contributed to the economic 

well-being of the community. 

So long as family businesses were the 

predominant system in rural communities, 

newly generated dollars in the agricultural 

sector would circulate in the community, 

changing hands from one entrepreneurial 

family to another three or four times before 

leaving the rural community. This “multiplier 

effect” greatly enhanced the economic viability 

of the community. 

Today, however, large non-local corporations, 

whether hiring local labor as wage 

earners or piece rate workers, see labor as 

just another input cost to be purchased as 

cheaply as possible. The resulting “profits” 

are then allocated to management and capital 

and are usually taken from the laborers/growers 

of the rural community. Instead of being 

spent locally, farm profits now go to the 

company’s distant headquarters and are then 

sent to all corners of the globe to be reinvested 

in the food system. 

[By reducing family farmers from owners 

to mere managers, laborers, growers or 

sharecroppers, the “globalized” food system 

sucks the profits of farming from farm communities, 

leaves rural communities to survive 

on wages alone, and thereby impoverishes 

entire rural areas. I find this insight into the 

nature of corporations is so extraordinary that 

I’ve continued to explore it in the next article, 

“Corporations & the Multiplier Effect”.] 

Increasingly, the major decisions in the 

food system are made by a declining number 


of corporations involved in the food system 

clusters, which are primarily concerned with 

maximizing their profits and increasing the 

wealth of its stockholders – not the local 

farmers who actually grow the crops. Thus, 

these global firms are in position to decide 

which people in the world will eat. Their decisions 

are based on whether one has the 

money to buy food. 

We hear a lot about the growing population 

of the world and how feeding the increasing 

millions will provide great opportunities 

for U.S. farmers. The problem is that 

much of the population increase is in the “havenot” 

nations of the world, in countries where 

the people earn only a few hundred dollars a 

year. These families cannot afford to buy imported 

food! The global firms travel the world 

“sourcing” their products from those countries 

where they can get the product the cheapest 

and then sell them into the countries that 

will pay the most. 

This raises the question of whether the 

countries with rapidly growing populations 

will be our farmers’ customers or their competitors. 

[Thus, the alleged benefit of international 

free trade may impoverish American 

farmers by increasing foreign competition 

and simultaneously starving third-world 

consumers who can’t afford to buy the global 

corporations’ food.] 

Food Food is is first 

first 

Another question being asked, 

given the financial problems faced by some 

nations, is: What would happen if the United 

States were to experience a depression like 

that of the 1920’s and 1930’s? Imagine an 

economic dislocation in our “just-in-time” 

system of food delivery. Will food products 

get to the stores on a regular schedule? Could 

an Iowa farmer get a replacement engine from 

England for his new New Holland combine 

if it breaks down during harvest? Will the 

seed, chemicals and fertilizer, coming from 

If it’s true that we are here to help 

others, then what exactly are the 

OTHERS here for? 

overseas, get to the local farmer in time? 

A shutdown of the highly integrated 

agricultural production system for just a few 

weeks can have far greater consequences than 

shutting down an automobile assembly plant 

for the same amount of time. A lengthy delay 

in agricultural production at a critical stage 

in planting or harvesting could mean the loss 

of an entire year’s crop. 

As control of the animal gene pool 

is concentrating, the genetic base for domestic 

animals is narrowing. For example, over 90 

percent of the world’s commercially produced 

turkeys come from just three breeding flocks. 

The system is ripe for a new strain of avian flu 

to evolve for which these birds have no resistance. 

Similar concerns exist in hog, chicken 

and dairy cattle genetics. 

Large centralized organizations 

commonly have problems with management, 

coordination, worker satisfaction and adapting 

to change. The structural viability of the 

emerging global food system is called into 

question when one remembers the former 

Soviet Union. The Western world realized 

there were major problems in the centralized 

food systems when it learned that small Soviet 

farm plots were producing a significant 

proportion of the USSR’s food. 

These are food issues – not just agricultural 

and rural issues. Although the global 

food system is becoming more like many 

other economic sectors, food is different from 

all other goods and services. Food is a human 

necessity and is needed on a regular 

basis. As Dwayne Andreas, former chairman 

of ADM, said (Reuters, 1/25/99): 

“The food business is far and away the 

most important business in the world. Ev- 

Do Lipton employees take coffee 

breaks? 

What hair color do they put on 

the driver’s licenses of bald men? 

erything else is a luxury. Food is what you 

need to sustain life every day. Food is fuel. 

You can’t run a tractor without fuel, and you 

can’t run a human being without it either. 

Food is the absolute beginning.” 

I.e., those who control the global food 

system have the ultimate in economic power. 

These are all good reasons to predict 

that the evolving global food system is vulnerable 

and will probably be repeatedly “restructured” 

in the future – but at what social 

and economic cost? And to whom? When 

“restructuring” occurs, it is doubtful that society 

as a whole will benefit and certain that 

some people will pay a very high price for 

the changes. 

Just a quarter of a century ago, our 

decentralized system of agricultural production 

was held up as a model for the world. 

Today, a centralized food system continues 

to emerge was never voted on by the people 

of this country or the people of the world. 

This centralized, globalized food system is 

the product of deliberate decisions made by 

a very few powerful human actors – but it is 

not the only system that could emerge. It is 

time to ask some critical questions about our 

food system and about what is in the best 

interest of this and future generations. 

For further information, contact Dr. 

William Heffernan, Department of Rural 

Sociology – University of Missouri, Columbia, 

MO 65211 (573) 882-4563. e-mail: 

HeffernanW@missouri.edu 

If you can’t be kind, at least have 

the decency to be vague. 

Ever wonder what the speed of 

lightning would be if it didn’t zigzag? 

Nostalgia isn’t what it used to be. 


The previous article (“Concentration of 

Agricultural Markets”) hinted at the fundamental 

changes in the social structure of rural 

American communities imposed by corporate 

agriculture: 

“Today, most rural economic development 

specialists discount agriculture as a 

contributor to rural development because of 

the food system’s emerging structure. Formerly, 

in most family businesses . . . profits 

were . . . distributed locally among labor, 

management and capital. . . . [I]t made little 

difference how the profits were distributed . 

. . since the local family spent most of their 

profits in their local community. Thus, the 

rural community retained all of the profits 

[derived from local farms] and those profits. 

. . . contributed to the economic well-being 

of the community.” 

“Today, however, large non-local corporations, 

whether hiring local labor as wage 

earners or piece rate workers, see labor as 

just another input cost to be purchased as 

cheaply as possible. . . . Instead of being 

spent locally, farm profits now go to the 

company’s distant headquarters and are then 

sent to all corners of the globe to be reinvested 

in the food system.” [Emph. add.] 

Thus, by reducing family farmers from 

owners to mere managers, laborers, growers 

or sharecroppers, the globalized, corporate 

food system sucks farm profits out of 

farm communities, leaves rural communities 

to survive on farm wages alone, and thereby 

impoverishes entire rural areas. 

To illustrate, consider farmer John Brown 

who (with his family) successfully owned, 

managed and worked an Iowa farm in 1950. 

When farmer John passed on, he left the farm 

to his son (farmer Bob) who took out a bank 

loan in the 1960s (when agriculture was hot), 

failed to repay the loan in the 1970s (when 

Corporations & the 

Multiplier Effect 


agriculture went cold) and lost ownership of 

the farm through foreclosure. 

When the new owner (a corporation 

headquartered in New York) bought the 

Brown farm, they “generously” allowed Bob 

Brown and his family to continue managing 

and working the farm (just as his father had). 

Bob’s family was pleased. Even though 

they lost ownership, they could still live on, 

manage and work “their” farm without suffering 

the humiliation of being driven off the 

land. Besides, their corporate owners provided 

a good medical, dental and life insurance 

policy. So maybe losing ownership 

wasn’t so bad. 

But no matter what sort of wages or 

insurance Bob’s family received as corporate 

employees, they (and their local community) 

did not receive the farm profits (perhaps 

20% of the gross income). Instead, 

those profits were whisked out of the Iowa 

community where they were created, sent to 

the corporate owners headquarters in New 

York and spent wherever the corporation 

wished. 

If all the farms in this rural Iowa community 

were owned by distant, non-local corporations, 

none of the community’s farm profits 

would be spent within the community 

where they were created. So, if we had 20 

local farms that each generated an average of 

$50,000 in profits per year, $1 million that 

would otherwise be spent locally will instead 

be transferred to corporate headquarters in 

New York. 

A million dollar loss can be significant 

in small, rural communities. As a result of 

this corporate drain, $1 million worth of televisions, 

microwave ovens, new cars and 

similar products that might otherwise have 

been bought in the local community will not 

be bought. Further, because the local elec- 

tronics and automobile dealers won’t sell as 

many TVs, microwaves and cars, they will 

also suffer reduced profits and also be less 

able to purchase additional products from 

their neighbors. 

Invisible Invisible Invisible Multiplication 

Multiplication 

The previous article (“Concentration of 

Agricultural Markets”) explained that, “So 

long as family businesses were the predominant 

system in rural communities, newly generated 

dollars [profits] in the agricultural sector 

would circulate in the community, changing 

hands from one entrepreneurial family to 

another three or four times before leaving 

the rural community. This “multiplier effect” 

greatly enhanced the economic viability of 

the community.” 

This “multiplier effect” is a subtle concept 

to grasp, but its effects are regularly 

seen in the competition between big cities to 

attract tourists and conventions. 

For example, suppose the National 

Fireman’s Association wants for a place to 

hold their annual three-day convention. And 

suppose that convention will be attended by 

2,000 firemen who will spend an average of 

$1,000 each on hotel, food, taxis, souvenirs 

and entertainment. That means the city that 

wins that convention will add $2 million into 

its local economy. That’s good for local business, 

local workers and local politicians. The 

hotel owner makes more money and buys a 

new car; the car dealer makes more money 

and buys a new TV; the TV dealer makes 

more money and makes a downpayment on 

a new house. Everybody profits from the 

extra money. 

But as a result of these cascading sales, 

economists guesstimate that every outside 

dollar brought into a community changes 

hands as much as five to seven times and 


thereby “multiplies” into the equivalent of an 

extra $5 to $7 for the local community. This 

“multiplier effect” means that the extra $2 

million spent at the convention will generate 

the equivalent of $10 million on additional 

local business. That’s why the City of Chicago 

will fight tooth and nail with the City of 

Miami to host the Fireman’s Ball. 

But what people don’t talk about is the 

negative consequence of the multiplier effect. 

While a local community generates an 

additional $5 million in business for every 

$1 million in tourist of convention dollars it 

attracts, what happens to a community that 

loses $1 million? Won’t the multiplier effect 

cause the community that loses $1 million to 

suffer a $5 million loss in local economic 

activity? 

If so, and if our hypothetical Iowa farm 

community sold 20 local farms to distant corporations, 

and the farms’ $1 million collective 

profits were transferred to the non-local 

corporations – a 5x “multiplied effect” of the 

measurable $1 million loss might cause the 

equivalent of an “invisible” $5 million loss 

in local economic activity. 

When farmer Bob went to work for the 

new corporate owner of his former family 

farm, Bob might’ve received higher wages 

and better benefits than he ever made when 

worked for his Dad (farmer John Brown). 

Maybe his dad paid him $30,000 a year, and 

the corporation pays him $40,000 – plus a 

dental plan! (OK, he lost ownership of the 

farm but, hey, he’s doin’ better now than ever 

before.) 

However, because 1) the $50,000 in 

farm profit that farm owner John used to 

spend in the local community has been vacuumed 

out and sent to New York; and 2) the 

multiplier effect of this loss may be equivalent 

to an “invisible” $250,000 loss to the 

local community – the local community will 

lose its former economic vitality and begin 

to “mysteriously” run down. 

Man Man Man does does does not not live 

live 

by by wages wages alone 

alone 

When the local economy first begins to 

decline, the local TV dealer and Ford franchise 

will make some extraordinary deals just 

hoping to stay in business. And of course, 

farm manager Bob (the corporate employee) 

will thank his lucky stars he’s got the distant 

corporation to pay his wages while his local 

community goes through this mysterious depression. 

Further, being one of the few wellpaid 

individuals left in the community, Bob 

could even make some great buys at his neighbors’ 

“going out of business” sales. 

But in a year or two, the New York 

corporation that owns the farm will call farm 

manager Bob to tell him that due to falling 

wage scales in his community, they can no 

longer afford to pay him $40,000 to run the 

farm. In fact, since the former local Ford 

dealer (who went broke and lost his franchise) 

is willing to run the farm for $25,000 

a year (and no dental plan), manager Bob is 

out unless he’s willing to accept a $15,000 

pay cut and work for $25,000 (less than the 

$30,000 he used to make when his dad 

owned the farm). Now what? 

As long as the profits are drained from 

the local economy and sent to a distant corporate 

headquarters, the local community will 

slide deeper into depression. 

In another year or two, the distant corporate 

owner might call again and tell manager 

Bob to accept another pay cut (now the 

former TV dealer is willing to manage the 

farm for just $20,000 a year). And so long 

as local profits continue to be exported to 

distant corporations, local competition for 

work will eventually drive wages down to a 

subsistence level. 

Point: Wages alone are not enough to 

sustain a local community; profits are the lifeblood 

of any community. 

Why? Because in any business, profits 

are what’s left over after you deduct your 

costs for labor, material and overhead (like 

rent). Material costs and overhead are largely 

fixed, and labor rates are set at just enough 

for workers to survive on a hand-to-mouth 

basis. But profits are the fuel for growth. 

Profits are our “savings,” they are the 

cushion we need to carry us over unexpected 

expenses like a tornardoes, crop failures or 

birth of another child. Without profits, a 

community cope with emergencies or even 

afford to have more children without sinking 

deeper into poverty. For example, if a 

community of 100 persons earns $10,000 in 

total wages a year, the average income per 

person (standard of living) is $100 per year. 

If that community has ten more children but 

their wages remain the same, the average income 

per person will drops to $91 per year. 

Without profits, communities not only sink 

into poverty, they wither in size and tend to 

become ghost towns. 

Functionally, profits can be described 

as the “rent” paid to owners (of land, factories, 

etc.). Thus, profits flow to ownership. 

Once a community loses local ownership of 

local land, industry or retail businesses, whatever 

profits that community generates and 

would otherwise enjoy, will be sucked out 

of that community. Given the “multiplier 

effect,” the resultant losses to the local community 

can be devastating. 

The key to prosperity is local ownership 

(private property). Karl Marx understood 

the necessity for common people to 

“own the means of production,” but I don’t 

think he understood the “multiplier effect”. 

As a result, Marx missed the importance of 

local ownership. The Communist solution 

to let some government in Moscow own everything 

“in the name of the people” rather 

than the Czar (who owned all in the name of 

a “divine right”) missed the fundamental 

point: the kind of owner is not as important 

as the owner’s location. (This may help explain 

why all “centralized” governments tend 

to fail. By extracting profits in the form of 

taxes from local communities to distant seats 

of government, communities become increasingly 

impoverished, resistant to authority and 

finally prone to revolution. Local government 

and local taxes serve the people best. 

National government, national taxes – and 

even national banks – may be inevitably detrimental.) 

It makes no difference whether the 

“owner” of our productive resources is a 

Czar, a dictatorship of the people or a multinational 

corporation. If that owner is not 

“local,” the profits from the local enterprise 

will be drained from the local community to 

enrich the distant owner. Given the “invisible” 

multiplier effect, that loss will guarantee 

a “mysterious” local slide into poverty. 

For any community to prosper, it must 

maintain local ownership of its land, factories, 

stores and associated means of economic 

production. The institution of local 

private property must be honored. 

The The devil’ devil’s devil’ s in in in the the distance 

distance 

The problems caused by “distant” ownership 

of property are fairly easy to see in the 

rural farm setting, but the very same process 

is going on all over the world. For example, 

when Wal-Mart builds a new “mega-market” 

in Dallas, it inevitably bankrupts scores 

or even hundreds of mom-and-pop family 

businesses that used to sell food, hardware 

or magazines. Nobody cares. Those momand-pop 

operations were “small time” and 

probably never made more than $50,000 net 

a year, anyway. 

But given the multiplier effect, each of 

those mom-and-pop businesses might’ve 

generated the equivalent of $250,000 a year 

in local economic activity for their community. 

So if Dallas loses 100 mom-and-pop 

businesses to install one Wal-Mart, the Dallas 

community may be collectively (and “invisibly”) 

impoverished by $25 million a year 

as former mom-and-pop profits and their 

“multiplied” benefits are sucked out of Dallas 

and sent to Wal-Mart’s distant HQ. 

And does our local government discourage 

Wal-Mart from building in Dallas? 

Noooo! We offer tax breaks to entice ‘em 

into our community! Of course, by giving 

tax breaks to foreign corporations, we neces- 


sarily increase the tax burden on local residents 

at the same time we bankrupt local momand-pop 

operations by allowing a distant corporation 

to suck the profits (and vitality) out 

of Dallas. We are literally paying distant 

corporations to rob Dallas and force its most 

productive citizens to flee to the suburbs. 

Look at the various Black “ghettos” in 

Chicago, New York, etc. How many of the 

businesses and apartment buildings located 

in those Black communities are owned by 

local Black residents? Not many. Not 

enough. And so, until local Blacks own local 

black businesses and keep Black profits 

in Black communities, those communities 

will continue their slide into poverty. 

And Blacks should not be conned into 

believing that a business owned by a 

“brother” who lives outside the community 

is preferable to a business owned by a Korean 

who lives in the Black community. The 

issue is not race, but local ownership. (We’d 

better all learn to value whatever local owners 

we still have.) 

And what about the effects of multinational 

corporations? If the multiplier effect 

holds true, then every foreign corporation 

is essentially in business to suck the life 

out of local communities and nations. If the 

idea seems extreme, consider all of the third 

world nations where corporations have established 

themselves. Are those 

“corporatized” nations growing richer or 

poorer? Ohh, they may point to some refineries 

and factories and other expensive symbols 

of progress, but what about the average 

native of those third world nations? Will 

wealth in the form of factories and refineries 

that the corporations bring to the third-world 

countries “trickle down” and thereby enrich 

the local poor? Not in the long run. 

Instead, the locals will become collectively 

poorer. More impoverished. And of 

course, as the nation becomes increasingly 

impoverished, it also becomes increasingly 

desperate to attract additional foreign corporations 

because they will “create jobs” – even 

if those jobs offer only subsistence-level 

wages! 

At first, these third-world nations don’t 

realize that the more foreign corporations 

they attract, the more local profits they lose, 

and ultimately, the more impoverished they 

become. Eventually, they sense the relationship 

of their poverty to the presence of foreign 

“influences” (corporations), and start a 

revolution for the purpose of ejecting the foreigners 

and seizing the foreign-owned land 

and factories. 

Frankly, I don’t blame ‘em a bit. Multinational 

corporations which purchase ownership 

of third-world land and factories are 

sucking the life (profits) out of these poor 

people and their countries. Like any other 

parasite, they must be excised for the host to 

survive. 

Almost inevitably, the revolution will 

seek to “nationalize” the foreign corporations 

and convey ownership (and profits) from 

the foreign corporate headquarters to the 

third-world nation’s capitol. Admittedly, 

that’s an improvement since the new government-owners 

won’t be as distant as the 

former foreign corporate headquarters. Nevertheless, 

these revolutions usually miss the 

fundamental point: ideally, ownership, profits 

and prosperity are only available to those 

communities where local individuals own the 

“means of production” and thereby retain the 

“multiplied” benefit of their own profits. But 

revolutions that replace distant corporate 

owners with distant national owners generally 

result in little change or benefit for local 

people. 

Corporate Corporate colonization 

colonization 

Distant ownership (and claim to profits) 

of local communities is the dream of every 

king, tyrant, and greedy self-serving executive 

who’ve every walked the earth. In 

the past, claims to the profits of distant communities 

were made through the Huns’ plunder, 

Rome’s empire, and the European colonies. 

Today, corporations are simply the 

modern instrument for achieving “distant 

ownership of local property” (less charitably 

known as “looting”). 

From an historical perspective, those 

domestic, foreign and multi-national corporations 

that routinely seek to own property 

far from their corporate headquarters are identical 

in purpose and adverse effect to the 

Thirteen Colonies England planted in 

America. As such, corporations can be fairly 

described as modern instruments of colonization. 

Just as our Thirteen Colonies were chartered 

by the King of England, so are our 

modern corporations chartered by our current 

state and federal governments. Just as 

England operated the Thirteen Colonies for 

the purpose of extracting unearned wealth 

(profits) to enrich King George, so modern 

corporations operate for the primary purpose 

of extracting the profits created by local 

“corporatized” communities and sending 

them to some distant corporation – who splits 

them (through corporate income taxes) with 

the government that granted its “charter”. 

For all practical purposes, when an Iowa 

farm community sells its farms to Archer- 

Daniel-Midland, it’s been colonized. It’s 

voluntarily agreed to surrender ownership 

of its productive resources (farms) and the 

attached profits (community life blood) to 

some foreign corporation. 

Similarly, when the City of Dallas gives 

tax breaks to entice another out-of-state corporation 

to build a facility in Dallas, it may 

enjoy a short-term gain in terms of “job creation” 

but long-term, Dallas will be impoverished 

by that foreign corporation’s profittaking. 

As distant corporations move into 

“Big D,” Dallasites become increasingly 

“colonized” as they send more and more of 

the profits of their labor to some distant corporation. 

Likewise, when China allows Pepsi to 

build soft-drink factories in Peking, they are 

contributing to the China’s loss of profits 

and slide into deeper poverty. 

Local Local ownership 

ownership 

Is there a solution? Sure. Private, local 

ownership of the means of production. Foreign 

corporations should almost never be 

allowed into a community. In those rare instances 

when foreign corporations are granted 

entry, part of the condition of sale might be 

that at least half the stock in the local corporate 

facility (and thus over half the profits) 

must always be owned by local residents. 

The lesson in the farmer’s “colonization” 

and subsequent poverty is pretty clear: 

To prosper, a community doesn’t merely 

need wages, it needs profits. Profits flow to 

ownership. Distant ownership results in loss 

of local profits which, due to the invisible 

“multiplier effect,” can be far more devastating 

than simple accounting figures reveal. 

Thus, local prosperity depends on local ownership 

of productive resources. Prosperous 

communities don’t need programs to create 

jobs, they need programs to create owners. 

Just as agriculture is being corporatized, 

colonized and impoverished, so are you and 

I. Distant ownership of local productive resources 

is the essence of the New World 

Order. 

Likewise, the genius of the American 

Constitution and foundation for our nation’s 

original propserity may have been the creation 

of a political system of 1) decentralized 

government and 2) private ownership of property 

for common people. Both of these characteristics 

were previously unknown. Could 

it be that our Constitution unwittingly created 

a society that functioned in accord with 

the “multiplier effect” and thereby made 

American prosperity possible? 

Today, if we sell our resources (including 

our labor) to distant corporations, we 

inevitably impoverish our community and 

leave less to our children than we ourselves 

received. No nation can surrender its “inheritance” 

– legal ownership of land, labor 

and similar productive resources – and avoid 

poverty, violence and revolution. 


My understanding of “good faith” is 

derived primarily from the Bible. In Acts 

23 Paul is charged with various wrongdoing. 

Paul defends himself in Acts 23:1, by 

looking “straight at the Sanhedrin” and saying, 

“My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty 

to God in all good conscience to this day.” 

Note that Paul’s defense involves two 

elements: 1) fulfilling his duty; and 2) acting 

in “good conscience”. 

“Fulfilling your duty” presumes: 

1) some higher authority (in this case, 

God) has specified a particular duty; 

2) Paul generally understood what his 

duty was; and 

3) Paul agreed (perhaps swore) to fulfill 

his duty and was thereby bound to perform 

that specified duty. 

However, when Paul claims to have 

fulfilled his duty “in all good conscience” 

(good faith), he’s adding some weasel 

words. That is, Paul recognized that his 

understanding of his total duty may be incomplete 

– and based on his incomplete understanding, 

he might’ve committed some 

sins of omission. However, Paul excused 

any possible sin of omission by declaring 

he had always acted “in all good conscience”. 

In other words, if he made any 

mistakes, they were never knowing or intentional. 

He always did his duty to the 

best of his ability and understanding. 

Bad Faith Immunity 


That’s good faith. 

In essence, good faith recognizes that 

the duties imposed on a particular person 

are probably far more numerous and complex 

than anyone can be reasonably expected 

to understand. For example, could 

any police officer specifically know all of 

laws and his resultant duties? Could any 

judge? Could any government official absolutely 

know every single duty that he is 

supposed to perform in every possible circumstance 

that he might confront? Of 

course not. Although all of these officials 

have sworn to uphold the Constitution and 

all the laws of their state and/or nation, No 

one can possibly know what all those laws 

are or every duty they impose. 

Because the list of potential duties in a 

complex society is too great to be completely 

known by anyone, government has granted 

its officials a “good faith immunity”. Like 

Paul, so long as government officials are 

sincerely trying to fulfill their duty to the 

best of their knowledge and ability, they 

will be granted a “good faith immunity” to 

protect them from personal liability in case 

they unwittingly neglect or violate some 

unknown portion of their duty. Given our 

mass of laws, “good faith immunity” is not 

only reasonable, it’s necessary since no government 

official can possibly know all of 

his duties. 

The problem is that “good faith immunity” 

depends entirely on the integrity of 

each government official, and thereby invites 

abuse. An honest man will admit the 

full reason for any failure to perform his 

duty. However, an unscrupulous cop, official 

or politician can excuse egregious violations 

of the law by simply declaring he 

“didn’t know” what the law was or that a 

specific duty applied in a particular circumstance. 

So long as he claims personal ignorance 

of any duty he failed to perform, he 

will avoid personal liability for consequent 

damages. 

And who can challenge another 

individual’s claim of ignorance? How can 

you prove what another man knew at a particular 

time? Unless he admits to knowing 

a duty that he intentionally refused to perform, 

(or you can prove he knew of that 

duty with an administrative notice) you can’t 

hold him personally liable for his errors. 

The problem is further complicated because 

most people don’t realize that government 

personnel enjoy a presumption of 

“good faith” in courts of equity that is virtually 

identical to the presumption of innocence 

private persons enjoy in courts of law. 

If a police officer breaks into the wrong 

house on a defective warrant and shoots an 

innocent person, the courts of equity will 

silently presume the officer was acting in 


good faith (trying to do the best he could 

with the knowledge he had) and unless that 

unstated presumption is overcome, the officer 

will enjoy a “good faith immunity” to 

shield him from most personal liability. 

Thus, unless the presumption of good 

faith is expressly challenged, it’s almost impossible 

to hold a government official personally 

liable for damages in a court of equity. 

Bad Bad faith faith allegations 

allegations 

In the article “Is Good Faith a False 

Religion?” (AntiShyster Volume 9, No. 1) I 

speculated that a defendant’s allegations of 

prosecutorial “bad faith” might have a powerful 

deterrent effect on government prosecutions. 

At the time, this speculation 

seemed both logical and unlikely. 

But on March 22, 1999 (about two 

weeks after I published my preliminary suspicions 

concerning “good faith”), American 

Lawyer Media published an internet 

article by Hank Grezlak (originally published 

in the Pennsylvania Law Weekly) entitled, 

“Insurers Take It on the Chin Over 

Bad Faith Discovery Issues”. The article 

verified the power of “bad faith” allegations 

as demonstrated in a Pennsylvania court’s 

decision in The Birth Center v. The St. Paul 

Companies (PICS Case No. 99-0448, PA. 

Super. March 9, 1999; Judge J. Kelly). 

According to the American Lawyer 

Media, the case started when a pregnant 

woman delivered her baby at “The Birth 

Center” and doctors made a mistake that 

permanently damaged the baby’s brain. The 

Birth Center was insured by the St. Paul 

Insurance Company. The damage to the 

baby was so severe and undeniable, that 

even The Birth Center urged their insurance 

company (St. Paul) to pay $1 million 

(the policy limit) to the grieving parents. 

St. Paul refused to pay one dime. Reportedly, 

a St. Paul representative said St. 

Paul litigates, “all of these bad baby cases – 

and we’re going to trial.” In other words, 

St. Paul never automatically pays any large 

settlement on “bad baby” cases. 

Think about that. If brain-damaged 

babies need medical care, St. Paul sez, 

“Scroom”. The parents, already devastated 

by the birth of a brain-damaged baby, were 

further assaulted by the insurance company’s 

callous refusal to pay one dime to help care 

for that “bad baby” for six years. 

Can you imagine the frustration and 

rage those parents felt? Did the financial 

and emotional strain bankrupt them? Destroy 

their marriage? Drive one or both to 

alcoholism or suicide? And why? Because 

St. Paul Insurance effectively said, 

“Screw those parents and their ‘bad baby’. 

We got the money and we’re gonna keep it 

‘cuz those losers out there in TV-land don’t 

have the resources to make us pay one dime 

before we’re ready.” 

Why would St. Paul behave so badly? 

Well, according to the American Lawyer 

Media article, a St. Paul Insurance supervisor 

determined there was a 50-60% chance 

for a pro-defense verdict in which St. Paul 

would pay nothing! The insurance company 

calculated that if they faced ten $1 million 

liabilities for ten “bad babies,” they’d 

face a total liability (loss) of $10 million if 

they quickly settled and wrote ten $1 million 

checks (as promised in the insurance 

policy) for each “bad baby”. However, if 

they refused to write the ten $1 million 

checks and instead waited to be sued, they 

could reasonably expect to win five or six 

of those cases and get by with only paying 

$4 or $5 million several years later. 

Since litigation is time-consuming, St. 

Paul could invest the unpaid $10 million at 

15% per year in the stock market during the 

six years of litigation and generate another 

$10 million. Thus, by choosing to litigate 

rather than quickly write ten $1 million 

checks for the ten “bad babies,” the insurance 

company could change a $10 million 

loss (for quick pay-outs) into a $10 million 

gain (for litigating and investing the original 

$10 million). That’s a $20 million swing 

in six years. Even if St. Paul ultimately lost 

five cases and was forced to pay out $5 

million, that’s still works out to over $2 

million net per year for screwing ten “bad 

babies” and their unfortunate folks. That’s 

a powerful financial incentive to ignore their 

fiduciary duty to promptly pay for damages 

on “bad babies” (or on other large settlements, 

too). 

Yer in good hands, hmm? 

In fact, the company policy of 1) predicting 

the probability of winning in court, 

2) calculating the profit potential for money 

invested rather than paid out, and 3) choosing 

to litigate (stall) on all “bad baby” cases 

– is fairly clear evidence of bad faith – an 

intentional refusal to perform one’s known 

duty. Because the insurance company predicted, 

calculated, and established an inten- 

tional policy of litigating all “bad baby” cases 

(regardless of facts), the insurance company 

demonstrated knowledge and willful intent 

to profit enormously by refusing to fulfill it 

fiduciary obligation to pay legitimate claims 

quickly. That’s bad faith. 

Administrative Administrative Administrative blasphemy? 

blasphemy? 

The American Lawyer Media article 

emphasized that “bad faith” was also demonstrated 

by the insurance company’s repeated 

refusals to settle out of court. (This 

is consistent with speculation in “Is Good 

Faith a False Religion?” AntiShyster Vol. 9 

No.1.) The baby’s parents, “offered to settle 

several times over the course of six years of 

litigation. The Birth Center asked St. Paul 

to settle the case several times, . . . three 

different judges suggested that the suit be 

settled. St. Paul refused every time . . . and 

made no counter-offer. St. Paul again refused 

the settlement on the day of the trial at 

a final pre-trial conference held in the judge’s 

robing room. . . . The trial judge expressed 

his anger over the refusal.” 

The fact that the insurance company 

consistently refused to make counter-offers 

or even consider settling the case out of 

court became evidence of St. Paul’s bad faith. 

This tends to support previous speculation 

that every trial can be viewed as evidence 

that at least one party is acting in “bad faith” 

by refusing to settle out of court. 

Implication: administrative law is 

largely a test of the adversaries’ “good faith”. 

Any failure to correctly resolve a case administratively 

before trial can be viewed as 

evidence of at least one party’s bad faith. 

The party shown most guilty of “bad faith” 

is most likely to lose in court, and possibly 

lose big. (And remember, in cases against 

the government, the court’s silent “presumption 

of good faith” almost always goes to 

the government official. So unless that presumption 

is expressly challenged, the government 

almost always wins.) 

The jury in the St. Paul case found St. 

Paul guilty of egregious bad faith and ordered 

St. Paul to pay the parents $7.1 million. 

After six years of grief, frustration 

and rage, I can’t say that’s a happy ending, 

but it’s nice to see an insurance company 

that abandons “bad babies” take a beating. 

It’ It’ It’s It’ s all all in in in your your your (state (state of) of) mind mind 

mind 

But it gets better. The Birth Center 

(which damaged the baby) also sued St. Paul 


and won a $700,000 judgment because St. 

Paul had acted in bad faith by refusing to 

quickly settle the “bad baby” case. In the 

course of that litigation something really remarkable 

occurred: allegations of “bad 

faith” were use to defeat the lawyer-client 

privilege and expose all of St. Paul’s and its 

lawyers’ work product to discovery. The 

Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that “letters, 

memoranda and notes from attorneys 

could potentially be discoverable in bad faith 

lawsuits . . . [and] that type of material isn’t 

necessarily shielded by attorney-client privilege 

or the work product doctrine.” 

I wouldn’t’ve thought any argument 

could penetrate the “lawyer-client” or work 

product privileges – but “bad faith” can. 

That’s evidence of lethal power. 

According to the American Lawyer 

Media article, St. Paul Insurance exposed 

its lawyer’s work product to discovery by 

inadvertently making the company’s “state 

of mind” an issue in its “good faith” defense 

against the “bad faith” lawsuit. Once 

the insurance company’s “state of mind” 

became an issue, “it basically waived its 

right to protection under the work product 

doctrine”. Since the attorney would not only 

know but even help create his client’s “state 

of mind” – the attorney’s letters, memoranda 

and similar work product became open to 

their opponent’s discovery. 

According to American Lawyer Media, 

“That particular bit of reasoning should 

give insurance companies something to 

worry about. Why? Because theoretically, 

when wouldn’t an insurance company’s 

state of mind be at issue in a bad faith case? 

The reality of the court’s decision is that the 

work product rule might be waived in every 

bad faith suit.” 

Therefore, to peek into the opposing 

lawyer’s notes, plans, offhand comments, lewd 

jokes, conspiracies to conceal evidence or 

employ snitches and similar elements of his 

work product, we might first allege the client 

and/or his attorney acted in bad faith and 

thereby open the issue of their “state of mind”. 

The implications are extraordinary. 

For example, it appears that any good 

faith defense or claim of good faith immunity 

opens the issue of the defendant’s “state 

of mind” and might thereby expose his 

attorney’s work product to discovery. Thus, 

allegations of “bad faith” against an opposing 

litigant and/or his lawyer might vaporize 

their attorney-client privilege. 

If that principle could be applied to every 

case in which a government employee 

hid behind his “good faith” immunity (and 

that’s virtually every case), it would mean 

that whenever government agents were 

sued, their defense lawyers’ work product 

(including that of the state Attorney 

General’s Office) might be opened to discovery. 

That’s remarkable. Almost revolutionary. 

In fact, the implications of the Pennsylvania 

ruling are so extraordinary, I’d bet 

the case will be reversed on appeal. I don’t 

believe our courts will compel government 

lawyers to surrender their work product 

privilege to use a “good faith” defense and 

thereby provide the evidence that would 

probably prove they were actually lying and 

precisely guilty. 

Nevertheless, the mere possibility of 

penetrating the lawyer-client privilege demonstrates 

the lethal potential of “bad faith” 

allegations and lawsuits. 

Whodun Whodunnit? 

Whodun it? 

True story: About ten years ago, a 

husband and wife went to bed, and during 

the night one of them shot the husband in 

the head, killing him. Although the wife 

claimed her husband committed suicide 

while she slept at his side, she was indicted 

and tried for his murder. Because she was 

the only witness (and she, of course, 

claimed to be not guilty), the prosecution’s 

case was built on forensic evidence – primarily 

the pattern of blood splatter around 

the bed. 

The prosecutor hired an expert witness 

who testified that the blood splatter proved 

the husband could not have committed suicide 

and therefore must’ve been murdered 

by the wife. The defense hired another expert 

who testified that the blood splatter 

proved the husband could not have been 

murdered and must have committed suicide. 1 

The jury believed the prosecution’s expert; 

the wife was convicted and imprisoned. 

The couple’s son did not believe his 

mother killed his father, so over the next 

several years (while Mom languished in 

prison) he studied law and the prosecution’s 

case. Using Freedom of Information Act 

requests, he uncovered evidence that the 

prosecutor had hired two expert witnesses 

– not just the one who testified at trial. The 

prosecution’s first expert determined that 

the blood splatter could only be caused by 

suicide and the wife must therefore be innocent. 

Undeterred, the prosecutor simply 

ignored the first expert’s report and hired a 

second “expert” whose analysis supported 

the prosecution’s contention that the wife 

committed murder. The prosecution concealed 

the exculpatory evidence provided 

by their first expert (who determined the 

wife was innocent), and went on to win a 

conviction. 

When the son uncovered the previously 

concealed exculpatory evidence, his 

mother’s conviction was overturned and she 

was released from prison. She’s undoubtedly 

had a tearful reunion with her son, and 

the state will probably compensate her for 

the injustice of being falsely imprisoned 

with a fat, financial settlement. 

Hooray – the wheels of justice grind 

slow, but exceeding fine, hmm? 

Maybe. But what about the prosecutor 

acted in bad faith by: 1) concealing exculpatory 

evidence from the defendant, and 

2) by prosecuting a defendant he knew or 

had reason to know was innocent? 

Typically, rather than burden the poor 

prosecutor with personal liability, taxpayers 

will probably pay the “fat, financial 

settlement” that eventually goes to the 

former wife. But where’s the justice in 

making you and me (the taxpayers) pay 

more taxes to compensate a woman who’s 

been falsely imprisoned by some unethical 

prosecutor? Why not make the prosecutor 

pay? And if false imprisonment is morally 

indistinguishable from kidnapping, why 

don’t we jail him, besides? 

The answer, I suspect, is that like all 

government officials and employees, the 

prosecutor is presumed to have acted in 

“good faith”. Although the prosecutor may 

suffer some public embarrassment, so long 

as the unstated presumption of good faith 

remains unchallenged, he will enjoy an automatic 

“good faith immunity” sufficient to 

shield him from almost all personal liability 

for conspiring to imprison or deny due process 

to an innocent defendant. 

If the falsely convicted woman charges 

the prosecutor with a civil rights violation, 

she can tie him up in court for a while and 

cause him to pay some high legal fees. But 

unless the case generates media attention 

and public interest, the prosecutor will probably 

skate away without paying any serious 

personal penalty. 

But – if the former wife simply used 


the same evidence in the same case with the 

same parties and added an allegation of prosecutorial 

“bad faith,” the falsely imprisoned 

woman might be able to take the prosecutor’s 

house, car, boat, bank account, some portion 

of his future earnings, and have him 

disbarred or even jailed. 

Professional Professional Professional witnesses 

witnesses 

Normally, the only people who can testify 

in a particular case are those people who 

have direct, personal knowledge of relevant 

facts. Did you see Mrs. Smith shoot Mr. 

Smith? Did you hear the shot? Did you 

see her running from the murder site? Did 

you hear her admit she shot him? Can you 

identify the murder weapon as belonging to 

Mrs. Smith? If you have direct, personal 

knowledge of relevant facts, you may testify. 

But if you don’t have direct, personal 

knowledge, you normally can’t testify – unless 

you’re an “expert witness”. Then, even 

though you have no direct personal knowledge 

of relevant facts, you may testify because 

you can analyze and clearly explain 

difficult, technical issues to a jury of laymen. 

The previous story of the wife convicted 

by conflicting testimony from two 

“expert” witness illustrates the apparent purpose 

for expert witnesses: to communicate 

persuasively. The local cop who investigated 

the murder scene may be qualified to 

analyze blood splatter, but he is almost certainly 

unqualified to effectively communicate 

blood splatter analysis to a jury. Therefore, 

litigants employ “expert witnesses” as 

expert communicators much like the gun 

lobby employs Charlton Heston as a 

spokesman. 

The expert-as-communicator is a nice 

theory, but it’s not the primary reason for 

hiring “experts”. Everyone in law knows 

the real reason prosecutors (and defense 

lawyers) repeatedly hire particular expert 

witnesses is because those experts are predictably 

biased (for or against the defendant) 

and can persuasively communicate 

their bias to the jurors. 

Prosecutors don’t hire just any “expert” 

they can find. They hire experts who 

they know will habitually conclude that the 

defendant is guilty. If an expert is truly 

unbiased and sometimes concludes the defendant 

is innocent, the prosecutors will 

thank him for his time, ignore his conclu- 

sions, and probably never call him again. 

Same is true for defense lawyers. They 

have a list of pro-defense “experts” who 

they know can be relied on to conclude the 

defendant is innocent. Any expert witness 

who impartially concludes a defendant is 

guilty will be removed from the defense 

attorneys’ employment list. 

In the real world, “expert witnesses” 

are handsomely paid for their testimony by 

the side who employs them and are implicitly 

expected to reach conclusions that support 

their employer’s position. Any expert’s 

tendency to “unpredictable” impartiality will 

dim his employment prospects considerably. 

However, those “experts” who always conclude 

their employer’s position is correct 

can enjoy a long and prosperous career as a 

professional witness. 

Thus, the essential attribute for most 

regularly employed “expert witnesses” is 

predictable bias. Some experts always support 

the prosecution-employer, others always 

support the defense-employer. It’s 

not right, but it’s a living. 

However, any evidence of known bias 

in expert witnesses implies the presence of 

prosecutorial bad faith since prosecutors are 

duty-bound by law to seek justice (not conviction) 

in every trial. Such bad faith might 

be demonstrated by asking a prosecutor’s 

expert witness how many times he’s been 

hired to testify for prosecutor or defense 

lawyers, and how many times he’s reached 

conclusions contrary to his employers’ positions. 

If his testimony always favors his 

employer, he’s arguably a “professional” 

witness biased in favor of his personal income 

rather than impartial truth. If he’s testifying 

almost exclusively for one side or 

the other, his bias is also apparent. 

Even expert witnesses known to testify 

equally for prosecution and defense are 

also vulnerable to allegations of bias and 

bad faith. The question is not whether they 

always reach conclusions that support the 

prosecution or defense, but whether they 

always reach conclusions that support their 

employer’s position – regardless of whether 

their employer is the prosecution or the defense. 

Such “professionally correct” expert 

witnesses are arguably biased, acting 

contrary to the good faith presumption that 

they are impartial, and possibly guilty of 

bad faith. 

Thus, logical arguments might be 

crafted whereby any use of a professional 

expert witnesses known to be biased could 

be used as evidence of both the expert’s and 

prosecutor’s bad faith. 

Semi-pro Semi-pro witnesses: 

witnesses: 

witnesses: 

a a a snitch snitch snitch in in time 

time 

If predictably biased experts violate the 

prosecutor’s prime directive to secure justice 

rather than convictions – what about 

jail house “snitches” who are figuratively 

“paid” to testify that other prisoners admitted 

to committing some crime? It’s common 

knowledge that snitches often fabricate 

exactly the kind of testimony prosecutors 

want and trade that “testimony” for personal 

privileges or sentence reductions. The 

implication of bad faith is apparent. 

Incidentally, when was the last time a 

prosecutor released a man from prison based 

on some snitch’s testimony? See the implication? 

Are prosecutors as willing to use 

the “unpaid” testimony of snitches to free 

prisoners as they are to prove they’re guilty? 

Does unpaid snitch testimony for the defense 

carry as much weight as paid testimony 

for the prosecution? How often is 

testimony by a jailhouse snitch used to free 

– rather than convict – another prisoner? 

Not often. Maybe never. 

A prosecutor’s habitual and exclusive 

use of paid, pro-prosecution snitches implies 

a knowing bias that contradicts the 

prosecutor’s duty to secure justice rather 

than convictions. That’s bad faith. 

If a defendant is charged with a crime 

based on a paid snitch’s testimony and the 

defendant merely claims the snitch lied, it’s 

his word against the snitch’s and the defendant 

will probably be convicted. But if the 

defendant expressly alleged the snitch and/ 

or prosecutor acted in “bad faith,” I suspect 

he might present a much stronger defense– 

if only because his allegation threatens to 

eliminate the prosecutor’s good faith immunity 

and place him in personal jeopardy. 

Moreover, once the issue of bad faith 

is raised, the prosecutor becomes vulnerable 

to the snitch! After all, if the snitch 

revealed by accident (or gleeful intent) that 

he and the prosecutor had conspired in bad 

faith, the prosecutor just might wind up as 

the snitch’s cell-mate. (Like politics, bad 

faith can make for strange bedfellows . . . 

so to speak.) 

Think about it. Would you want to 

gamble your personal and professional future 

on the loyalty of a jailhouse snitch you 


hired to lie? If the snitch is willing to betray 

his fellow prisoner, why not betray the prosecutor, 

too? And even if the snitch testifies 

as promised, what happens a year or two 

later when the snitch tells the prosecutor 

he’s thinking about reporting the 

prosecutor’s former bad faith? Could the 

prosecutor be tried without his good faith 

immunity and subjected to loss of his wealth 

or freedom? 

Once the magic words “bad faith” are 

invoked and the prosecutor loses his good 

faith immunity – the snitch just might “own” 

that prosecutor. So it appears that a thorough 

understanding of good faith might play 

a serious role in reducing the use of testimony 

by both snitches and expert witnesses. 

Highway Highway Highway blasphemy 

blasphemy 

The Texas traffic code declares that 

speed limit signs merely apply to commercial 

vehicles. For non-commercial vehicles, 

the speed limit is unspecified other than “reasonable 

and proper for current conditions.” 

So suppose a police officer stops you 

for driving 73 in a 60 m.p.h. zone. And 

suppose you ask the officer whether he understands 

that 1) the speed limit signs only 

apply to commercial vehicles and 2) you 

are not driving in commerce. If he answers 

Yes (i.e., he knows the posted speed limit 

doesn’t apply to you), he has no business 

ticketing you. That’s bad faith. 

If he answers No (he doesn’t know 

about the traffic signs only applying to commercial 

vehicles), but you provide him with 

an appropriate notice of the law (perhaps a 

certified copy of the relevant traffic sign 

law), and he still proceeds to ticket you – 

he’s acting in violation of his known duty. 

Ergo, bad faith and personal liability. 

I doubt that bad faith tickets for trivial 

offenses (seat belts, etc.) will be vigorously 

prosecuted since the officer may be personally 

liable for whatever damages or financial 

losses you suffered by being ticketed 

and forced to spend your time going to 

court. Thus, a couple of well-crafted “bad 

faith” suits against traffic officers might considerably 

slow the issuance of traffic tickets 

for petty offenses. 

Bad Bad faith faith faith immunity? 

immunity? 

If you merely complain that government 

denied you due process or otherwise 

violated the Constitution, your defense may 

be ignored. The judge will listen sympathetically 

to your tale of woe and then find 

you just as guilty as he planned long before 

you ever set foot in his court. But if you 

expressly allege that some member of the 

prosecution acted in “bad faith,” you might 

see the system blink. Same facts, same evidence, 

same parties, same case. The only 

difference is whether you expressly allege 

“bad faith” and thereby strip your government 

opponent of his automatic presumption 

of good faith immunity. 

Although this is speculation, it still appears 

that just as the presumption of good 

faith gives government a near-universal 

“good faith immunity,” allegations of “bad 

faith” may offer common Americans a “bad 

faith immunity” against improper or unjust 

indictments and lawsuits. 

1 But how can two “experts” in the 

same technical field arrive at contradictory 

conclusions based on identical facts? It’s 

like having one expert mathematician 

conclude that two plus two equals four, 

while another concludes it’s five. Clearly, 

at least one of them is incompetent or 

lying. Insofar as contradictory answers 

are logically impossible, we might even 

argue that no true expertise or “experts” 

exist in that field. 


Antidote for Good Faith 

Most AntiShyster readers are familiar 

with the term, “judicial notice,” which generally 

describes a procedure for giving notice 

to a judge about certain facts or law concerning 

a case. The underlying assumption behind 

“judicial notices” is that no judge can 

know all the law, and therefore, unless he is 

officially notified of relevant law (or facts), 

he might rule incorrectly on a particular case. 

The purpose of such “notice” is to inform 

the judge of such law or facts as will “compel” 

the judge to rule in a certain manner. 

“Judicial notice” is a nice theory, and 

sometimes it even seems to work. However, 

most of the time, the judges seem to 

ignore such notices and toss ‘em in the trash. 

Over time, we’ve come to suspect the reason 

judge’s ignore “judicial notices” is that they 

are typically not hearing a case “judicially” 

but rather “administratively”. If so, the effect 

of a notice marked “judicial” that’s sent 

to a judge who’s hearing a case administratively 

may be similar to sending an baseball 

rulebook to a football referee: it’s irrelevant 

and therefore ignored. (See, “Federal Plea 

Bargains Unconstitutional?,” this issue.) 

In 1997, after several years of studying 

notices, Mr. Bill Shephard (an Oklahoma 

farmer) began to apply administrative notices 

with such effectiveness that according 

to one government source, he nearly “shut 

down the entire Department of Agriculture.” 

This is undoubtedly an exaggeration. Still, it 

makes the point that administrative notices 

can be powerful. 

Administrative 

Notices 


Mr. Shephard’s administrative notices 

were brief (usually just one or two pages) 

and included no conclusions or personal 

opinions – that’s critical – only terse statements 

of facts or law relevant to his case. 

The average person might see Mr. Shephard’s 

administrative notices as little more than insignificant 

“letters” written in a “legalistic” 

style to some government official. Few 

would expect Mr. Shephard’s administrative 

notices to be so powerful. 

In Texas, Tinker Spain heard about Mr. 

Shephard’s success, started studying administrative 

notices, and ultimately stopped the 

IRS from auctioning his home. Mr. Spain’s 

administrative notices were so amazingly effective 

that within days of losing his house, 

a U.S. Attorney responded by telling the IRS 

in no uncertain terms that they would absolutely 

cease and desist from any further enforcement 

action against Mr. Spain. Again, 

without attorneys or court hearings, the administrative 

notice seemed to have an extraordinary 

effect. And again, the person 

sending the administrative notice had no idea 

why it was so effective. 

In January of 1998, without my authorization 

or knowledge, a long distance telephone 

service provider “slammed” my 

phones and started billing me up to $3.00 

per minute for long distance service. My 

average long distance rate jumped from 

$0.14/minute to over $1.00/minute. I yelled 

and hollered and threatened – all to no avail. 

Technicians working for GTE (my local 

phone company) explained that since there 

was a “pick freeze” on my long distance service, 

it should’ve been impossible for any 

phone company to seize control of my long 

distance without my explicit approval. Nevertheless 

it happened. Worse, it could not be 

stopped. 

I didn’t know what I was doing, but I 

decided to try using the mysterious administrative 

notices. Every time the phone pirates 

sent me one of their excessive bills, I replied 

with administrative notices sent by registered 

(not certified) mail to the phone pirates, GTE 

and the State of Texas Attorney General’s 

office. This went on for five months. I 

continued to pay my local phone company 

bills, but refused to pay the long distance 

charges that were included on my local bill. 

The long distance pirate continued to provide 

my long distance service and my unpaid 

long distance bills grew to several thousand 

dollars. Relying on “mere” administrative 

notices for five months, I was getting 

pretty anxious and expected to have my 

phones turned off or be sued in court when – 

ta-da! – the phone pirates simply disappeared 

and freed my long distance service. 

Of course, GTE wanted to bill me for 

five months of unpaid long distance service, 

but “only” at my former rate of $0.14/ minute. 

I sent them another administrative notice explaining 

that all long distance charges during 

the five month period were based on fraud 

and sent to me by mail fraud and wire fraud. 

I drew no conclusions, but GTE got the mes- 


sage and replied by crediting my account 

with over $1,800 in phone services. 

In other words, by using administrative 

notices, I not only stopped all charges 

for five months of long distance phone service 

– I even received an additional $1,800 

in phone credits to be applied to future telephone 

bills. I was amazed. No lawyers. No 

court hearings. Nothing. In return for just 

writing a half-dozen administrative notices 

and sending ‘em registered mail to several 

officials I received the equivalent of about 

ten month’s free long distance service. 

Thus, like Bill Shephard and Tinker 

Spain, I became a believer in administrative 

notices. And just like Bill and Tinker, I didn’t 

have a clue why they worked. 

Ignorance Ignorance is is bliss 

bliss 

I thought about the “mystery” of administrative 

notices for some time. Finally, 

the only explanation I could imagine for the 

administrative notice’s unexpected power 

was that perhaps administrative notices work 

because they defeat administrative officials’ 

claim to good faith immunity. 

I strongly suspect that most government 

(and perhaps corporate) officials act in a fiduciary 

capacity wherein they are mandated 

by law, corporate charter or trust indenture 

to act in the “best interests” of their customers, 

clients and “subjects”. However, since 

no one can possibly know all the laws in this 

country, government officials (especially if 

they aren’t trained as lawyers) are allowed to 

make various mistakes based on their ignorance 

of the law. 

We all know that “ignorance is no defense 

in the eyes of the law” (at least not for 

common people). But few realize that for trustees 

and similar government and corporate administrators, 

ignorance is an almost perfectly 

blissful defense against personal liability. 

A classic example recurs in the news 

every few months: the police, attempting to 

serve a defective warrant, break in at the 

wrong address and “accidentally” kill an innocent 

“John Doe”. Although the survivors 

may successfully sue the city for the John 

Doe’s “wrongful death,” the policemen who 

actually pulled the trigger will evade personal 

responsibility for murdering an innocent man 

by claiming they acted “in good faith” since 

they believed the information on the warrant 

was accurate. If the warrant said go to “44 S. 

Oak Street” when it should’ve said “44 N. 

Oak Street” – oh, well – these things happen 

and surely the police can’t be blamed for 

relying on a defective warrant. Thus, their 

good faith immunity ultimately depends on 

their ignorance of the facts and of the law. 

But what would happen if the police 

(or any other administrative official) had “administrative 

notice” of such law or facts that 

would prevent them from committing what 

might otherwise be a mistake? Could that 

administrative notice provide enough information 

to an official to defeat his subsequent 

claim of underlying ignorance and thus preempt 

his good faith immunity? 

Suppose the innocent John A. Doe (who 

lives at 44 S. Oak St.) heard that a warrant 

was being issued to arrest the criminal John 

B. Doe (who lives at 44 N. Oak St.) and sent 

an administrative notice to the police department 

that he, John A. Doe at 44 S. Oak St. 

was not the criminal John B. Doe at 44 N. 

Oak St. Now, if the police break in at 44 S. 

Oak St. and shot the “wrong” John Doe, 

could the police claim their usual good faith 

immunity? I think not. 

I suspect that once an official receives 

proper administrative notice of relevant facts 

or law in a particular case, if that official 

continues to act in ways contrary to that notice, 

that official loses his good faith (ignorance 

is bliss) immunity and becomes personally 

liable. If an officer shoots the wrong 

guy now, evidence (the certified mail green 

card) that he’d previously received an administrative 

notice would defeat any presumption 

of personal ignorance and good 

faith immunity. Without the presumption of 

ignorance, the police would be exposed to 

charges that the killing was intentional and 

thus criminal, and the officer who pulled the 

trigger might be jailed or even executed. That 

level of personal liability will deter most officials 

from reckless conduct. 

Proper administrative notice probably 

defeats an official’s claim of “good faith” 

immunity in civil cases, too, and thereby place 

his house, his car, his boat, his bank account, 

future earnings and retirement fund in peril. 

For example, suppose IRS agent Smith 

has seized the property of hundreds of delinquent 

taxpayers. Maybe the law allows 

Agent Smith to make those seizures and 

maybe not. No matter. Unless a victim can 

prove that Agent Smith knew he lacked proper 

authority to seize that victim’s property (and 

therefore acted “knowingly”/criminally), the 

worst that can happen is that the IRS will be 

forced to compensate the victim for his loss 

– but Agent Smith will suffer no personal 

liability. 

But suppose Agent Smith (currently 

itching to bust John Doe) receives a proper 

administrative notice that 1) John Doe is not 

a “taxpayer” subject to the IRS Code and 2) 

Agent Smith lacks lawful authority to seize 

John Doe’s property in any case. 

Will Agent Smith still seize Mr. Doe’s 

property? Maybe not, since doing so places 

all of Agent Smith’s personal property and 

future earnings in jeopardy. Most government 

agents and officials are willing to risk 

breaking the law so long as they won’t be 

held personally liable. What do they care if 

the government gets sued and the taxpayers 

wind up paying a fat settlement to the innocent 

victim? So long as the official enjoys 

his personal good faith immunity, there’s 

little compelling reason to avoid committing 

an improper or criminal act. But once an 

official’s “good faith” (ignorant) immunity 

is compromised, he tends to be much more 

“discrete” in his application of the law. 

Presumed Presumed Presumed ignorant 

ignorant 

Over the years, our “brave new world” 

of administrative law and courts of equity 

have evolved and caused some subtle but 

remarkable changes. Where We the People 

were formerly “presumed innocent” in courts 

of law, today, government officials are “presumed 

ignorant” in courts of equity. Based 

on that presumption of ignorance, government 

official enjoy a good faith immunity 

that shields them from personal liability for 

almost any act they commit. 

Good faith immunity presumes that officials 

who commit improper or criminal acts, 

didn’t know the acts were improper or criminal 

and therefore acted in “good faith” (ignorance). 

Thus, even if the official actually 

knew that his act was improper or criminal, 

unless someone can prove he had that knowledge, 

he will enjoy a presumption of igno- 


ance and good faith. Unless the official 

admits he had knowledge and acted despite 

that knowledge, the presumption of good 

faith immunity will shield him against personal 

liability. 

Thus, good faith immunity ultimately 

relies on presumptions of ignorance. 

How do you defeat presumptions of 

ignorance? By proving the official had 

knowledge that his acts were improper or 

criminal when he committed those acts. 

How do you prove he had such knowledge? 

By providing a proper administrative 

notice before he can commit a improper/ 

criminal act. Once an administrative official 

has notice of facts and/or law necessary to 

prohibit a particular act, if he acts despite that 

notice, he’s personally liable. Since government 

agents won’t knowingly accept personal 

liability, any case that creates that kind 

of liability tends to disappear. (Why prosecute 

someone who might take your home 

when there’s plenty of other idiots that can 

be safely prosecuted without incurring personal 

liability?) 

Tentative conclusion: administrative notices 

eliminate official ignorance and thus 

defeat claims of good faith immunity. 

Never Never Never too too late? 

late? 

In trust law, a trustee is always presumed 

to act in good faith and so long as he 

does, escapes virtually all personal immunity. 

But does this mean that trustees can 

commit virtually any act they like (no matter 

how criminal) and get away with it so long 

as they claim ignorance and good faith immunity? 

No. 

While mistakes are forgivable, refusing 

to correct mistakes is not. Thus, even if 

a trustee intentionally commits a “mistake,” 

his act will be presumed to be proper unless 

someone provides administrative notice to 

the contrary. But once notified, trustees have 

a fiduciary obligation to correct or mitigate 

any personal error that’s brought to his attention. 

However, if – despite the administrative 

notice and resultant personal knowledge 

– the trustee refuses to correct his error 

or mitigate the resulting damages, his knowing 

refusal becomes evidence of “willfulness” 

and expose him to personal and even criminal 

liability. 

Does the trustee’s fiduciary obligation 

to correct personal errors also apply to government 

and corporate administrative officials? 

Prob’ly maybe. If so, this implies that 

unless there are relevant statutes of limitations 

or similar time constraints, even after 

the fact, a proper administrative notice might 

force government to correct or mitigate its 

mistake. 

Hypothetical Hypothetical applications? 

applications? 

Let’s suppose that when you go to 

court, you think your case is being heard 

“judicially” when it’s actually being heard 

“administratively”. To the uninformed, this 

misunderstanding seems impossible. However, 

this sort of “misunderstanding” is not 

only common but lies near the heart of our 

confrontation with government. So far as I 

can see, through government deceit and our 

own ignorance, most of our “trials” are actually 

administrative hearings. 

Again, this may explain why “judicial” 

notices are routinely ignored – the judges are 

sitting in an “administrative” (not “judicial”) 

capacity. If so, it should follow that while a 

“judicial notice” might be ignored, the same 

text presented as an “administrative notice,” 

might make a judge jump. 

The possibility that most cases are being 

tried administratively raises interesting 

implications about appeals and similar “judicial” 

procedures employed by the defendants. 

If your case was heard administratively, how 

can a “judicial” procedure (like an appeal to 

another court based on constitutional issues) 

be expected to work? Are judicial procedures 

only for “judicial” hearings? Is it possible 

that an administrative hearing (even if 

it appeared “judicial”) might also only be 

compelled to respond to administrative process? 

Thus, an administrative judge who 

could safely ignore a judicial writ of habeas 

corpus, might be personally obligated to act 

quickly if the same information were presented 

as an administrative notice. 

If so, what is the proper solution to an 

improper conviction? Appeal to a higher 

court? Or send an administrative notice to 

the errant judge, prosecutor, their superiors 

or employers? If your case is being heard in 

an administrative tribunal, is the proper procedure 

governed by the state or federal code 

of Administrative Procedure? 

We’re looking for feedback. Let us know 

if our speculation on administrative notices 

makes sense. As confirmation or denial 

comes in, we’ll publish. 


Are Federal Plea Bargains 

Unconstitutional? 

from Gary Graham 

The United States jails a higher percentage 

of its citizens for longer periods of 

time than virtually any other country in the 

world. According to “The Million Inmate 

Mark” by Vincent Schiraldi (The Final Call, 

5/18/99): 

“Last year, for the first time in our 

nation’s history, over one million people 

were imprisoned for non-violent offenses. 

Although politicians have made a lot of hay 

about locking up the ‘worst of the worst,’ 

over the past 20 years we’ve actually added 

more non-violent offenders to our prisons 

than violent ones. Since 1978, the number 

of violent offenders sent to prison each 

year has doubled, non-violent offenders 

tripled, and drug offenders increased eightfold. 

. . . The 1.2 million nonviolent prisoners 

locked up last year is three times the 

number of all offenders imprisoned by the 

12 countries that make up the European 

Union, even though those countries have 

100 million more citizens than the United 

States. The $24 billion spent to imprison 

those offenders is almost 50% more than 

the federal government spends on a welfare 

program that serves 8.5 million people. In 

1995, states around the country spent more 

money building prisons than universities.” 

Based on our rate of incarceration, the 

U.S. is arguably the world’s Number One 

police state and, according to some, flirting 

recklessly with fascism. 

The primary reason our government is 

so “successful” at incarcerating masses of 

Americans is that prosecutors use quick, 

administrative “plea bargains” rather than 

expensive, time-consuming trials to establish 

a defendant’s guilt. The vast majority 

of criminal cases (97% state; 93% federal) 

are settled by plea bargain “agreements” between 

prosecutors and defendants. 

The plea bargain procedure works 

something like this: First, Congress (or 

your state legislature) passes mandatory sentencing 

laws that establish maximum penalties 

that are so irrationally extreme that 

they scare the guilty, terrify the innocent 

and, perhaps most importantly, impress the 

voters. 

Second, a prosecutor sternly warns a 

criminal defendant that if he dares to plead 

Not Guilty and is nevertheless convicted in 

court, the Judge will “get angry” and probably 

impose a maximum (incomprehensible) 

15 years in prison for possessing a few 

ounces of a “controlled substance” (58.9% 

of Federal prisoners are convicted for drugrelated 

offenses). 

Third, the defendant (terrified by the 

prospect of spending the balance of his natural 

life in prison) becomes “cooperative,” 

pleads guilty, saves the state the cost of a 

lengthy trial and appeal, and in return, receives 

a less severe sentence (perhaps three 

years in prison with five on probation). 

Our “efficient” (terrifying) plea bargain 

system not only allows government to 

jail vast numbers of Americans, it also spares 

lawyers from the onerous task of actually 

studying the relevant law and preparing to 

argue a case in court. This is a huge benefit 

since a lawyer can plea bargain (and charge 

for) scores of cases in the time it takes to 

actually prepare and litigate a single criminal 

trial. Further, if a criminal case is plea 

bargained, the defendant is presumed to have 

voluntarily agreed to the “bargain” thereby 

relieving his lawyer from malpractice liability. 

Thus, plea bargains allow lawyers to 

sell minimal services with minimal personal 

liability and still squeeze an easy dollar out 

of the poor. Instead of charging $100,000 

to defend one person in a trial by jury (and 

later risk being sued for malpractice), these 

lawyers sell plea bargains for $2,000 each 

to fifty defendants. Result? They still gross 

$100,000 but they don’t have to study the 

case, study the law, present the case in court, 

or risk being sued for malpractice. 

Moreover, thanks to plea bargains in 

criminal court (and “out of court settlements” 

in civil court) our attorneys’ incomes depend 

primary on sales volume rather than 

the quality of the representation. Thus, lawyers 

have devolved from “litigators” (people 

who argue issues in court) into “pitchmen” 

who merely “sell” plea “bargains” to cli- 


ents. The public has sensed this devolution 

and rewarded attorneys appropriately by 

treating them to the same level of respect 

we formerly reserved for carnival barkers. 

(“Step raht up, ladies ‘n ge’men! Step raht 

up! Gitcher justice he-ah!”) 

The O.J. Simpson case illuminates use 

of plea bargains. Can anyone imagine a 

poor, middle class or even moderately 

wealthy defendant achieving a similar victory 

in a similar criminal case? No. Because 

the vast majority of criminals are too 

poor to pay for an adequate defense, the 

system has evolved to give criminal defendants 

only as much “justice” as they can 

afford. Thus, plea “bargains” provide an 

“illusion” of justice for the majority of 

Americans who are too poor to afford the 

real thing. 

Prosecutors also benefit from plea bargains 

since they also need not actually prepare 

to litigate most of their cases. Thus, 

our prosecutors also tend to serve as “pitch 

men” selling “bargains” rather than lawyers 

implementing justice. Perhaps worst of all, 

the tendency to bargain rather than litigate 

diminishes the average prosecutor’s understanding 

of law and fosters incompetence. 

Plea bargains even affect our police. 

Since almost all criminal cases are plea bargained, 

the police are effectively relieved 

from the obligation of collecting evidence 

according to strictly constitutional procedures. 

The sloppy police work that ultimately 

freed O.J. Simpson was not an aberration 

– it was a prime example of standard, 

sloppy police investigations. After 

all, since 97% of all criminal cases are plea 

bargained, 97% of all evidence will never 

go to court. So why should police be diligent 

about collecting and preserving evidence 

if that evidence will almost never be 

used in court? Moreover, if they’re sure the 

“bad guy” did the crime, why not fake the 

evidence to “encourage” him to confess and 

plea? Sure the evidence might not stand up 

in court, but thanks to plea bargains, it’ll 

never get to court. 

But once law enforcement loses respect 

for collecting and preserving evidence, how 

long before they also lose respect for truth? 

Remember the 1997 scandal when FBI agent 

Whitehurst revealed that the vaunted FBI 

laboratory in Washington was routinely fabricating 

or falsifying evidence? Why not? 

Thanks to plea bargains, the evidence is almost 

never used in court. Instead, that fal- 

sified evidence will probably be used as a 

“sales tool” to persuade some hapless defendant 

to accept a plea bargain. “Sure, you 

say you’re innocent, Johnson – but how 

will you explain to the jury that the FBI lab 

found your fingerprints on the bomb fragments?” 

What’s an innocent man to do when 

faced with inexplicable “evidence” of his 

guilt provided by the mighty FBI? Thus, 

even the innocent can be “persuaded” to 

plead. 

Plea bargains foster endless prison 

construction programs (and resultant higher 

taxes), sloppy prosecutors, incompetent police 

and finally corrupt law enforcement. 

Plea bargains diminish our government’s 

need, understanding and respect for law, 

and increase government dependance on 

fear tactics, intimidation and even fabricated 

evidence. Thus, the plea bargain’s “efficiency” 

tends to violate fundamental principles 

of liberty and push us toward fascism. 

Safety Safety in in numbers 

numbers 

David Washington (one of our readers) 

reported: 

“A friend told me once that while he 

was in a County Jail, he got approximately 

forty people to sign a statement saying they 

were going to trial and refused to take any 

plea bargains. Because of that, many 

charges were actually dropped and people 

were released.” 

David’s anecdote illustrates our criminal 

justice system’s dependence on plea bargains. 

Without plea bargains, the entire system 

would totter and tend to collapse – unless 

it could content itself with only prosecuting 

truly violent criminals while ignoring 

the nonviolent and victimless crimes that 

have filled our prisons and elected politicians 

for twenty years. 

Plea bargains pack our prisons, raise 

our taxes, turn prosecutors into pitchmen, 

render police incompetent and subtly push 

America toward fascism. 

Plea bargains are no bargain. 

An An activist’ activist’s activist’ s lot 

lot 

Gary Graham has been a legal reform 

activist since 1990. At one point, he led a 

legal reform group in Dallas, Texas, that 

met bimonthly and drew 100 to 200 people 

per meeting. Gary laid the foundation for 

“Take Texas Back” – an organization that 

sought to restore Texas as a sovereign State 

(rather than an instrumentality of the corporate 

Federal government) and eventually 

evolved into the Republic of Texas movement. 

Eventually, Gary started traveling 

around the USA, helping to create politically 

active organizations in other states. 

When Gary started traveling, he made 

two mistakes: 

1) He forgot that political activists must 

maintain a political base of support. As 

long as he remained in Dallas, he had the 

support of hundreds of members of Take 

Texas Back. He thus enjoyed a measure of 

political “protection” since government is 

reluctant to confront activists who enjoy 

widespread support from other activists. 

But once Gary left Dallas, he became more 

vulnerable to government prosecution. 

2) Recognizing that our “money” system 

is largely fraudulent, Gary started 

studying “certified money orders” (CMOs) 

which some people were making on home 

computers and using to pay their income 

taxes or home mortgages. Gary didn’t use 

or sell CMOs, but he did provide samples 

to a man in Louisiana who made his own 

CMOs and sent them through the mail to 

discharge some of his debts. On December 

3, 1994, the FBI arrested the man in Louisiana 

for Mail Fraud and Gary as a background 

“principal”. 

Gary was arraigned on December 7, 

1994, denied bond as a “Flight Risk,” and 

tried before a jury in February, 1995. He 

appeared in court pro se and handled his 

case well enough that (just before closing 

arguments) some U.S. Marshals told him it 

looked like he’d won. However, during 

closing arguments (when it was too late for 

Gary to respond), his co-defendant’s attorney 

argued that even though his client may 

be guilty of actually using CMOs, it was all 

Gary’s fault for giving him a free sample in 

first place. The jury found Gary guilty and 

sentenced to two years confinement and 

three years probation. 

Gary entered the Federal Prison Camp 

at Fort Bliss (El Paso) Texas in August, 

1995 and filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus with the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans. 

On November 4, 1995, after receiving 

no answer, Gary decided he’d had 

enough and simply walked away from the 

prison camp. He worked in Texas until September, 

1996, when he was stopped for 

speeding, and returned to El Paso to face 

federal charges for escape. 


In January 1997, Gary pled “absolutely 

guilty” to the charge of Escape before a U.S. 

District Court Judge. The judge warned 

him that by entering a plea of guilty, he was 

waiving certain rights such as his individual 

right to a trial by jury as guaranteed by the 

6th Amendment (“In all criminal prosecutions, 

the accused shall enjoy the right to a 

speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury 

. . . .”) Gary said he understood the waiver, 

the judge found him guilty without further 

trial or jury, and Gary was sentenced to serve 

another 18 months. 

If this personal narrative seems overly 

lengthy, it does have a: 

Silver Silver lining 

lining 

While researching the issues of his case 

in prison, Gary made a monumental insight: 

The Constitution for the United States of 

America specifies a “Trial by Jury” in two 

places: 1) the 6th Amendment (which defines 

our individual right to a trial by jury); 

and 2) Article III – which specifies the 

powers and duties of the judicial branch of 

government and mandates, “The Trial of all 

Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, 

shall be by Jury;” [emph. add.]. 

We tend to overlook the distinction between 

the Article III judicial duty and the 

6th Amendment’s individual right to a trial 

by jury. But while Article III mandates that 

all federal crimes tried in Article III courts 

must be by jury, it says nothing about criminal 

trials conducted in courts not created 

under Article III (for example, state or 

county courts). Therefore, while Article III 

compels all federal criminal trials to be by 

jury, the 6th Amendment protects the right 

of all criminal defendants to be tried by jury, 

even in state or county courts. 

Gary realized that the Article III mandate 

for trials by jury did not describe an 

individual’s right to a trial by jury (as is 

seen in the 6th Amendment) but instead imposed 

a mandatory duty on all federal courts 

and judges hearing criminal cases. Since 

Article III applied only to the federal criminal 

cases, it was unlawful, unconstitutional 

and technically impossible for Gary (or any 

other individual), to agree, revoke or otherwise 

“bargain” away that Article III duty. 

In other words, while an individual 

might waive his 6th Amendment individual 

right to a state trial by jury – no individual 

or plea bargain could waive an Article III 

court’s duty to provide a trial by jury in all 

federal criminal cases. The only lawful way 

to remove the Article III duty was by constitutional 

amendment. 

Since no such amendment has been 

made, it appears that any federal plea bargain 

that waives a jury trial in a criminal 

case violates Article III and is therefore unconstitutional. 

If federal plea bargains are 

unconstitutional, so are the resulting convictions 

and sentences. This implies that a 

lot of federal prisoners who’ve been incarcerated 

with plea bargains may have a constitutional 

argument to demand they be released 

or at least actually tried by a jury. 

2255 2255 Questions 

Questions 

Gary informed his judge of the apparent 

constitutional error with a “2255” Motion 

(28 USC 2255). A “2255” is a Civil 

Motion in a criminal proceeding to move 

the court to vacate, set aside, or correct a 

sentence. A 2255 Motion is a collateral 

attack in which the issue of guilt or innocence 

cannot be addressed. Collateral issues 

include procedures used by government 

to obtain the conviction, the jurisdiction 

of the court, and/or the information or 

procedure used to determine the length of 

sentence. 

Here’s a slightly edited version of 

Gary’s original 2255 Petition: 

“On January 21, 1997, this Petitioner 

informed U.S. District Judge Harry Lee 

Hudspeth of the intention to plead guilty to 

the charge of Escape. Judge Hudspeth then 

informed this Petitioner that the entry of a 

guilty plea was a waiver of the Petitioner’s 

Rights, to which this Petitioner agreed. 

“However, at no time was this Petitioner 

informed that the Court and the Government 

were using this Petitioner’s waiver 

of his 5 th and 6 th Amendment Rights as an 

excuse to ignore the requirement placed on 

the government by Clause 3, Section 2, Article 

III of the Constitution for the United 

States of America which provides: ‘The 

Trial of all Crimes, except in cases of Impeachment, 

shall be by Jury;’ 

“Article III is not an enumeration of 

Individual or Collective Rights and therefore 

none of the provisos in Article III can 

be waived by this Petitioner. Further, none 

of the requirements of Article III have been 

changed by constitutional amendment. 

“The conviction was obtained in direct 

violation of Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 

of the Constitution for the United States of 

America and the sentence was imposed illegally 

as based on the unconstitutional conviction. 

The sentence of eighteen (18) 

months confinement must be VACATED 

and the IMMEDIATE RELEASE of this 

Petitioner ordered as any further prosecution 

of this Petitioner would be in violation 

of the Right against Double Jeopardy.” 

Babbling, Babbling, baffling baffling bull 

bull 

Over the years, I’ve learned that in litigation, 

less is more. That is, the surest sign 

of a competent, professional litigation is 

brevity. The lawyers who know their business 

write the least and don’t expose one 

bit more of their strategy than necessary. 

Their petitions and motions are crisp and to 

the point. They focus exclusively on one or 

two issues. 

The amateurs, on the other hand, generally 

try to “B.S.” their way through court 

by filing reams of paperwork on everything 

from the Bible, Magna Carta, Declaration 

of Independence, Articles of Confederation, 

the Constitution, international treaties, commentary 

on the money issue, claims to be 

“white sovereigns” and a Whitman’s Sampler 

of quotations derived from court cases 

spanning recorded history. Inevitably, all 

that paperwork betrays the amateur’s fear 

and incompetence. You show me a litigator 

who can argue a single issue extremely well, 

and I’ll show you a dangerous man. Show 

me a litigant who threatens to argue twenty 

issues, and I’ll show you a lightweight who 

doesn’t really understand his own issues 

and can therefore be easily discredited and 

defeated in court. 

The “baffle ‘em with BS” strategy is 

common among pro se litigants, but when 

government is stumped, they’ll try it, too. 

For example, the Government’s Response 

to Gary’s 2255 Motion was lengthy, technical, 

based primarily on procedure, unfocused 

and clearly off point. Read closely, 

the government offers piles of rhetoric to 

conceal the fact they don’t have an effective 

reply to Gary’s issue. As you’ll read, the 

government tries to hide behind Gary’s 6th 

Amendment, individual right to a trial by 

jury, but never addresses the primary issue: 

By what authority can Gary or government 

waive the Article III duty imposed on federal 

courts to provide a trial by jury in all 

criminal cases? 

As you’ll read, at one point the pros- 


ecutor writes that due to the “need for the 

efficient and orderly administration of justice, 

it is respectfully urged that the court 

not consider these issues”. [Emph. add.] 

In other words, a U.S. prosecutor is telling 

the judge this is an important issue the government 

can’t win or afford to lose, so therefore 

please don’t even consider the issue 

and “Just Say No!” to the Constitution. 

Government’ 

Government’s Government’ s Response 

Response 

“Comes now the United States of 

America, by and through the United States 

Attorney for the Western District of Texas, 

and in response to GARY LYNN 

GRAHAM’s Motion under 28 U.S.C. Sect. 

2255 to Vacate Sentence, respectfully shows 

the Court as follows: 

“I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

“On November 20, 1996, GARY 

LYNN GRAHAM, hereinafter referred to 

as Petitioner, was indicted by a federal grand 

jury in El Paso, Texas. Petitioner was 

charged in an indictment with escape from 

a federal institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

Sect. 751(a). On January 21, 1997, Petitioner 

pled guilty to the one count of the 

indictment. On March 5, 1997, Petitioner 

was sentenced to a 18-month term of imprisonment 

. . . . 

“II. ISSUES 

“In the present Motion to Vacate, Set 

Aside or Correct Sentence, the sole ground 

of the Petitioner’s claim appears to encompass 

the following twofold argument: that 

the Petitioner’s plea was involuntary in that 

the Petitioner was not advised that he would 

be waiving his right to trial by jury, and the 

Petitioner could not waive that constitutional 

right.” [Emph. add.] 

Note that government’s statement of 

Issues completely misses Gary’s issue – 

not his 6th Amendment right – but the 

court’s Article III duty. The balance of the 

government’s reply is long-winded, technical 

and probably too dry for most readers, 

so it’s been included as a footnote 1 at the 

end of this article. But as you’ll read in 

Gary’s reply, the government simply refused 

to even address Gary’s fundamental 

issue: 

Petitioner’ 

Petitioner’ 

Petitioner’s Petitioner’ 

Petitioner’ s Reply 

Reply 

The PROCEDURAL HISTORY of 

my case as recited in the Government’s Response 

is correct and this Petitioner objects 

only to the omission of the FACT that there 

was no “Trial by Jury” during any of the 

proceedings. 

The ISSUES as stated in the 

Government’s Response are incorrect and 

do not recite the Issue raised by the Petitioner. 

The Issue brought by this Petitioner 

is that the sentence imposed by this Honorable 

Court on this Petitioner was imposed 

without a “Trial by Jury” in direct violation 

of Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 of the 

Constitution. 

The Government expends a great deal 

of energy in an attempt to convince this 

Honorable Court not to address the Issue 

raised by Petitioner, however, the 

Government’s first sentence and authority 

citation are sufficient to sustain the 

Petitioner’s Motion. It is well established 

in American Jurisprudence that the jurisdiction 

of a Court to impose sentence does 

not vest in the Court until a conviction is 

obtained. The Constitution requires that a 

conviction be obtained by a “Trial by Jury” 

in all Crimes at Article III, Section 2, Clause 

3. In the absence of this conviction by a 

Jury the Court was without jurisdiction to 

impose a sentence. The issue raised by this 

Petitioner is certainly within the cognizance 

of a 2255 proceeding. United States v. 

Addonizio, 99 S.Ct. 2235, 2240 (1979). 

A. The remainder of the 

Government’s Response does not address 

the Issue raised by this Petitioner and is 

non-responsive, frivolous, and without 

merit. On Page 7, Line 18 of the 

Government’s Response, the Government 

obviously agrees that “The Constitution requires 

a trial by jury of all crimes as stated 

in U.S. CONST. Art III, sect 2 cl. 3.” And 

the Government does not offer that this requirement 

is an individual right. 

It is the assertion of this Petitioner that 

the requirement that the Trial of all Crimes 

be by Jury is a requirement imposed on the 

Judicial Branch by the Constitution and neither 

the Government nor this Petitioner have 

the authority to waive this requirement. It 

is the assertion of this petitioner that no 

single individual may waive any of the requirements 

placed on the Government by 

Article III of the Constitution, with or without 

the Government’s approval. It is the 

assertion of this Petitioner that the current 

practice of foregoing a Trial by Jury in all 

Criminal Cases is an unconstitutional 

amendment of Article III, Section 2, Clause 

3. It is the assertion of this Petitioner that 

the absence of a conviction by Jury prevents 

the Court from obtaining jurisdiction 

to impose sentence. 

It is the understanding and belief of 

this Petitioner that all Federal Judges have 

executed the Oath of Office required by 

Article VI of the Constitution binding all 

judicial officers to support the Constitution 

and that this Oath operates on this Honorable 

Court. It is also the understanding and 

belief of this Petitioner that it is not uncommon 

for current judicial officers to ignore 

the sanctity of their Oath in the name of 

efficiency and the orderly administration of 

the justice system. It is within the context 

of this understanding and belief that this 

Petitioner would most respectfully pray that 

this Honorable Court address the actual issue 

raised by this Petitioner. 

It is remarkable that the Government 

either does not understand the Issue or purposely 

attempts to change the Issue to conform 

to existing case law and argument. 

The issue raised is one dealing with the 

Article III requirement placed on the Judicial 

Branch of the Federal Government to 

try all crimes by Jury, and where the authority 

to waive this requirement is granted 

and to whom is it granted. 

The Government’s argument focuses 

on the Individual Rights enumerated in the 

Amendments and the Right of the Individual 

to waive his or her Rights rather than addressing 

the fundamental question of who 

has the Right to waive the Article III requirement. 

The Government exhibits a basic misunderstanding 

of exactly why the first Ten 

Amendments were added to the Constitution, 

by stating that “Trial by jury is conferred 

upon Petitioner via U.S. CONST. 

Amend. VI.” Which would indicate that the 

right to a Trial by Jury in all criminal proceedings 

did not exist until the Amendments 

were passed rather than the fact that the 

Amendments enumerated pre-existing 

Rights possessed by the People and to be 

protected by the new government being created. 

The first three Articles of the Constitution 

create the three branches of the new 

government and grant powers and place restrictions 

on these three branches. The questions 

raised are specific to the restriction 

placed on the Judicial Branch of government: 

Where is the authority to waive the 

restriction that “The Trial of all Crimes . . . 


shall be by Jury”? And if this restriction 

can be waived by the Defendant and the 

Government, what other restrictions of the 

Constitution may also be waived by such 

combinations? 

The history of the Article III requirement 

remained consistent for 140 years. In 

1834 Mr. Justice Story indicated his view 

that the Constitution made Trial by Jury the 

only permissible method of trial, United 

States v. Gibert, 25 Fed Case 1287 (No. 

15204) (CCD Mass 1834). In 1898 the 

Supreme Court expressed the view that the 

Constitution made jury trial the exclusive 

method of determining guilt in all federal 

criminal cases, Thompson v. Utah, 170 U.S. 

343, 42 L. Ed. 1061, 18 S. Ct. 620. 

However, in 1904 the Supreme Court 

exhibited a new tack for circumventing the 

Constitution, as interpreted in previous decisions, 

by changing the name of things, 

when it held that there was no constitutional 

requirement that petty offenses be tried by 

jury, Schick v. United States, 195 U.S. 65, 

49 L. Ed. 99, 24 S. Ct. 826. 

In 1930 the Supreme Court spoke of 

Jury Trial as a “privilege” not an “imperative 

requirement” in deciding a question of 

whether a criminal trial can continue to a 

finality with eleven (11) jurors after one 

juror has become incapacitated, Patton v. 

United States, 281 U.S. 276, 74 L. Ed. 854, 

50 S. Ct. 253,70 ALR 263. The case did 

not involve a Trial by Judge alone, but the 

Court believed that trial before 11 jurors 

was as foreign to the common law as was 

trial before a judge alone, and therefor both 

forms of waiver “in substance amount[ed] 

to the same thing.” 

It was not until 1942 that the Supreme 

Court stated “one charged with a serious 

federal crime may dispense with his Constitutional 

right to jury trial,” relying upon 

the dictum of Patton in Adams v. United 

States ex rel McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 277- 

278, 87 L. Ed. 268, 63 S. Ct. 2336, 143 

ALR 435. 

Finally, in 1965 the Court held that 

Rule 23(a), requiring the Government, the 

Defendant and the Court agree to waive a 

Jury Trial, was Constitutional, Singer v. 

United States, 380 U.S. 24, 13 L. Ed.2d 

630, 85 S. Ct. 783. It was held in Singer 

“that the Federal Constitution neither confers 

nor recognizes the right of criminal 

defendants to have their cases tried before a 

judge alone,” which does not directly ad- 

dress the issue raised in my Petition: WHERE 

DOES THE AUTHORITY COME FROM TO WAIVE 

A REQUIREMENT PLACED ON THE GOVERN- 

MENT BY THE CONSTITUTION? 

Constitutional 

Constitutional 

unconstitutionality? 

unconstitutionality? 

As of June, 1999, Senior District Judge 

Hudspeth has simply “sat” on Gary’s original 

petition for over 17 months without giving 

a decision. Gary suspects his Petition 

has not been denied, affirmed or even heard 

because the consequences of his constitutional 

challenge may be too great for the 

court to consider. 

For example, if plea bargains are unconstitutional 

in federal criminal cases, then 

1) the federal government’s criminal prosecution 

industry will be reduced by 90% or 

more, 2) criminal prosecutions will become 

almost solely the province of the states, and 

3) the withdrawal of federal involvement 

from criminal prosecutions will slow and 

possibly reverse the federal government’s 

intrusion into local affairs and thereby tend 

to restore a measure of “state’s rights” and 

individual liberty to this nation. 

Although the court continues to ignore 

his original petitions, Gary believes that as 

news of his constitutional challenge to plea 

bargains reaches the federal prisons, federal 

courts will begin to see a host of similar 

challenges that may ultimately force government 

to confront the issue and, hopefully, 

reduce or even eliminate the application 

of plea bargains in federal criminal trials. 

1 III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES 

A. Petitioner raises issues not 

cognizable in a 2255 proceeding. 

Relief under Section 2255 is 

generally authorized if the sentencing 

court “was without jurisdiction to impose 

such sentence, or that the sentence was in 

excess of the maximum authorized by 

law, or otherwise subject to collateral 

attack.” United States v. Addonizio, 99 

S.Ct. 2235, 2240 (1979). Section 2255 

“is reserved for transgressions of 

constitutional rights and for that narrow 

compass of other injury that could not 

have been raised on direct appeal, and 

would, if condoned, result in a complete 

miscarriage of justice.” United States v. 

Capua, 656 F.2d 1033, 1037 (5 th Cir. 

1981). See also, United States v. 

Werntraub, 871 F.2d 1257, 1266 (5th Cir. 

1989); United States v. Smith, 844 F.2d 

203, 205-06 (5 th Cir. 1988). Moreover, a 

district court’s technical application of the 

Sentencing Guidelines does not give rise 

to a constitutional issue cognizable under 

Sect. 2255. United States V. Lopez, 923 

F.2d 47, 50 (5 th Cir.) cert. Denied, 500 

U.S. 924 (1991). 

Section 2255 does not reach errors 

that are not of constitutional or jurisdiction 

magnitude when those errors could 

have been reached by a direct appeal. 

United States v. Stumpf, 900 F.2d 842, 

845 (5 th Cir. 1990). For example 

violations of Rule 11 that could have been 

raised on direct appeal may not be 

presented in a collateral attack upon the 

defendant’s sentence. See United States v. 

Timmreck, 441 U.S. 780, 783085 (1979); 

Stumpf 900 F.2d at 845. Likewise, claims 

that a trial court violated Rule 12 in the 

course of imposing sentence that could 

have been raised on direct appeal may not 

be brought forward in a Section 2255 

proceeding. See Winetraub, 871 F.2d at 

1266; United States v. Prince, 868 F.2d 

1379, 1386 (5 th Cir.), cert, denied, 493 

U.S. 932 (1989); and Smith, 844 F.2d at 

205-07. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s claims are 

outside the proper scope of Section 2255 

review. The sentence, on its face, is 

within the statutory maximum, and is not 

otherwise manifestly unjust. There are no 

other circumstances present in this case 

indicating that the sentence is a “complete 

miscarriage of justice,” nor is there any 

evidence of a transgression of constitutional 

or jurisdiction dimension. Based 

upon the above authority and the need for 

the efficient and orderly administration of 

justice, it is respectfully urged that the 

court not consider these issues raised in 

the format of collateral review. [Emph. 

add.] 

However, should this court be so 

inclined to consider Petitioner’s motion, 

then it should be denied for the following 

reasons: 


B. Petitioner pled guilty, thus 

waiving a subsequent challenge to that 

plea. 

Petitioner pled guilty in the instant 

case. He admitted to all elements of a 

federal criminal charge, and waived all 

non-jurisdictional defects in the proceeding 

against him. United States v. Owens, 

996 F.2d 59, 60 (5th Cir. 1993); United 

States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914, 915 (5 th Cir. 

1992). Petitioner’s guilty plea precludes 

him from making his claim at this juncture 

in the proceedings. The Supreme Court 

has ruled that: 

[A] guilty plea represents a break in 

the chain of events which have preceded it 

in the criminal process. When a criminal 

defendant has solemnly admitted in open 

court that he is in fact guilty of the offense 

charged, he may not thereafter raise 

independent claims relating to the 

deprivation of constitutional rights that 

occurred prior to the entry of the plea. 

Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 

267 (19733). Accordingly, Petitioner’s 

challenges are barred by his guilty plea. 

His claim should, therefore, be denied. 

C. Petitioner entered a voluntary 

plea. 

Without waiving the arguments 

above, the Government submits that 

Petitioner’s motion should also be denied 

because Petitioner entered a knowing and 

voluntary plea. The judicial system “has a 

great interest in maintaining the finality of 

guilty pleas.” Theriot v. Whitley, 18 F.3d 

3311, 314 (5 th Cir. 1994). It is well 

established that before a district court 

accepts a plea of guilty, it must personally 

address the defendant to determine that 

the plea is voluntary, and that the elements 

of the charge and the consequences of the 

plea are understood by the defendant. 

McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 

464 (1969). In addition, the court must 

be satisfied that the defendant’s conduct 

constitutes the charged offense. 

McCarthy, 394 U.S. at 467. 

The arraignment proceedings are 

attached hereto as Exhibit A to demonstrate 

that Petitioner’s plea was in fact 

knowing and voluntary. The Court 

entered into its usual Rule 11 colloquy 

with Petitioner. Having been sworn to tell 

the truth, Petitioner acknowledged to the 

prosecutor and to the Court understanding 

the charge he was pleading guilty to (Plea 

Tr., 5-7). The Court informed Petitioner 

that the sentence he was facing, to include 

the possibility of facing consecutive 

sentences, instead of concurrent sentences 

(Plea Tr., 9). 

Petitioner responded “yes” when the 

Court asked him if he entered his guilty 

pleas voluntarily (Plea Tr., 9). The Court 

asked Petitioner if anyone had used 

threats, force or coercion to make him 

plead guilty and Petitioner responded, 

“No, they have not.” (Plea Tr., 10). The 

Court then asked Petitioner if he pleads 

guilty of his own free will and Petitioner 

responded, “Yes, your honor, I do.” (Plea 

Tr., 10). The Court also asked Petitioner 

if he understood that by pleading guilty, 

he would be waiving his right to a trial, 

his right to cross examine and confront 

witnesses against him, his right to call his 

own witnesses to testify for him and his 

right to remain silent (Plea Tr., 10-11). 

Petitioner responded, he understood all 

that he was waiving (Plea Tr., 12). The 

prosecutor read the factual basis supporting 

the guilty plea (Plea Tr., 12-13). 

Petitioner agreed with the factual basis as 

read by the prosecutor (Plea Tr., 13). 

These assertions under oath are entitled to 

great weight. Barnes v. United States, 

579 F.2d 364, (5 th Cir. 1978). The 

representations made by a defendant, his 

lawyer, and the prosecutor at a plea 

hearing, constitutes a formidable barrier to 

any subsequent collateral attack. See, 

United States v. Corbett, 742 F.2d 173, 

178 n.11 (5 th Cir. 1984); United States v. 

Patterson, 739 F.2d 191, 195 (5 th Cir. 

1984). 

The Fifth Circuit has identified three 

core concerns under Rule 11 which 

demonstrate that a defendant’s plea was 

made knowingly and voluntarily: “(1) 

whether the guilty plea was coerced; (2) 

whether the defendant understands the 

nature of the charges; and, (3) whether the 

defendant understands the consequences 

of the plea.” United States v. Adams, 961 

F.2d 505, 510 (5 th Cir. 1992) (citing 

United States v. Shacklett, 921 F.2d 580, 

582 (5 th Cir. 1991); United States v. 

Bernal, 861 F.2d 434, 436 (5 th Cir. 1988), 

cert. Denied, 493 U.S. 872 (1989). 

The District Court in the instant case 

indeed demonstrated the “core concerns” 

set out in Adams. Adams, 961 F.2d 510. 

The transcript is clear and confirms that 

Petitioner entered voluntary and knowing 

pleas, was not coerced, forced or induced 

into pleading guilty, understood the 

charges he pled guilty to and understood 

the consequences of those pleas. In 

addition, the Government would respectfully 

remind the Court that prior to the 

plea colloquy on January 21, 1997, the 

Court had an extensive discussion with 

the Petitioner concerning his waiver, and 

the “rights that go along with trial” (Plea 

Tr. 2-4). Additionally, the Petitioner was 

advised that everything was in place for 

the Government to proceed to trial, 

witnesses as well as the prospective 

jurors were all available. (Plea Tr. 4). 

The burden is on Petitioner to prove he is 

entitled to relief on the ground that his 

plea was not voluntary. Petitioner has 

failed to meet this burden. As shown by 

his testimony in open court, Petitioner’s 

plea was voluntary, declared under oath, 

and as such, his testimony given during 

the guilty plea hearing carries a strong 

presumption of verity. United States v. 

Abreo, 30 F.3d 29, 31 (5 th Cir. ), cert, 

denied, 513 U.S. 1064 (1994), see, 

Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 64 

(1977). 

The Constitution requires a trial by 

jury of all crimes as stated in U.S. 

CONST. Art. III sect 2 cl. 3. Trial by jury 

is conferred upon the Petitioner via U.S. 

CONST. Amend VI. It is well settled that 

the right to trial by jury can be waived by 

guilty plea if the plea and waiver are 

knowing and voluntary. McCarthy, 394 

U.S. at 466, Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 

238 (1969). Obviously, Petitioner did 

enter a voluntary and knowing plea and 

was fully advised of the rights (including 

the right to trial by jury) he was waiving 

upon his plea of guilty as evidenced by 

Exhibit A. Given the nature of the 

Petitioner’s plea of guilty, it is clear his 

motion must fail. 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, 

the Government respectfully prays 

that Petitioner’s Motion under 28 U.S.C. 

Section 2255 be, in all things, denied. 


The great deception 

In previous issues of the AntiShyster, 

we’ve explored the idea that there is a dual 

system of identification and political status 

in this country. The first status is that of 

flesh-and-blood, natural man and member 

of the sovereign class “We the People”. This 

first status enjoys the God-given, “unalienable 

rights” declared in the Declaration of 

Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution. 

Most Americans believe this is the 

only political status that exists in this nation, 

and it’s shared equally by all. 

However, there is growing evidence that 

government has created a second political 

status which is almost universally mistaken 

for the first “sovereign” status but is in fact 

a status for servants, subjects and slaves. 

This second, “subject” status is comprised 

of artificial entities (like trusts or corporations) 

created by Congress (not God) and 

thus absolutely subject to Congressional 

regulation and control. Unlike the first “sovereign” 

status, the second “subject” status 

has no unalienable rights – only temporary 

privileges which may be modified, ignored 

or revoked whenever government sees fit. 

Apparently, government deceives members 

of the first sovereign status into accepting 

identification as members of the second 

subject status. So long as you unwittingly 

accept identification as a member of the second 

status, you will be treated as such and be 

denied any claim to the “unalienable rights,” 

liberties and freedoms enjoyed by the first, 

sovereign status. 

The average person will first find this 

theory incomprehensible and later absurd. 

After all, how could government trick us into 

“Evil Twin” Courts 


trading our “first class” status as natural 

sovereigns for the “second class” status of 

some kind of artificial entity? More importantly, 

how could we not know? 

The answer’s not simple, but it is subtle. 

The natural, flesh-and-blood man born into 

the first political status is identified by a capitalized 

name (i.e., “Alfred Adask”). Then 

government creates an artificial entity that 

belongs to the second political status and is 

identified by an all-upper case name (“AL- 

FRED N. ADASK). Because the names used 

to identify the natural man and artificial entity 

are so deceptively similar, one (ADASK) 

is easily mistaken for the other (Adask). 

As a result, if Alfred Adask goes to court 

and unwittingly allows the government to 

presume “ALFRED ADASK” has “appeared,” 

Alfred will probably experience 

some serious frustration. Without the protections 

of his unalienable rights, Alfred may 

be abused and mistreated by the court exactly 

as if he were ALFRED, an artificial 

entity with no more rights than a Negro slave 

in the pre-Civil War South. 

To more effectively communicate the 

difference between the natural and artificial 

persons, I’ve started describing the artificial 

entity (ALFRED) as the natural man 

Alfred’s “evil twin”. 

If the idea that government has tricked 

us into identifying ourselves as “evil twins” 

seems incredible, read on. It appears that 

government has also tricked us into appearing 

in a second kind of court that is designed 

to process “evil twins” but can’t even “see” 

flesh-and-blood members of the sovereign 

class. 

Despite Gary’s Graham’s intriguing 

insights in the previ 

ous article (“Are Federal Plea 

Bargains Constitutional?”), it’s not necessarily 

true that all federal plea bargains are unconstitutional. 

Properly read, Gary only asserts 

that plea bargains are unconstitutional 

in criminal cases heard in federal courts created 

under Article III (Judicial Branch) of 

the Constitution. 

However, not all courts are created 

equal. For example, state and county courts 

are created by state constitutions and are 

therefore not subject to the Article III “trial 

by jury” mandate. Thus, plea bargains may 

be constitutional in state or county courts. 

But what if there were another kind of 

court that was still federal but wasn’t created 

under the Article III, judicial branch of government? 

If there were a second set of federal 

courts operating outside of Article III, 

could those courts take plea bargains? Theoretically, 

Yes. 

And therein lies a clue to the great deception 

being perpetrated on the American 

people. 

Government Government structure 

structure 

If you read The Constitution for the 

United States of America (ratified 1789 

A.D.), you’ll see it 1) was created by We the 

People, and 2) contained seven basic “Articles” 

(additional amendments were added 

after 1791): 

Article I created the Legislative Branch 

of government (the House of Representatives 

and Senate which make laws) and defined 

its duties and powers. 


Article II created the Executive Branch 

(the Presidency and bureaucracy responsible 

for executing the laws passed by the Legislature) 

and defined its duties and powers. 

Article III created the Judicial Branch 

(federal courts) and defined its duties and 

powers. 

Article IV defined legal relationships 

between the States, between the federal government 

and the States and between the federal 

government and territories. 

Articles V, VI, and VII defined the 

amendment and ratification procedures and 

listed General Provisions concerning financial 

obligations, the “supreme law of the land,” 

and requirements to assume office. 

However, this article is only concerned 

with differences between Article I (Legislative) 

and Article III (Judicial) branches of government. 

Based on the “separation of powers” 

doctrine, most Americans assume that 

every federal court is constituted under Article 

III (Judicial Branch) of the Constitution 

and is therefore separate from the powers, 

jurisdictions and direct controls of the other 

two Branches of government (Legislative and 

Executive). Even school kids know that, right? 

Wrong. Absolutely wrong. 

In addition to the “judicial” courts specified 

in Article III, we also have – surprise, surprise! 

– Article I courts which may be described 

as “legislative tribunals”. (We probably have 

Article IV “territorial” courts, too, but we won’t 

explore that possibility here.) 

While Article III courts are directly bound 

by We the People and the Constitution, the 

Article I courts are directly bound by Congress. 

While Article III courts must support 

and defend the Constitution, Article I courts 

must support and defend the laws passed by 

Congress. Thus, if you try to challenge the 

constitutionality of any federal law in an Article 

I court (legislative tribunal), that court 

will virtually always rule against you. 

No No constitutional constitutional issues, 

issues, 

please 

please 

Sound impossible? Read Cochran et 

al. v. St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co. (73 

Fed Sup 288) decided on May 26, 1947. 

According to three of the case’s headnotes 

provided by West Publishing: 

“1. Constitutional law. The District 

Court cannot determine the wisdom or lack 

of wisdom in acts of Congress. 

“2. Courts. A United States District 

Court is purely a creature of legislative branch 

of government, generally provided for by 

Constitution, but not a constitutional court in 

stricter sense, and its jurisdiction comes from 

Congress. [Emph. add.] 

“3. Constitutional law. Courts’ duty is 

to interpret statute so as to uphold, rather 

than find against, its constitutionality.” 

Before I pontificate on what these 

headnotes mean, understand that these are 

only headnotes. That is, even though they 

appear as “summaries” at the top of the 

published case, they don’t count for diddly 

in law since they are merely the publisher’s 

opinions of the case’s principle points. The 

binding legal meaning will only be found in 

the text of the case which describes the 

judge’s opinion. 

Nevertheless, headnotes are prepared 

by professionals, and it’s inconceivable that 

headnotes offering such extraordinary implications 

have been published in error. 

The first and third headnotes explain 

that United States District Court cannot determine 

the constitutionality of any law passed 

by Congress. Instead, it is the “Courts’ duty” 

to always find (no matter how absurd the 

justification) that any law passed by Congress 

(no matter how ridiculous or overtly 

unconstitutional) is nevertheless “constitutional”. 

The second headnote explains why this 

seemingly absurd duty is lawful: unlike Article 

III courts (which are created by the Constitution/ 

We the People and therefore directly 

obligated to serve that creator-class), the 

United States District Courts are “creatures 

of” (created by) Congress and therefore not 

directly subject to the Constitution but instead 

duty-bound to serve the interests of 

their “creator” (the Congress). 

The distinction is subtle since (according 

to the second headnote) the United States 

District Courts are “generally provided for 

by the Constitution” in the sense that their 

creator (Congress) was first created by Article 

I of the Constitution. However, because 

these United States District Courts are 

directly created by Congress (not by the 

Constitution/ We the People) they are “not a 

constitutional court in the stricter sense” of 

Article III, judicial courts. 

At first reading, virtually everyone assumes 

the Cochran headnotes refer to all 

federal “district courts”. But in fact, there 

are two kinds of federal “district courts”. The 

first, “District Courts of the United States,” 

operate under Article III of the Constitution 

and are intended to protect the unalienable 

rights the sovereign class of natural, breathing 

Americans. 

The second kind of district courts are 

named “United States District Courts,” are 

“purely creature(s) of legislative branch” and 

therefore operate under Article I (legislative 

branch) rather than Article III (judicial 

branch). These “United States District 

Courts” are intended to administer the affairs 

of persons who are the employees or 

voluntary subjects of Congress and/or artificial 

entities (corporations, trusts, “evil twins,” 

etc.) that were created by Congress. 

Remember the deceptively similar 

names for natural persons (“Adask”) and artificial 

entities (“ADASK”)? Note a similarly 

subtle difference between the proper 

names for the respective courts: “United 

States District Courts” (Art. I) and “District 

Courts of the United States” (Art. III). Most 

people assume that the two names can be 

used interchangeably because they identify 

the same “district” courts. I disagree. 

“United States District Courts” and 

“District Courts of the United States” are two 

entirely different kinds of courts which decide 

cases according to entirely different sets 

of principles derived from two entirely different 

Articles of the Constitution. [Similarly, 

we also have two “Supreme Courts”: 

the “Supreme Court of the United States” 

(Article III) and the “United State Supreme 

Court” (Article I). A similar dual-court system 

probably exists in all fifty states.] 

As a result of this “dual” court system, 

We the People lose in federal courts because 

1) our unalienable rights in Article III courts 

devolve into mere privileges in Article I courts 

and 2) we don’t understand which kind of 

court we are in. Thus, constitutional arguments 

and challenges to federal statutes that 

might succeed in an Article III “District Court 

of the United States” will almost certainly 

fail in an Article I “United States District 

Court”. 

Therefore, while federal plea bargains 

(as explained in Gary Graham’s previous article) 

may be absolutely unconstitutional in 

Article III courts, they may also be absolutely 

“legal” in Article I courts (aka “legislative 

tribunals”) – if only because Article I 

judges are duty-bound to uphold all Congressional 

statutes, including those that authorize 

plea bargains. 


Implications 

Implications 

First, if federal prosecutors offer you a 

plea bargain, that’s prima facie evidence that 

your case is not being heard in an Article III 

court wherein you enjoy constitutionally-protected, 

unalienable rights. 

Second, since Article III mandates that 

all “criminal” trials be by jury, whatever you 

might be charged with at the federal level it’s 

probably not a true “crime” (damage to a natural 

person or his property). It may be an “offence” 

or a “violation” or something that 

“looks like” a crime, but if plea bargains are 

possible, it’s not a true “crime”. 

Third, it certain that you are better off 

being tried in an Article III court where you 

enjoy unalienable rights – and conversely, 

you should strenuously avoid Article I legislative 

tribunals where your “rights” are mere 

privileges. 

Fourth, it’s unlikely that government has 

arbitrarily moved us into the pro-prosecution 

Article I court. Instead, government almost 

certainly relies on something unexpected, 

probably some sort of agreement we 

each entered into voluntarily, that changed 

our identification/ status from members of 

the sovereign class which the Constitution 

and Article III courts were intended to serve, 

to persons subject to the legislative jurisdiction 

of Congress and Article I courts. 

This change in our identity/ status – 

from members of the sovereign class of We 

the People (the masters who government was 

intended to serve) – to “U.S. citizens” who 

are subject to and bound to serve Congress, 

is a central issue in our confrontation with 

government. Although we’re told that we’re 

“free” and “sovereign” and government is 

composed of our “public servants,” we are 

nevertheless treated as subjects, servants and 

serfs by the government that was ostensibly 

created to serve us. This contradiction between 

expectation and reality is evidence of 

a secret political revolution: the public servants 

have mysteriously become the public’s 

sovereigns. 

Unlike most revolutions, this one’s been 

achieved through unspoken deceit rather than 

overt violence. And make no mistake, although 

deceptive, it’s probably all legal since 

the primary cause for this revolution was not 

government treachery, but public ignorance. 

“We the People” (who are tried in Article III 

courts) have devolved into “We the Dumdums” 

who will be administered like any 

other incompetents in the legislative tribu- 

nals of Article I. We haven’t quite perished 

for lack of knowledge, but we’ve come close. 

Applications Applications Applications for for benefits 

benefits 

How government managed to deceive 

us into accepting the identification/status of 

one subject to Congress is not precisely clear. 

There may be several mechanisms, each of 

which can transform us from sovereigns to 

subjects. 

For example, in government, any time 

you fill out an “Application,” you are generally 

filling out an “application for benefits”. 

Whenever you see the word “benefit,” you 

can infer the presence of a trust. In order to 

receive a trust’s benefits, you must necessarily 

accept the status of a “beneficiary”. 

By law, beneficiaries have no legal title 

to trust property and thus no legal (unalienable) 

rights relative to that trust. Also, the 

common law (which is largely the province 

of Article III courts) only recognizes natural 

people – not trusts and similar artificial entities. 

Thus, once you accept the status of 

“beneficiary” in a trust is created by Congress, 

any subsequent court case involving 

that trust, its grantor (Congress), trustees 

(government officials), trust property, benefits 

and/or beneficiaries (that’s you) will 

probably be administered in an Article I 

“United States District Court”. So, if the 

court sees any evidence that you are a congressional 

subject or “beneficiary,” your case 

will be automatically heard in an Article I 

rather than Article III court. 

Have you filled out an “Application” for 

Social Security? If you have, you are a “beneficiary” 

of the Social Security Trust created 

by Congress. If the system sees any evidence 

that you have a SSN, your case will probably 

be heard in Article I legislative tribunal. The 

“benefit” of having a SSN may deny you access 

to Article III courts and recognition of 

your “unalienable rights” granted by God, 

declared in the Declaration of Independence 

and protected by the Constitution. 

Point: “Applications” (for benefits) may 

be hazardous to your health. 

U.S. U.S. Citizens Citizens 

Citizens 

The Constitution grants Congress (not 

We the People) exclusive jurisdiction over 

Washington D.C. (Article I) and also any 

“territory” (Article IV) owned by the federal 

government. If government can maneuver 

us into becoming de facto citizens of Washington 

DC and/or a federal territory, it can 

assume personal jurisdiction over us and reduce 

us from members of the sovereign class 

(We the People) to that of congressional subjects. 

Some people suspect that when the 14th 

Amendment created “citizen(s) of the United 

States” and defined that status as anyone 

“born or naturalized in the United States and 

subject to the jurisdiction, thereof,” it provided 

an opportunity for Congress to use 

birth certificates and/or voters registrations 

to reduce its former sovereigns to subjects. 

Others argue that “voluntary” use of Zip 

Codes provides evidence to support the presumption 

that we are residents of a federal 

territory (Article IV) administered exclusively 

by Congress and thus subject the jurisdiction 

of Article IV legislative tribunals. 

Any or all of these devices (14th 

Amendment, birth certificate, SSN, voters 

registration, Zip Codes, FRNs and a host of 

others) might be sufficient to change your 

status in fact or by presumption from that of 

member of the sovereign class to congressional 

subject. As noted in the Cochran case 

supra, the danger in being a congressional 

subject is that no constitutional challenge (and 

implicitly, no individual’s assertion of unalienable 

rights) can succeed in an Article I 

court. 

Therefore, while federal plea bargains 

(described in the previous article) may be 

absolutely unconstitutional in Article III (judicial) 

courts, they are absolutely legal in 

Article I (legislative) courts. Similarly, while 

a host of governmental actions may be patently 

unconstitutional, unless you can access 

an Article III court, your complaints will 

fall on the constitutionally deaf ears of administrative 

judges of the Article I “United 

States District Courts”. 

Counter Counter-r Counter -r -revolution 

-r evolution 

The revolutionary essence of the organic 

Constitution of 1789 (unseen in any government 

before or since) was that We the People 

were declared to be creators of (and therefore 

superior to) our government. We were 

the sovereigns; government was the servant. 

Generally, the only time government could 

interfere in our lives was when two “sovereigns” 

were at odds and government was 

called in to referee the contest. That relationship 

must still be honored in an Article III, 

“District Court of the United States” – if you 

can get into one. 

However, in an Article I “United States 


District Court,” that constitutional relationship 

is exactly reversed. We the People are 

reduced to subjects, beneficiaries and de facto 

slaves; Congress is elevated to the status of 

sovereign, master and ruler. Now Congress 

can interfere in our lives any time they like. 

Under Congress and Article I courts, when 

they say “Jump,” our only legal recourse is 

to ask, “How high?” 

Government can easily defeat Gary 

Graham’s constitutional challenge to plea 

bargains in Article III courts. How? By 

simply by admitting that the federal court 

that heard Gary’s “criminal” case and accepted 

his plea bargain was not an Article III judicial 

court (which can’t accept pleas bargains) 

but was instead an Article I legislative tribunal 

(which can legally “bargain” all day). But 

making that admission would expose the 

government’s deceit and dual court system. 

Such exposure would be politically incorrect 

since it would ultimately reveal whatever 

instruments (SSN, addresses, and other 

forms of personal “identification”) and ben- 

efits are being used to “lure” Americans away 

from the protections of the Constitution and 

into the oppressive embrace of Congress. 

We aren’t being forced so much as 

tricked into Article I United States District 

Courts. Our cases are heard in Article I because 

we have voluntarily surrendered our 

status as members of the sovereign class of 

We the People to become servant-subjectslaves 

of Congress. We’ve traded our birthrights 

for bowls of government pottage. 

The solution is not to change the courts 

(which are probably legal), but to understand 

and change our personal status. If you have 

a case or argument based on constitutional 

issues and/or your unalienable rights, you 

probably won’t be able to prosecute that case 

successfully unless you first remove, revoke 

or protest any evidence or presumptions that 

allows government to treat you as if you are 

an artificial entity, “evil twin” or subject of 

Congress. We might not need to change government, 

but we absolutely need to change 

ourselves. 

The key to avoiding the Article I tribunal 

probably involves a clear understanding 

of how our “identification” (I.D.) creates the 

presumption that we are artificial entities and/ 

or persons “subject to” Congressional jurisdiction 

and Article I courts. 

This struggle is far from over but we 

are nearing a clear understanding of both our 

adversary and our “selves”. Once that adversary 

(and our relationship to it) is properly 

“identified” and understood, the solution 

to our loss of liberty should become 

quickly apparent. Unless our corporate government 

attempts to openly impose military 

control within the next twelve months, I believe 

we’re on the verge of exposing the 

system’s deceit and perhaps restoring primacy 

of constitutional government – including 

common access to Article III courts. 

These times are not merely “interesting,” 

they are exciting. 


Virtually everyone in the Constitutionalist 

community senses that the Social Security 

Number (SSN) is far more than a device 

that allows government to track us and invade 

our privacy – it is one of the primary 

instruments by which we surrender our unalienable 

rights and become government’s 

subjects rather than collective sovereigns. A 

number of strategies have been proposed to 

revoke our SSNs and regain our unalienable 

rights. Some of these strategies seem workable, 

others unlikely. 

But usually, the decision to revoke one’s 

SSN is compromised by our need for bank 

accounts. Yes, I may be able to free myself 

from the political disability of Social Security, 

but how can I stay in business if banks 

won’t open accounts without SSNs? In other 

words, what good does it do me to regain 

my freedom if I can’t cash any checks and 

am thereby relegated to a subsistence standard 

of living? 

Our conflicting needs to bank and be 

free are so onerous and fundamental that a 

solution to the “banking without SSN” problem 

is very nearly the Constitutionalist’s 

“Holy Grail”. 

In March 14, 1999, I received the following 

Email from J. D. Kingston, “a retired 

businessman and retired judge” concerning 

the mandatory use of Social Security 

Numbers to secure bank accounts. Those 

of you who are interested in banking without 

Social Security Numbers should find Mr. 

Kingston’s opinions illuminating: 

Dear Alfred, 

You and your readers may be interested 

in the following series of e-mails. In Mid 

June, AD. 1998, I received a postcard from 

United Community Bank (UCB), 2100 FM 

407, Highland Village, TX 75077. The post- 

Banking Without 

Social Security 

by J.D. Kingston 

card was an invitation for me to “Join Us 

For Our Opening And Dedication . . .” They 

were obviously a new bank looking for some 

business. 

Since the postcard included UCB’s email 

address, I sent them an e-mail informing 

them that due to my sincere and truly 

held scriptural beliefs, I did not possess a 

social security number, and then asked them 

if they would accommodate me with a noninterest 

bearing account. The following are a 

series of e-mails between the bank’s representative, 

Rick Shoemake, and myself [J. 

Kingston]. 

25 Jun 1998 

Dear Mr. Kingston, 

Thank you for your interest in our bank. 

Though we are a new bank, we are staffed 

with professionals with many years of experience. 

The services you made reference to 

are services that we do offer. However, by 

regulation we are required to have local forms 

of identification and a SSI # is not optional. 

While we respect your very strong convictions, 

we unfortunately must comply with 

the regulatory requirements. 

Sincerely, Rick Shoemake 

United Community Bank, N.A. 

Member FDIC 

25 Jun 1998 

Dear Rick, 

Thank you for your prompt reply. In 

your reply you stated that, “. . . by regulation 

we are required to have local forms of identification 

and a SSI # is not optional.” I was 

totally unaware of that. Hope I didn’t cause 

you any inconvenience. BTW, would you be 

so kind to give me the citation of the regulation 

of which you speak? Thanks again for 

your time. 

Respectfully, JD Kingston 

27 Jun 1998 

Dear Mr. Kingston; 

I would be happy to provide you the 

regulation reference for the requirement of 

the TIN # [Taxpayer Identification Number], 

The following are Federal Register references: 

37 FR 13279 (6/30/72); 37 FR 26517 

(12/8/72); Title 26, Section 6109 of the Internal 

Revenue Code; 38 FR 3341 (2/5/93); 

38 FR 32336 (9/6/74) 

Sincerely, Rick Shoemake 

28 Jun 1998 

Dear Rick, 

Thank you once again for your prompt 

reply to my request. (And a “banker” answering 

email on Saturday!) :-) This indicates that 

the material printed in your brochure is not 

merely just more “propaganda” put out by 

business, but is the absolute truth. I appreciate 

you. 

Respectfully, JD Kingston 

2 Jul 1998 

Dear Mr. Kingston, 

Thank you for your kind words. Yes 

we do work on Saturdays! As a community 

bank we are here when the customer needs 

access to banking services. Have a good day. 

Rick Shoemake 

P.S. What line of work are you in? 

5 Jul 1998 

Dear Rick, 

It’s nice to see that some banks are concerned 

with their customers. Too few businesses 

today seem to forget that it’s their 

customers who allow the bills to be paid. 

You’re to be commended. 

There’s an old analogy about the railroads. 

They used to flourish. That’s when they thought 

they were in the “people” business. They moved 

“people” and “people’s” commodities. Then 


one day, the big shots decided they were not in 

the “people” business, but in the “railroad” 

business. The rest is history! 

I’m a retired businessman and retired 

judge. My wife and I travel 99% of the time 

and we would like to make Texas our “home 

base,” hence, our interest in your bank. We’re 

the kind of people who like to support the 

“little guy,” the “mom & pop” stores, and the 

“new kid on the block” so to speak. 

We actually have a bank now who 

doesn’t require a TIN from us, and I guess 

we’ll have to stay with them. If you have any 

“age” under your belt (I’m 56), you probably 

know that bureaucrats “never” pass a 

statute or regulation that doesn’t contain a 

loophole. 

I’d be happy to share the “loophole” to 

26 USC 6109 with you if you have any interest. 

Good luck with your bank, and to 

you personally. 

J.D. Kingston 

6 Jul 1998 

Always interested in learning, what is 

the loophole in 26 USC 6109? 

Rick Shoemake 

12 Jul 1998 

Re: 26 USC 6109 Part I 

Dear Rick, 

You would ask! :-) Sorry for the 

delay. Just got back from a two week trip. 

Had a great time. Supposed to leave again 

toward the end of the month. Hope I have 

enough time to satisfactorily answer your 

question before we have to leave. 

Rather than write a 10 page e-mail, 

which is unnecessarily cumbersome and 

unwieldy, I will split the answer to your question 

into parts (this being part I). 

I’ll try to be brief, but that always isn’t 

possible when trying to explain a convoluted 

law. E.g., 26 USC 6109 is comprised of subsections 

“(a)” through “(h)” as well as many 

sub-subsections–but–it has two subsections 

“( f )“ and no subsection “(g)”!!! 

The portion of 26 USC 6109 to which 

you referred is 26 USC 6109(a)(3) which is 

titled, “Furnishing number of another person.” 

It states that, “Any person...” (i.e., the 

Bank–which is an artificial person under the 

law) “Any person required under the authority 

of this title to make a return, statement, or 

other document with respect to another person 

. . .” (i.e., your customer) “. . . shall 

request . . .” (notice the word “request” here 

– notice that Congress did not use a word 

like “demand” or “require”–but they used 

the word “request”) “. . . shall request from 

such other person, and shall include in any 

such return, statement, or other document, 

such identifying number as may be prescribed 

for securing proper identification of such 

other person.” 

The word “request” was used here so 

this section would be found compatible to a 

myriad of other laws, including, but not limited 

to the Privacy Act. If a word like “demand” 

or “require” were used in this section, 

Congress ran the risk of having this 

section struck down by a court of law. 

For a company to comply with 26 USC 

6109(a)(3), said company must merely “request” 

an identifying number from a customer 

or an employee; but only if said company 

is required by law to make a return, 

statement, or other document. This “return 

requirement” would include virtually all corporations, 

most partnerships, and many sole 

proprietorships. 

Pursuant to this section, a company is 

required to “request” a number. The company 

is NOT required to “receive” a number. Nor, is 

the customer required to give a number. 

The “bad news” is, that if you are a 

company required to file a return and do not 

include all information (that includes identifying 

numbers for each of your customers) 

on the forms you send to an agency of government, 

pursuant to 26 USC 6721 and 6722, 

you can be fined $50.00. 

The “good news” is, that there is a loophole 

for each of those sections also. I’ll go 

into more detail, if you so desire, (i.e., if 

you’re still interested in learning) in a subsequent 

“part,” perhaps part II which will follow 

when time allows. 

Respectfully, J.D. Kingston 

12 Jul 1998 

Thanks for the info. Keep it coming! 

Have a good day, 

Rick Shoemake 

19 Jul 1998 

Re: 26 USC 6109 Part II 

I’ve studied a little history and it seems 

that mankind has had an affinity for sleeping 

and eating for some 6000 years now! Guess 

it will always be with us. 8-) It’s admirable 

to note that you’ve placed “spending time 

with your family” in the same category. 

Your previous P.S. reminds me something 

my father told me when I was 17 years 

old. He said, “Son, you can be a success in 

any endeavor you choose, if every day, you 

will commit to working half a day–and it 

really doesn’t matter which 12 hours it is!” 

On to the subject matter at hand. In Part 

I, we learned that pursuant to 26 USC 6109, 

a company is required to “request” an identi- 

fying number from a customer/employee, but 

a company is not required to “obtain” an identifying 

number. 

Now, suppose you have a customer 

with a “non-interest bearing” account and 

it’s time to file a report with the banking authorities 

or some other entity. Suppose you 

enter the person’s name on the report and 

leave blank the corresponding box that asks 

for that person’s identifying number. Now 

what happens? 

26 USC 6721 is titled “Failure to file 

correct information returns.” (Emphasis 

added. Leaving off a number that you never 

obtained does not make the return “incorrect.”) 

26 USC 6721(a) Imposition of Penalty. 

26 USC 6721 (a)(1) In general. In the 

case of a failure described in paragraph (a)(2) 

[below], by any person with respect to an 

information return, such person shall pay a 

penalty of $50 for each return with respect to 

which such a failure occurs, but the total 

amount imposed on such person for all such 

failures during any calendar year shall not 

exceed $250,000. 

26 USC 6721(a)(2) Failures subject to 

penalty. For purposes of paragraph (1), the failures 

described in this paragraph are — 

26 USC 6721(a)(2)(B) any failure to 

include all of the information required to be 

shown on the return or the inclusion of incorrect 

information. [emph. add.] 

So, if a company is “required” [26 USC 

6721(a)(2)(A)] by its regulatory authorities, 

to include “information” (such as an identifying 

number) on a return, and it fails to do 

so (or makes an innocent mistake by “the 

inclusion of incorrect information”), the company 

can be fined $50 [26 USC 6721(a)( 1)] 

for each failure but said fines shall not exceed 

$250,000!!! Whoa! 

26 USC 6721(e) Penalty in case of 

intentional disregard (Emph. added–JK.). 

If one or more failures described in 26 

USC 6721(a)(2) are due to intentional disregard 

(Emphasis added – JK.) of the filing 

requirement (or the correct information reporting 

requirement), then, with respect to 

each such failure – 

26 USC 6721(e)(2) the penalty imposed 

under subsection 26 USC 6721(a) shall be 

$100 . . . 

26 USC 672l(e)(3) in the case of any 

penalty determined under paragraph 26 USC 

6721(2) - 26 USC 672l(e)(3)(A) the 

$250,000 limitation under 26 USC 6721(a)(l) 

shall not apply . . . 

So now, if you omit an identifying number 

with “intentional disregard” [26 USC 


6721(e)] your fine (or penalty) is increased 

from $50 to $100 per occurrence. The maximum 

of $250,000 is lifted and you may now 

be fined an infinite amount! 

It’s no wonder companies don’t “request” 

a number. They see these statutes and they demand 

a number. Who in their right mind would 

subject their company to such huge fines (and 

still expect to keep their jobs–so they can “ 

sleep, eat, see my family, etc.”)? 

Sounds pretty grim–so far. I told you 

there was “good news” too. Maybe we’ll get 

to it next time. Keep balancing the “customer 

service” with quality “family time.” Wish I 

would have done better! 


25 Jul 1998 

26 USC 6109 Part III 

In Part II, we learned that any person 

who is required to submit a report that includes 

provisions for a TIN [or EIN (Employers 

Identification Number) or SSN], and 

omits that information, is subject to a fine of 

$50 per occurrence, but said fine shall not 

exceed $250,000 in any year! Now, the good 

news, aka the truth. 

26 USC 6724 is titled, “Waiver; definitions 

and special rules.” 

26 USC 6724(a) “Reasonable cause 

waiver. No penalty shall be imposed under 

this part with respect to any failure if it is 

shown that such failure is due to reasonable 

cause and not to willful neglect.” 

The $50 penalty described and imposed 

in 26 USC 6721(a)(1) will not be imposed if 

your omission was due to “reasonable cause”. 

Do you suppose that your failure to supply a 

number of a customer, who in turn failed to 

supply a number to you because it did not 

exist, would be considered “ reasonable 

cause”? If you answered in the affirmative, 

you’d be correct. 

Remember the term “shall request” in 

26 USC 6109? If you request a number, and 

your request is denied (for whatever reason), 

you have, in part, satisfied the “reasonable 

cause” requirement of 26 USC 6724(a) and 

no fine/penalty can be imposed pursuant to 

law. 

In the next “part,” we’ll examine portions 

of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) that pertain to this subject matter. For 

your “homework” you may study the following 

two definitions. : -) 

“Code of Federal Regulations. The 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the 

annual cumulation of executive agency regulations 

published in the daily Federal Register, 

combined with regulations issued previously 

that are still in effect. Divided into 50 

titles, each representing a broad subject area, 

individual volumes of the Code of Federal 

Regulations are revised at least once each 

calendar year and issued on a staggered quarterly 

basis. The CFR contains the general 

body of regulatory laws governing practice 

and procedure before federal administrative 

agencies.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, 

pp. 233, 234. 

“Federal Register. The Federal Register, 

published daily, is the medium for making 

available to the public Federal agency 

regulations and other legal documents of the 

executive branch. These documents cover a 

wide range of Government activities. An 

important function of the Federal Register is 

that it includes proposed changes (rules, regulations, 

standards, etc.) of governmental agencies. 

Each proposed change published carries 

an invitation for any citizen or group to 

participate in the consideration of the proposed 

regulation through the submission of 

written data, views, or arguments, and sometimes 

by oral presentations. Such regulations 

and rules as finally approved appear thereafter 

in the Code of Federal Regulations.” 

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, p.551. 


26 Jul 1998 

Subject: 26 USC 6109 Part IV 

Dear Rick, 

In “Part III” we learned that no penalty 

can be imposed for failing to include a TIN 

on a report, if your failure was due to “reasonable 

cause”. The “Code of Regulations” 

(CFR) sheds considerably more light on the 

subject. Before we look at the CFR in detail, 

let’s examine why it exists. 

The legislative branch of government 

is the only branch who possesses legislative 

(law making) powers. The executive and judicial 

branch of government possess no legislative 

powers. When the legislature passes 

a bill and the president signs it, the bill then 

becomes law, and it is recorded in a volume 

of books called “The United States Statutes 

At Large.” They (the laws) are recorded in 

chronological sequence. If you want to read 

a law that was passed, you would have to 

know “when” it was passed so you could 

find it. As you can imagine, this could be 

anywhere from “cumbersome” to “impossible.” 

To remedy the problem of finding laws, 

the laws have been codified (or sorted) by 

subject matter. After being codified, they are 

recorded in a new volume of books called 

“The United States Code” (USC). 

After a law has been passed, it is the 

responsibility of the executive branch of gov- 

ernment to see that the laws are executed 

properly. When a department of the executive 

branch of government determines that 

they are responsible to see that a particular 

law that was passed is within their authority, 

they write “rules and regulations” for their 

employees to execute that law. The executive 

department employees must abide by these 

rules and regulations when executing the law. 

“Laws” (“Statutes at large” passed by 

the legislature) are different from “rules and 

regulations” (passed by the executive department 

in order to implement the law). When 

the executive department writes these rules 

and regulations, they are required to publish 

them in the Federal Register. Thirty days after 

publication, the rules and regulations become 

valid. After becoming valid, they are 

published in a volume of books known as 

the “Code of Federal Regulations.” 

Of course, the rules and regulations 

should be compatible with all laws. If they 

are not, and they are challenged in a court of 

competent jurisdiction, they risk being struck 

down as being in contravention of some law. 

Hope this isn’t becoming to boring. In 

the next part, we’ll examine the specific “rules 

and regulations” (CFR) that pertains to 26 

USC 6124. 


27 Jul 1998 

Thanks for the input, not boring at all. 

Rick Shoemake 

30 Jul 1998 

Subject: 26 USC 6109 Part V 

Dear Rick, 

Thus far we saw that (1) a filer must 

“request” an identifying number; (2) that if 

the filer omits the number on a required report, 

the filer “may” be fined; (3) that the fine 

may be waived under certain (in fact, most) 

circumstances; (4) that the CFR (Code of 

Federal Regulations) does not contain “laws,” 

but only “executive agency regulations”; and, 

(5) that the Federal Register is the medium 

the executive branch uses to disseminate executive 

agency rules and regulations to the 

public at large. 

26 CFR 301.6724-1 (titled “Reasonable 

cause”) goes into great detail to explain 

how one will not be penalized. Such great 

length in fact, it contains about 8,035 words!! 

I won’t dwell on all of them here. (Was that 

a sigh of relief I heard?):-) You’re probably 

beginning to see what I meant when I used 

the phrase “convoluted law” in a past e-mail. 

Just this one CFR could take 2 or 3 or even 

4 e-mails! 

26 CFR 301.6724-1(a) is titled, 


“Waiver of the penalty.” The penalty for failure 

to provide information will be waived if 

it is determined that such failure is due to 

“reasonable cause,” to wit: 

26 CFR 301.6724-1(a)(1) “General 

rule. The penalty for a failure relating to an 

information reporting requirement (as defined 

in paragraph (j) of this section) is waived if 

the failure is due to reasonable cause and is 

not due to willful neglect.” (Emphasis added.) 

26 CFR 301.6724-1(c) is titled, and 

describes, “Events beyond the filer’s 

[corporation’s—JK] control—” (e.g., if a 

customer does not provide a SSN as requested 

because such number does not exist, 

it would certainly be deemed “beyond the 

filer’s control”.) 

26 CFR 301.6724-1(c)(6) is titled, and 

describes, “Actions of the payee [customer— 

JK] or any other person. In order to establish 

reasonable cause under paragraph (c)(1) 

of this section due to actions of the payee 

[emphasis added—JK] or any other person, 

such as a broker as defined in section 6045(c), 

providing information with respect to the 

return or payee statement, the filer must show 

either—” 

To Be Continued!!! 

Kind a’ like an old Alfred Hitchcock 

thriller! 8-) 

Respectfully, JK 

2 Aug 1998 

Subject: 26 USC 6109 Part VI 

We left off last time at: 26 CFR 

301.6724-1(c)(6) which is titled, and describes, 

“Actions of the payee [i.e., customer—JK] 

or any other person. In order to 

establish reasonable cause under paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section due to actions of the 

payee (emphasis added—mine) or any other 

person, such as a broker as defined in section 

6045(c), providing information with respect 

to the return or payee statement, the 

filer must show either—” 

26 CFR 301.6724-1(c)(6)(i) “That the 

failure resulted from the failure of the payee, 

or any other person required to provide information 

necessary for the filer to comply 

with the information reporting requirements, 

to provide information to the filer...” (Emphasis 

added—mine.) 

The other “either” [(ii)] pertains to “incorrect” 

TIN’s and is not relevant to our discussion. 

26 CFR 301.6724-1(e) talks about “Acting 

in a responsible manner—special rules 

for missing TIN’s—” 

26 CFR 301.6724-1(e)(1) “In general. 

A filer that is seeking a waiver for reasonable 

cause under paragraph (c)(6) of this sec- 

tion will satisfy paragraph (d)(2) of this section 

with respect to establishing that a failure 

to include a TIN or an information return 

resulted from the failure of the payee to provide 

information to the filer (i.e., a missing 

TIN) only if the filer makes the initial and, if 

required, the annual solicitations described in 

this paragraph . . .” (emphasis added) 

So if a company failed to include a TIN 

on a return, the penalty will be waived for 

reasonable cause, if the company makes an 

initial solicitation. (And in the case of “incorrect” 

TINs, a first annual solicitation and 

sometimes, a second annual solicitation. In 

the instant case, the 1st and 2nd annual solicitations 

are moot since we are not addressing 

“incorrect” TIN’s.) 

So, what’s a solicitation”? Looking again 

at Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, p. 1249, 

we’re informed that a solicitation is, “. . . Asking; 

enticing; urgent request . . .” 

When do you make the “initial solicitation”? 

We find the answer in 26 CFR 

301.6724-1(e)(1)(i) “Initial solicitation. An 

initial solicitation for a payee’s correct TIN 

must be made at the time an account is opened. 

The term ‘account’ includes accounts, relationships, 

and other transactions. 

26 CFR 301.6724-l(e)(1)(ii) “First annual 

solicitation...” pertains only to incorrect 

TIN’s. 

26 CFR 301.6724-1(e)(1)(iii) “Second 

annual solicitation. “likewise pertains only 

to incorrect TIN’s. 

BTW Rick, if you have any questions 

as we go along, just jump right in and ask. I 

promise to keep my answer shorter than the 

answer to your last question, “...what is the 

loophole in 26 USC 6109?” 


2 Aug 1998 

Subject: RE: 26 USC 6109 Part VI 

I find this most interesting, however, 

not having done my research of late on the 

subject, I believe I recall that my regulatory 

body has directed that we, as a bank, act 

assertively to secure the TIN and that without 

it we should not proceed with opening a 

relationship with the TIN holder. Hope you 

are staying cool! 

Rick Shoemake 

3 Aug 1998 

Subject: 26 USC 6109 Part VII 

By now, you’ve probably had enough 

exposure to the law to have guessed that there 

are “exceptions and limitations” to the 1st 

and 2nd annual requests, to correct an incorrect 

TIN. ?!? Most of those exceptions and 

limitations are beyond the scope of our dis- 

cussion, and for the sake of brevity, will be 

avoided. (I can’t believe I said “for the sake 

of brevity”! What is this, Part VII?!) 

However, one exception is pertinent. If 

you do not pay a customer any monies (as 

will be the case with a non-interest bearing 

account), you need not make annual solicitations, 

to wit: 26 CFR 301.6724-1(e)(l)(vi) 

“Exceptions and limitations.” 

26 CFR 301.6724-1(e)(1)(vi)(B) “An 

annual solicitation is not required to be made 

for a year under this paragraph (e) with respect 

to an account if no payments are made 

to the account for such year or if no return as 

defined in paragraph (g) of Sec. 301.6721-1 

is required to be filed for the account for the 

year.” (Emphasis mine.) 

In the next e-mail, we’ll try to start wrapping 

this up. 


13 Aug 1998 

Subject: 26 USC 6109 Part VIII 

Tried to figure out how (to stay cool) 

for 30 days—then it dawned on us.. LEAVE 

TOWN (which we promptly did–and vowed 

not to come back until the high’s would only 

be in the low 90’s)! Now we’re wondering 

why we came back so soon. 8-) 

Where were we? Oh, yeah–“wrapping 

this up.” What have we learned? Well, we 

learned that: 

(A) You are to “request” an identifying 

number from me when you open my noninterest 

bearing account–26 USC 6109(a)(3) 

B) Your request is deemed an “initial 

solicitation”–26 CFR 301.6724-1(e)(1)(i) 

C) You cannot be penalized for my actions 

(or lack thereof)–26 CFR 301.6724- 

1(c)(6) (If I don’t have a number, due to 

sincere and truly held Scriptural beliefs, or 

not, I can’t fulfill your request.) 

(D) You cannot be penalized for your 

actions that are due to a reasonable cause - 

26 CFR 301.6724-1(a)(1) 

(E) The Code of Federal Regulations 

do not comprise the law. They merely contain 

the rules that regulate the executive 

branch of government. 

(F) The Federal Register does not comprise 

the law. It merely contains proposed rules 

that may become part of the CFR. 

(G) If it doesn’t get any cooler, we’re 

going north again! 8-) 

There are two more Codes of which 

you should be aware. I’ll address one of them 

in my next e-mail, and the other one in my 

final e-mail, 



16 Aug 1998 

Subject: 26 USC 6109 Part IX 

Rest assured, I am only presenting the 

following two codes for your information, 

education, and knowledge. That bears repeating. 

I am ONLY presenting the following 

two codes for your information, education, 

and knowledge. 

Section 7(a)(1) of Public Law 93-579, 

entered at 88 Statutes At Large 1896, 1909 

(12/31 / 1974), codified at 5 USC 552a in 

the Notes, states that: “It shall be unlawful 

for any Federal, State or local government 

agency to deny to any individual any right, 

benefit, or privilege provided by law because 

of such individual’s refusal to disclose his 

social security account number.” 

However, as a banker, your might say, 

“we’re not a Federal, State or local government 

agency.” But if you said that, you’d be 

wrong. Look at a legal encyclopedia (such as 

American Jurisprudence or Corpus Juris 

Secondum) under “agency” and you’ll find a 

myriad of cases that prove the point. 

Turning once again to Black’s Law Dictionary, 

5th edition, pp. 57 & 58, we find: 

“Agency. Relation in which one person (like 

a corporation) acts for or represents another 

(like the gov’t) by latter’s authority, either in 

the relationship of principal and agent, master 

and servant, or employer or proprietor 

and independent contractor . . .”(Cases omitted; 

parenthesis added.) 

Does the bank corporation act by government 

authority and deduct FIT and FICA 

and turn them over to the principal/ master/ 

gov’t? 

“. . . The relation created by express or 

implied contract or by law (like a corporate 

charter), whereby one party (the gov’t) delegates 

the transaction of some lawful business 

with more or less discretionary power 

to another (the corporation), who undertakes 

to manage the affair and render to him (the 

gov’t) an account thereof” (Cases omitted; 

parenthesis added.) 

“. . . Or relationship where one person 

(the gov’t) confides the management of some 

affair (like collecting taxes) to be transacted 

on his account, to other party (the corporation). 

Or where one party (the corporation) 

is authorized to do certain acts for, or in relation 

to the rights or property of the other (the 

gov’t). But means more than tacit permission, 

and involves request, instruction, or 

command.” (Cases omitted; parenthesis 

added.) 

“. . . The consensual relation existing 

between two persons, by virtue of which 

one is subject to other’s control.” (Cases 

omitted; parenthesis added.) Is the corpora- 

tion subject to the government’s control? 

“Agency is the fiduciary relation which 

results from the manifestation of consent by 

one person (the gov’t) to another (the corporation) 

that the other (the corporation) shall 

act on his (the gov’ts) behalf and subject to 

his (the gov’t) control, and consent by the 

other (the corporation) so to act.” Restatement, 

Second, Agency Section 1. (Parenthesis 

added.) Do you know any corporations with 

a fiduciary relation? 

More next (and final–hopefully) time. 

JK 

16 Aug 1998 

Subject: 26 USC 6109 Part X 

Dear Rick, 

The other law that you need to be aware 

of is 42 USC 1983. But let me repeat again 

what I stated in my last e-mail. I am only 

presenting these two codes for your information, 

education, and knowledge. 

Title 42, Section 1983 is titled, “Civil 

action for deprivation of rights.” It states: 

“Every person (not many excluded 

here!) who, under color of any statute, ordinance, 

regulation, custom, or usage (‘under 

color’ means a deceptive appearance vs. that 

which is real—like “demand” v. “request”), 

of any State or Territory or the District of 

Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, 

any citizen of the United States or 

other person (not many excluded here, either!) 

within the jurisdiction thereof to the 

deprivation of any rights, privileges (is using 

a bank a right? a privilege?), or immunities 

secured by the Constitution and laws, 

shall be liable to the party injured in an action 

at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding 

for redress. For the purposes of this 

section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively 

to the District of Columbia shall be 

considered to be a statute of the District of 

Columbia.” (Parenthesis added.) 

If you knew back in mid June, what 

you know now, and I informed you that I did 

not possess a social security number due to 

my true and sincerely held Scriptural beliefs, 

and I asked you if you would accommodate 

me with a non-interest bearing checking account, 

what would your answer have been? 

Enjoyed writing to you. It keeps me 

sharp. Looking forward to your reply. 

God bless you and yours. 


6 Sep 1998 

Subject: 26 USC 6109 Part XI 

Greetings, 

Just returned from a three week trip. 

Why is it still hot??? My calendar reads “September”! 

I must confess that I was somewhat 

disappointed when I found no reply from 

you when we returned. Hope all is alright 

with you. I can only surmise why a reply 

was not forthcoming. 

The last time you replied was on 8/2/ 

98, and in that reply, you stated: “I find this 

most interesting, however, not having done 

my research of late on the subject, I believe I 

recall that my regulatory body has directed 

that we, as a bank, act assertively to secure 

the TIN and that without it we should not 

proceed with opening a relationship with the 

TIN holder.” 

One other law you should be aware of is 

42 USC 408(a)(8) which states in pertinent 

part: “Whoever . . . compels the disclosure of 

the social security number of any person in 

violation of the laws of the United States; shall 

be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof 

shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for 

not more than five years, or both.” 

For your own benefit, you may want to 

make sure that your regulatory body directives 

are in writing. 

In the event you “can’t” give me the 

courtesy of a reply, I understand. Everybody 

has a “boss”! I wish you well, my friend. 


8 Sep 1998 

Sorry, No offense intended. Have been 

extremely busy, and out of pocket. The Year 

2000 requirements and the regulatory protocol 

for documenting our preparedness has 

taken me away from being a banker and yadda 

yadda yadda. Will re-read your last couple 

of messages and get back with you. 

Rick Shoemake 

Mr. Kingston concluded his Email to 

the AntiShyster, writing: 

I waited three weeks and Mr. Shoemake 

never did keep his word and get back to me. 

I have since left the area and will not pursue 

this issue any further with Mr. Shoemake. I 

will not offer a similar statement to any other 

bankster at this time. 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ JK 

P.S. If you deem the foregoing worthy 

to publish, please withhold my address. 

Thank you. 


Fanning the flames of Trust Fever 

Implied, Resulting & 

Constructive Trusts 

by Thomas Conyngton 

I recently acquired a copy of Wills, 

Estates, and Trusts by Thomas Conyngton, 

published in 1921. Most people would find 

this book pretty dull, but if you’re interested 

in trusts, this book is so clearly written, 

it’s exciting. This book is a find. 

Approximately 100 pages of the book 

offers the most straight-forward explanation 

of trusts that I’ve seen. More importantly, 

the section on trusts tends to support 

or clarify much of the speculation we’ve 

previously published in the AntiShyster 

“Trust Fever” articles. 

For example, in AntiShyster Vol. 8, No. 

2, logic led me to conclude that since Federal 

Reserve Notes (FRNs) are loaned into 

circulation, the FRNs in our wallets are 

legally owned by the Federal Reserve System 

(the trust headed by Alan Greenspan). 

If so, legal title (ownership and true control) 

to everything we purchase with FRNs 

goes to the Federal Reserve System and we 

merely purchase equitable title (the privilege 

of possessing or using the property). 

However unlikely that speculation seemed, 

it seemed logically irresistible. But I had 

nothing to support that speculation. Until 

now. 

Conyngton’s Wills, Estates, and Trusts 

reveals that in 1921, it was commonly understood 

that using another person’s money 

to purchase property created a “resulting 

trust”. So now, I’ve not only confirmed 

that using FRNs could theoretically produce 

a trust in which the purchaser only 

receives equitable title to property, I even 

know that kind of trust’s proper name : 

“resulting trust”. Knowing the name, additional 

research should progress much 

more quickly. 

The text from Wills, Estates, and Trusts is 

reprinted in a black Times font; my comments 

are inserted in a Helvetica font. Virtually all 

of the italicized text are my highlights. 

356. Trusts – Definitions 

A trust is a legal arrangement by which 

a person known as the “trustee” holds property 

for the benefit and advantage of another, 

known as the “beneficiary” or, in legal 

phrase, as the cestui que trust. 

The parties to a trust are: (1) the creator, 

(2) the trustee, and (3) the beneficiary 

or cestui que trust. 

The property or subject matter may be 

real estate or money, goods, chattels, or 

choses in action. Anything that can be held 

legally may be the subject of a trust. 

Black’s Law Dictionary (4th 

Rev’d) defines “choses in action” to 

include certain “personal rights”. 

Thus, a trust might not only be used 

to contain physical property but 

could also be used to contain (or 

conceal) personal rights. 

Wherever the legal estate or interest 

is in one person and the equitable interest 

is in another, a trust exists. It is called a 

“trust” because it is founded on trust and 

confidence in the trustee, that he will carry 

out the wishes of the creator of the trust as 

expressed in the will or the deed of trust. 

A trust is not a contract and therefore 

no suit can be brought in a court of law for 

what is called a “breach of trust,” but in a 

court of equity a trust can be enforced, and 

hence all litigation concerning trusts is conducted 

in the courts of equity or chancery. 

A beneficiary or cestui que trust holds 

what is termed in law an “equitable title.” To 

explain this requires that some definition be 

given of the legal and technical distinction 

between common law and equitable titles. 

The vital distinction between trust estates 

and all other ordinary estates is that in 

every trust there are two interests. Both these 

interests are spoken of as estates. That of 

the trustee is known as the legal estate and 

that of the beneficiary as the equitable estate. 

As the legal owner of the property the 

trustee may be personally liable for any 

nuisance created by the property or conducted 

on the property. At the same time the 

trustee is not allowed to derive any benefit 

from the property or from the trust. 

On the other hand, it is not intended 

that the trusteeship should become a personal 

burden to the trustee. All the expense 

which the trusteeship involves, such as repairs, 

insurance, taxes, legal expense, etc., 

may be paid for [“deducted”?] out of the 

trust funds. 

§ 357. Common Law Titles 

The common law of England, from 

which most of our own law has been derived, 

was simple and direct. It did not recognize 

anything but direct ownership by 

the man in possession of property. If property 

were left by will to Arthur Howe, “in 

trust,” to collect the rents and income and to 

pay them over to the testator’s widow, the 

common law courts would not enforce the 

trust, and if Arthur Howe failed to pay over 

the profits to the widow the courts of common 

law could give no relief. So far as the 

common law was concerned, such a thing 

as property held “in trust” did not exist. It 

recognized that Arthur Howe had the legal 

title, and that was the only title the common 

law courts would enforce. 

Because the common law would not 

assist the beneficiary of a trust, and because 

in many other ways it had no flexibility or 

adaptability to an advancing civilization, 

those who could not right their wrongs in 

the common law courts petitioned the king 

as the fountain of justice to give them relief. 

The king referred these various complaints 

as they arose to his chancellor. The king’s 

chancellor was a church dignitary and was 


well pleased to administer the principles of 

the Roman or civil law in which all dignitaries 

of the church were trained. 

§358. Courts of Equity 

Gradually, many causes which the 

courts of common law would not hear were 

in this way brought to the attention of the 

chancellor and there gradually developed a 

widely extended system of jurisdiction, 

called, to distinguish it from the common 

law, “equity jurisdiction,” and the courts in 

which it was administered were called from 

the chancellor, “courts of chancery or equity.” 

Having two systems of legal relief in 

the same country was confusing and uneconomical 

but it came about in the course 

time, and for more than two hundred years 

the courts in England were divided into two 

distinct systems, one termed “law” and the 

other termed “equity.” The terms so used 

add to the layman’s confusion because the 

decisions of the courts of chancery are as 

much the law of the land as the decisions of 

the courts of common law, and neither court 

has any monopoly of the quality of equity. 

When a lawyer says that a case is an 

equitable case, he means that it will have to 

be tried in a court of equity, and when he 

talks of a law case he means that suit must 

be brought in a court of common law and 

not in a court of chancery. 

Equity procedure was at first simple 

and informal, but human nature loves forms 

and settled customs, and chancery procedure 

soon became more formal and complex 

than even the common law, and a chancery 

suit became proverbially slow. [Is this 

the foundation of modern “administrative 

procedure”?] 

Equity was brought to this country and, 

as in England, was used as a separate system 

to supplement the defects of the common 

law. 

In some states the attempt has been 

made to combine law and equity and to have 

both legal and equitable cases tried before 

the same courts, but even where this is the 

case the legal profession has kept up the 

distinction between the two. 

In fact, it is not possible to understand 

our system of administering justice without 

a recognition of this difference between what 

is technically and arbitrarily called “law” 

and “equity.” 

§ 359. Equitable Titles 

As has been said, the courts of common 

law refused to give any relief to the 

person who was to benefit by property placed 

in trust, if the trustee refused to do his duty. 

The courts of chancery did give relief, and 

all litigation concerning trusts and their administration 

is to this day a most important 

function of chancery jurisdiction. It is vitally 

necessary to any study of the law of 

trusts that at least as much as has here been 

given in regard to the distinction between 

“law” and “equity” and the difference between 

“legal titles” and “equitable titles” 

should be understood. 

§ 360. The Legal Title in the Trustee 

An essential element in a trust is that 

the trustee has the legal title. If it is real 

estate, every feature of ownership, title on 

public records, actual possession, liability 

for taxes, right to sue for trespass, etc., is in 

the trustee. No one else has power to sell, 

mortgage, or lease. Every element of legal 

possession is in the trustee. In event of the 

death of a sole trustee, his heirs would take 

the property if it was land, and his executors 

or administrators if it was personal 

property. Those who thus take the legal estate 

would take it charged with the trust. 

Heirs and executors cannot be compelled 

to act as trustees against their will, and if 

they decline, the court having jurisdiction 

will appoint new trustees to succeed the 

original trustees. If there are several trustees, 

the title will pass to the survivors until 

no one is left. 

§ 361. Equitable Title in Beneficiary 

As the legal title is in the trustee so is 

the beneficial interest entirely in the one for 

whose benefit the trust was created. Unless 

the instrument by which the trust is created 

provides otherwise, the beneficiary, if of 

age, can sell or dispose of his or her equitable 

estate [right of use, possession] in 

the property as freely as can the owner of a 

legal title. 

In other words, the holder of 

equitable title (right of use) of a 

property can sell/transfer it to third 

party while the party holding legal 

title remains unchanged. Thus, if 

the state owned legal title to “your” 

car, you could still sell/transfer 

your equitable title to that car to 

me any time you liked. I, in turn, 

could also freely sell/transfer my 

newly purchased equitable title to 

the car to a brand new purchaser. 

But through this potentially endless 

series of transfers of equitable title, 

legal title would constantly remain 

in the state. 

When it is desired to prevent anything 

of this kind, the deed or will may provide 

against it. Being an equitable title, any dispute 

concerning its terms or interference with 

the rights of the beneficiary will have to be 

settled in a court of equity instead of in a 

court of law. 

§ 362. Creating a Trust 

The purposes for which trusts are created 

are at this time diverse. Suffice it for 

the present to state that perhaps the most 

common and simplest illustration of the creation 

of a trust is afforded by the case of a 

man with wife and children, who makes his 

will and arranges that if he dies his property 

will be safe and the income be applied to the 

maintenance of those dependent on him. In 

such case it would be natural that he should 

select some capable business man or men, 

younger than himself, and leave the property 

to them, in trust, to handle it and care 

for it, and to pay over the income to his wife 

for herself and the children. This kind of 

transfer could be done by will or by deed or 

conveyance of some kind. 

The effect would be to make his friend 

or friends trustees, and his wife and children 

would be beneficiaries. The legal estate 

would go to the trustees, and if it were 

necessary to prosecute trespassers or there 

were a suit about the title to any part of the 

estate, such a suit would be brought in a 

common law court. But if his friends died 

or became incompetent, his wife and children, 

[beneficiaries] having only an equitable 

interest, would go to a court of equity 

for relief. 

This implies that if you want to 

escape the administrative tyranny of 

courts of equity, you might want to 

frame your case as a question of 

“trespass” or “title”. Otherwise, virtually 

all cases involving trust property 

or trust relationships will be heard in 

courts of equity where the judge 

can do almost anything he wants. 

A court of equity would have power to 

do whatever was necessary to be done. It 

could require the trustees to account, and 

show what they had done in managing the 

property, what income or profits had been 

collected, and what part had been paid over. 

If there had been carelessness or fault, the 

court could compel restitution. If the trustees 

were incompetent or dishonest, the court 

could remove them and appoint more reliable 

men. In short, a court of equity has 

power to do whatever should be done to make 

the trust effectual. 

[“Whatever should be done” im- 


plies the broad, unbridled powers 

of equity court judges.] 

Whenever, by will or deed, the legal interest 

in real or personal property is placed in 

one person while the equitable or beneficial 

interest is in another, a trust has been created. 

“It may be stated as a general proposition, 

that everyone competent to enter into a 

contract, or to make a will, or to deal with 

the legal title to property, may make such 

disposition of it as he pleases; and he may 

annex such conditions and limitations to the 

enjoyment of it as he sees fit; and he may 

vest it in trustees for the purpose of carrying 

out his intention. All persons, sui juris, 

have the same power to create trusts that 

they have to make a disposition of their property.” 

(Perry on Trusts, § 28.) 

Black’s Law Dictionary defines 

“sui juris” as “ Of his own right; possessing 

full social and civil rights; 

not under any legal disability or the 

power of another or guardianship. 

Having capacity to manage one’s 

own affairs; not under legal disability 

to act for one’s self.” 

Beneficiaries and subjects of 

Congress are “under the power of 

another” and thus not “sui juris”. As 

such, it appears that only freemen 

can form trusts while beneficiaries 

and subjects can only endure them. 

§ 363. The Instrument That Creates a 

Trust 

A trust may be created by will, by deed 

of trust, by declaration of trust, or if it concerned 

only personal property , theoretically 

a trust could be created orally. Practically, no 

trusts are created orally, but they always come 

into being by some written instrument. 

If “oral” trusts are impractical, they 

are not impossible. I can’t help wondering 

if there might be some trick 

words or questions used by lawyers, 

judges or even police to create “oral 

trusts” when we confront the government. 

If we replied innocently to such 

questions, could we be unwittingly reduced 

to the status of beneficiary? 

According as trusts are created by will 

or by some other written instrument, they 

are classified as “testamentary trusts” or as 

“voluntary trusts.” In neither case is there 

any prescribed form of words that is necessary 

to create a trust. It is usual and always 

advisable to use the words “in trust” to introduce 

the purposes of the trust and the 

disposition of the property and income 

placed in the custody of the trustee. 

Because no particular language 

is required to create a trust, the 

only way a trust can be recognized 

is by the resulting relationships between 

parties and property. Since 

the average person has no understanding 

of trust relationships, and 

there is no required language that 

readily signals the presence of a 

trust, it is entirely possible for all 

of us to be unwittingly involved in 

any number of trust relationships – 

each of which can impose duties 

and obligations that are entirely unknown 

to us. Thus, as is the fundamental 

premise in “Trust Fever,” 

government could easily use “semiinvisible” 

(or “implied”) trusts to 

change our status from that of 

freeman, sovereign or Citizen with 

unalienable rights to that of beneficiary 

whose “rights” are reduced 

to privileges and whose issues may 

only be heard in courts of equity. 

The potential for oppression is enormous. 

A “testamentary trust” is so called because 

it is created by a last will and testament. 

A “voluntary trust” is so called because 

it is in practically all cases created by 

a voluntary deed or instrument of transfer 

executed not under compulsion or to fulfil a 

contract obligation, but freely to secure some 

kindly or benevolent purpose. 

So suppose your registered your 

car for the beneficicial purpose of preventing 

theft, or applied for Social Security 

benefits – could these acts create 

a trust and reduce you to the status 

of beneficiary? I think so. 

§ 364. Express Trusts 

Nearly all trusts are express or direct 

trusts – that is, they are created by wills or 

other instruments that directly and explicitly 

describe the property that is to be the subject 

of the trust, the person or persons who 

are to be trustees, and the persons who are 

to be the beneficiaries, and set forth what 

the trustees are to do with the property and 

the disposition that is to be made of the 

income and, finally, of the fund or property 

itself. If the language of the will or other 

instrument is not clear and explicit, a trust 

might be implied or presumed which, to 

distinguish it from an express trust, would 

be called an “implied trust.” 

An express trust in land must of necessity 

be in writing to conform to the provisions 

of the Statute of Frauds. In most 

states in this country it is possible to create 

an express trust in personal property by 

parol [verbal agreement]. 

§ 365. Implied Trusts 

In some cases where the language will 

not create an express trust, the court will 

imply a trust from the intentions of the creator. 

It often happens in a will that a testator 

will leave property to a legatee and then 

add a wish, a hope, a desire, or a request, 

that the legatee will give or transfer a certain 

portion to someone else. If it seems to 

the court that the intention was to impose 

an obligation on the legatee, it will be held 

to be an implied trust. If, instead, the intention 

seems to be merely to suggest a gift, 

leaving it to the discretion of the legatee, no 

trust will be implied. 

Since, by definition, there is no 

“express trust” present, the creation of 

an “implied trust” does not rely on the 

express intentions of the creator, but 

on the court’s interpretation of the 

creator’s presumed intentions. Do you 

suppose that many of the legal presumptions 

we face in court are the result 

of implied trusts? 

A resulting trust arises when property 

is purchased in the name of a party who did 

not own the purchase money. 

Do you “own” legal title to the 

FRNs or Visa card in your wallet? 

Since government can seize your 

cash without due process, it appears 

that you do not own your 

FRNs. Likewise, if Visa or Master 

Card can “repossess” your credit 

card without due process, you 

must not be the true (legal) owner 

of those instruments. If so, legal 

title to any property you purchase 

with those instruments may not 

belong to you, but instead belong 

to the true owner of the FRNs’ and 

Visa cards. Therefore, all you can 

“purchase” with those instruments 

is equitable title (use) of your various 

“possessions” while legal title 

(real ownership and control) of your 

house, car and savings may be held 

in a “resulting” trust in favor of the 

FRNs’ and credit cards’ true 

owner(s). (Probably the Federal 

Reserve System and/or national 

government.) 

If a trustee took funds that he had in 

trust and bought land in his own name, a 

court of equity would imply a trust for the 

benefit of the one for whose benefit the 

funds were held. This case of property 


deeded to someone other than the owner of 

the purchase money occurs frequently, and 

the rights of the true owner are saved by the 

device of a resulting trust. 

Do Certificates of Title 

“deeded” in your name only grant 

you equitable title (use) of “your” 

car, while “the rights of the true 

owner (the state) are saved by the 

device of a resulting trust”? 

Another form of implied trust is where 

a fraud has been perpetrated and to rectify it 

the courts declare a constructive trust for 

the benefit of the person defrauded. If a 

guardian bought the property of his ward in 

fraud of the ward’s rights, the courts would 

imply a trust and decree that he held it as 

trustee for his ward. This class of trusts 

arises in many forms and illustrates the wide 

range of the powers of a court of equity in 

correcting fraud. 

Since FRNs have no substantial 

backing and therefore aren’t 

true money, and since a seller can’t 

be paid without use of true money, 

it might be argued that any transaction 

using FRNs is a fraud which 

allows the court to create a “constructive 

trust” and reduce some 

parties to the status of beneficiary. 

§ 367. Powers of Trustees 

It is not uncommon for land to be left to 

trustees, in trust, to sell and invest the proceeds 

in good, income-producing stocks, the 

income to be paid over, etc. In such case the 

exercise of the power is imperative, and must 

be carried into effect. In other cases the trustees 

are given an optional power, which they 

can exercise or not at their discretion. For 

instance, it might be provided that “said trustees 

may at their discretion sell the securities 

included in the trust property and buy other 

securities with the proceeds, and in the purchase 

of such other securities shall not be 

limited to securities by statute prescribed for 

savings banks and trustees.” 

In New York the statute prescribes that 

every trust power must be exercised unless 

its execution is made to depend on the will 

of the trustee. 

Emphasis on the “discretionary 

powers” of trustees reminds me of 

the “discretionary powers” routinely 

exercised by judges. Do our 

judges always hear our cases “judicially” 

(in law) or are they also 

authorized act as trustees to ad- 

minister trust property, duties and 

relationships in courts of equity? 

§ 402. Resulting Trusts 

A resulting trust is a trust raised by 

implication or construction of law, and presumed 

to exist from the supposed intention 

of the parties and the nature of the transaction. 

When in order to do justice it is necessary 

to imply a trust, it is a resulting trust; 

that is, from the circumstances a trust results. 

If a trustee used trust funds to purchase 

real estate in his own name, it is presumed 

that he holds that real estate as a 

trustee for the original cestui que trust. A 

trust results from his action. 

Note that no paperwork, 

knowledge or agreement is necessary; 

a resulting trust can be instantly 

“created” without any of 

the immediate parties’ knowledge 

or intent. 

If a partner uses the firm funds to buy 

a piece of land and he takes title in his own 

name, there is a resulting trust in favor of 

the partnership. If an estate is taken in the 

name of one person, while the price is paid 

by another, there is a resulting trust in favor 

of the person who furnished the price, unless 

there is some good reason otherwise to 

explain the transaction. 

The previous language describing 

“resulting trusts” suggests their 

existence is fragile since they are 

based on wispy implications and 

presumptions. So long as the underlying 

presumptions are unstated 

and therefore unchallenged by litigants, 

the “resulting trusts” will be 

presumed to exist by the courts 

and thus determine the outcome 

of a trial. However, if these “resulting 

trusts” could be identified, 

understood, and their underlying 

presumptions expressly denied – 

the “resulting trusts” might disappear, 

leaving the case to be heard 

in law (where litigants have unalienable 

rights) rather than equity 

(where we enjoy mere privileges). 

§ 403. Constructive Trusts 

Under certain circumstances of fraud, 

the courts, to right the wrong, construe a 

trust. That is, a constructive trust is a trust 

forced upon a party who has obtained property 

by fraud in favor of the person who 

has been defrauded. 

If anyone, by fraud, deceit, or crooked 

dealing of any kind, secures a conveyance 

or transfer of another’s property to himself, 

he will be held to have made himself trustee 

for the benefit of the one who has been 

defrauded, and a court of equity will force 

him to account for income or to do whatever 

a trustee could be compelled to do in 

similar case. 

If a guardian bought property of his 

ward, a court of equity would construe it as 

prima facie fraudulent and would make the 

guardian a trustee of the property for the 

benefit of his ward. If an attorney had dealings 

with his client, they would be viewed 

with suspicion and the attorney might be 

held to be a trustee. If an agent employed to 

buy a property for his principal buys it for 

himself, he will be held to hold as a trustee 

for his principal. Broadly, no one will be 

allowed to hold a benefit acquired by fraud 

or a breach of his duty. 

The cases where this doctrine has been 

invoked are manifold, and courts of equity 

avoid closely defining the fraud on which they 

will act, in order to prevent the ill-disposed 

from evading the letter of the definition. 

“The leading principle of this remedial 

justice is by way of equitable construction 

to convert the fraudulent holder of property 

into a trustee, and to preserve the property 

itself as a fund for the purpose of recompense.” 

(Perry on Trusts, Sect. 170) 

Many people believe that our 

corporate government has employed 

one or more devices to deceive 

and otherwise deprive the 

American People of the unalienable 

rights which were granted by God, 

declared by our Declaration of Independence 

(1776) and protected 

by the Constitution for the United 

States of America (1789). If government 

has deprived us of any of 

our unalienable rights through 

fraud, then it might follow that government 

has created a “constructive 

trust” wherein government 

serves as trustees responsible for 

preserving the unalienable rights of 

the American people (beneficiaries) 

until such time as We learn enough 

about trusts to remove our unfaithful 

trustees, terminate the constructive 

trust and/or otherwise regain 

title to our unalienable rights. 

I know “Trust Fever” is a subtle 

and challenging concept to understand. 

But stick with it – once you 

really grasp “Trust Fever”, you’ll see 

it’s hhhhot, H-O-T! 


y Alfred Adask 

Last Last Last refuge refuge for for scoundrels 

scoundrels 

Early in his Presidency, Clinton described 

the Constitution as a “radical” political 

document and implied that its “extremist” 

philosophy was no longer appropriate for 

our nation. 

According to Ballint Vazsonyi (Director, 

Center for the American Founding): 

“In his second Inaugural Address, 

President Clinton called for a new Constitution. 

He borrowed language from the Declaration 

of Independence where, in 1776, 

Thomas Jefferson argued for a new government. 

While Mr. Clinton did not refer to the 

Constitution in so many words, his meaning 

was clear. ‘We need a new government for a 

new century,’ he proclaimed on January 20, 

1997. Unlike our present government, this 

new government would ‘give’ a number of 

benefits to the American people.” 

If a new constitution were installed to 

“give benefits” to all Americans, that constitution 

would relegate all Americans to the 

status of “beneficiaries” within a new national 

trust. By definition, all “beneficiaries” 

are without legal title to trust property or therefore 

without legal rights within the context 

of that trust. I.e., Clinton’s new constitution 

dedicated to “giving benefits” to all Americans 

will first and foremost give us the “benefit” 

of serfdom and slavery without legal 

rights. 

However, it’s ironic and probably hypocritical, 

that during his impeachment, Clinton 

repeatedly insisted that the impeachment process 

be fully “constitutional”. In other 

words, faced with personal troubles, Clinton 

suddenly sought to wrap himself in the folds 

of the same “radical” Constitution he’d previously 

disparaged. Still, although he used 

Hipshots 

the Constitution to defend himself, Clinton 

remains shamelessly dedicated to diminishing 

or destroying the Constitution he allegedly 

swore to “support and defend”. 

Suing Suing gun gun grabbers 

grabbers 

There’s a much publicized movement 

afoot to sue gun manufacturers for any deaths 

or injuries ultimately “caused” by their guns. 

Such lawsuits generally argue that the gun 

manufacturers (much like cigarette manufacturers) 

know their products can be used to 

kill people but nevertheless refuse to provide 

additional safety features necessary to 

stop those killings. Ultimately, these lawsuits 

are based on statistical evidence of gun 

use in the murders of innocent people, law 

enforcement officers, etc. 

Well, maybe these gun-grabbers have a 

point. Maybe anyone who manufacturers a 

product that can be shown to cause the deaths 

of other people should be held accountable 

for those deaths, even if the manufacturer 

has no direct involvement with the use/ misuse 

of his product. 

For example, there is emerging statistical 

evidence that those states and communities 

which have recently legalized handgun 

ownership and/or the right to carry concealed 

weapons have since enjoyed a significant 

decrease in rape, robbery, and even homicide. 

That is, just as gun-grabbers have statistics 

to “prove” guns cause deaths, the gun 

rights advocates now have statistical proof 

that guns save lives, prevent crimes, and reduce 

rapes. Therefore, if victims of guns 

can sue gun manufacturers, those unarmed 

persons who’ve been victimized by robbery, 

rape or murder might also be able to sue 

those organizations that “caused” gun-con- 

trol and thereby increased public vulnerability 

to crime. 

At first, the idea of holding an organization 

liable for political advocacy would 

seem to violate the 1st Amendment promise 

of Free Speech and Press. However, 

organiztions are not people, especially nonprofit 

organizations. These organizations 

have charters or incorporation papers which 

define their purposes and thereby limit their 

activities. 

For example, suppose a non-profit 

organization’s charter declared that it would 

be used for charitable, educational or some 

other purpose intended to benefit the public. 

Could such an educational organization continue 

to disperse information that it knew to 

be false? I.e., could a gun-control organization 

continue to advocate gun-control if it 

had proper Administrative Notice of statistical 

evidence that gun-control costs lives while 

gun-ownership saves lives? Could a charitable 

organization chartered to help the public 

advocate gun-control if it had been properly 

Noticed that a disarmed public is more 

vulnerable to robbery, rape and murder as 

well as higher associated taxes and insurance 

rates? I don’t think so. 

Activists who knowingly operate in violation 

of their organization’s charter do so in 

bad faith and may be personally liable. Organizations 

that knowingly violate their charter 

purposes can be dissolved. 

Perhaps a clever gun rights advocate 

could use one of the anti-gun lawsuits as a 

template for suing gun-grabbers. Just find 

one or more “victims” of gun restriction laws 

(people who were robbed or raped or lost 

family members to murder in part because 

they were prevented from defending them- 


selves by “negligent” political activists who 

knowingly worked to deprive them of their 

right to effectively defend themselves) and 

sue whatever private organizations advocated 

gun control in open violation to the Constitution 

and in willful defiance of proper Notice 

that guns save lives, reduce crime rates – 

and thereby even reduce our taxes. Since 

statistical evidence indicates gun control is 

bad public policy, any activist organization’s 

charter that declares its purpose is to help the 

public may be prohibited from advocating 

gun control. 

It shouldn’t be too hard to find people 

who’ve been robbed or raped and are willing 

to testify that if only they could have owned 

or carried a gun either 1) they might not have 

been victimized and 2) they wouldn’t continue 

to suffer anguish from knowing that, 

legally unarmed, they remain every bit as 

vulnerable today as they were when they were 

first assaulted. If large numbers of American 

lives are jeopardized by gun-control 

laws, such laws might even invite class-action 

suits. 

If Smith & Wesson can be sued because 

someone improperly used one of their 

guns to commit murder (an act clearly not 

advertised or intended by the gun manufacturer), 

then gun control advocates whose 

activities have disarmed us and thereby increased 

our vulnerability to crime and violence 

should be similarly liable. In most 

cases, the primary reason why people are 

killed by firearms is not because a criminal 

had a gun, but because the victim did not. 

Incidentally, if this sort of strategy could 

be developed and used to sue gun-grabbers, 

some of the gun manufacturers might be 

willing to subsidize the suit. 

Chances Chances are 

are 

The first headnote in Kershaw et al. v. 

Julien, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 10th, 

7/27/1934 (72 F 2d, 528) declares: “Fraud 

is never presumed, but it may be established 

by circumstantial evidence.” 

In other words, the courts always presume 

that no fraud took place in a particular 

case and therefore that presumption can only 

be overcome with proof. This “no fraud” 

presumption sounds much like a presumption 

of good faith; that is, the courts may 

always presume that government did not 

commit fraud or intend to deceive, and therefore 

acts in “good faith”. 

Fraud appears to be a prime example of 

“bad faith”. If so, any evidence and express 

allegations of fraud might refute the presumption 

of “good faith” and resultant immunity 

and send government officials scrambling 

for (personal) cover. 

Another headnote, same case: 

“Misrepresentation of facts by bank 

officer. Statement by experienced banker to 

confiding customer that note was offered for 

sale when banker knew that it was not held 

misrepresentation of fact and not an expression 

of opinion.” 

Although this case headnote specifically 

applies to bankers, it seems probable that 

any “experienced” officer might be similarly 

obligated to know and therefore tell the truth. 

Note that an officer’s personal liabilility depends 

on his level of “experience” (not new 

to his job) and his “knowedge” the true facts 

of the situation. Then, an experienced and 

knowledgable officer can’t excuse his deception 

by arguing his comments were mere 

“statement of opinion”. 

Third headnote, same case: 

“Duty to speak. When duty to speak 

exists, suppression of truth is actionable.” 

Hmm. Well, how could we establish a 

government official’s “duty to speak”? I’d 

guess the laws are contrived so only a very 

few officials have a duty to speak (tell the 

truth). 

However, there’s a fascinating little definition 

in Black’s Law Dictionary (4th Rev’d) 

which reads in part: 

“LAST CLEAR CHANCE. The ‘last 

clear chance doctrine’ is that a party who has 

last clear chance to avoid damage or injury to 

another is liable. . . . that negligence of party 

having last opportunity of avoiding accident 

is sole proximate cause of injury . . . The 

doctrine means that an injured party may recover, 

notwithstanding negligence: if defendant 

could have avoided injury after discovering 

or knowing of peril . . . . [I]f, with 

knowledge of peril to plaintiff or plaintiff’s 

property, another acts or omits to act and 

injury results . . . . [O]ther decisions hold 

that the doctrine applies if defendant, aware 

of plaintiff’s peril or unaware of it only 

through carelessness, has later oportunity 

than plaintiff to avert the accident . . . .” 

Does the “last chance doctrine” create 

personal liability for officials or attorneys 

who knowingly allow a common person to 

unwittingly damage himself or someone else? 

For example, does a lawyer violate the “last 

clear chance doctrine” by providing only a 

weak or ineffective defense for his client? 

And what if a lawyer and/or prosecutor 

knowingly entice a defendant to accept a plea 

bargain which would seemingly result in a 

minimum sentence, but instead results in an 

enormous, unexpected sentence – could that 

prosecutor or lawyer be sued for failing to 

exercise the “last clear chance” to warn and 

protect the defendant? 

Could it be argued that a judge, prosecutor, 

attorney or even clerk who allowed a 

common person to file an “application for 

benefits” (without realizing he would suffer 

a consequent loss of his former private rights) 

is guilty of violating that doctrine? And isn’t 

it theoretically possible that this “last clear 

chance doctrine” might create a “duty to 

speak” – especially if one charged with the 

duty to impliment justice (like a prosecutor), 

saw an injustice taking place, and failed to 

speak out? 

Thus, the “last clear chance” doctrine 

seems to create a very special duty for experienced 

professionals like lawyers, prosecutors, 

judges and other government officials 

who knowingly allow private citizens to ignorantly 

damage themselves or others: 

“You shoulda warned me, Judge [prosecutor, 

lawyer, etc.], that the choice you allowed 

[or encouraged] me to make was contrary 

to my interests and would damage me.” 

(I.e., by violating your duty to speak, you 

acted in bad faith, lost your good faith immunity 

– and now I’m gonna sue your lights 

out.) 

Licenses?! 

Licenses?! 

Licenses?! 

We We don’ don’ need 

need 

no no stinkin’ stinkin’ licenses! 

licenses! 

On August 6, 1997, the Court of Appeals, 

Fourth Court of Appeals, District of 

Texas, San Antonio published the following 

Opinion (Appeal No. 04-95-00650-C) for 

the case of “Daniel C. ARTEAGA, Appellant 

v. The STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.” 

This Opinion reversed a previous conviction 

and acquited Daniel C. Arteaga for driving 

with an expired drivers license. Although 

the opinion was stamped, “DO NOT PUB- 

LISH,” the AntiShyster delights in publishing 

cases which help both public and government 

officials understand the law – especially 

those cases which are intentionally unpublished, 

pesumably to conceal the law. 

This appeal is taken from a conviction 

for unlawfully driving a motor vehicle upon 

a public highway during a period in which 

the driver’s privilege to drive was suspended. 

Appellant, Daniel Arteaga, entered a plea of 

not guilty but was convicted in a bench trial. 

His punishment was assessed at ninety days 

confinement in the county jail and a fine of 

$300. The imposition of the sentence was 

suspended and appellant was placed on community 

supervision for six months. 

Appellant advances five points of error, 

the first being a challenge to the legal 

sufficiency of the evidence to support the 

conviction. On March 31, 1995, Balcones 

Heights Police Officer Danny Tomlison observed 

apellant driving a white 1980 Dodge 

pickup truck without a rear license plate. The 

officer initiated a traffic stop. Appellant was 

arrested and charged with driving a motor 


vehicle while his privilege to drive was suspended. 

The statute at issue provides: 

(a) A person commits an offense if the 

person operates a motor vehicle on a highway: 

(1) during a period that a suspension of 

the person’s driver’s license or nonresident 

operating privilege is in effect under this 

chapter; or, 

(2) while the person’s driver’s license is 

expired, if the license expired during a period 

of suspension imposed under this chapter. 

TEX TRANS CODE ANN. Sect. 

601.371(a)(1), (2) (Vernon Pamp. 1997) 

To obtain a conviction under this statute, 

the prosecution must show either that 

the accused had an unexpired license which 

was suspended at the time of the alleged offense 

or that the accused’s privilege to drive 

was suspended at or before the time his license 

expired by its own terms, and that the 

privilege remained suspended from the expiration 

date to the time of the alleged offense. 

See Allen v. State, 681 S.W. 2 nd 38, 40 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Smith v. State, 895 

S.W. 2d 449, 452 (Tex. App. Dallas 1995, 

pet. ref’d). 

The evidence in the instant case showed 

appellant’s driver’s license expired on November 

2, 1992. This Texas driver’s license 

was suspended on July 14, 1993, and again 

on January 1, 1994, for failure to comply 

with the Texas Safety Responsibilities Act. 

Thus, it is clear that at the time of appellant’s 

arrest, his driver’s license had been suspended 

after his license had expired. The State confesses 

error and agrees that the evidence is 

legally insufficient to sustain the conviction. 

Point of error is sustained. In view of our 

disposition of this point of error, we not reach 

the other points of error. [Emph. add.] 

The judgment of conviction is reversed 

and appellant is ordered acquitted. See Burks 

v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 18 (1978); 

Green v. Massey, 437 U.S. 19, 24 (1978). 

JOHN F. ONION, JR. 

JUSTICE 

The appellate court says it’s legal to 

drive with an expired drivers license in Texas 

if the license was not suspended at the time 

of expiration. Thus, the court confirms that 

a current drivers license is not mandatory to 

drive in Texas. 

What’ What’ What’s What’ What’ s in in a a name? 

name? 

The Lord’s Prayer begins, “Our father, 

who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name . . . 

.” I’ll bet that 90% of the people who read this 

magazine have said that prayer a thousand 

times. I’ll also bet that less than 10% have 

any idea of what our God’s name really is. 

The Ten Commandments advise in part 

that “Thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in 

vain”? How can you take God’s name in 

vain, if you don’t even know what that name 

is? 

The Bible repeatedly advises that whatever 

we pray for in His name, will be granted. 

Does it follow that if you don’t pray “in His 

name,” your prayer will be ignored? 

As I read the Bible, it appears that God 

is pretty particular about using His Name. 

And yet, virtually none of us know what that 

name is. 

What kind of religion are we practicing, 

if our religious leaders don’t teach (or 

even mention) our God’s proper name? Can 

we truly believe in a God we can’t even 

name? Conversely, will a God we can’t even 

name “believe” in us? 

“Legitimate “Legitimate interest” 

interest” 

According to the April 20,1999 The 

Times Picayune (Baton Rouge, Louisiana), 

when traffic police stopped Louisiana State 

Senator Cleo Fields, they discoved Senator 

Fields’ car was uninsured, so they seized it 

and towed it off. Senator Fields challenged 

the state law under which his car was impounded, 

arguing in part that the police acted 

as judge, jury and executive agents when 

they seized his car, thus violating the separation 

of power doctrine and denying Sen. 

Fields due process. 

District Court Judge Robert Downing 

sympathized with with Senator Fields but 

ruled against his constitutional arguments. 

Judge Downing noted that 1) the Louisiana 

Constitution also says the Legislature shall 

define and suppress “gambling” but lawmakers 

approved gambling anyway by calling it 

“gaming”; and 2) an appellate court recently 

ruled in a case that “or” means “and”! Judge 

Downing lamented, “It appears that everything 

I learned was wrong . . . just because 

words are in the statutes don’t necessarily 

mean anything.” (!) 

The case went to the Louisiana Supreme 

Court, which upheld the impoundment law 

and ruled that, “driving is not a right and the 

state has a legitimate interest in removing 

uninsured cars from the road.” 

Most people suppose the state’s “legitimate 

interest” in uninsured vehicles is just 

legalistic rhetoric or perhaps evidence of some 

sort of unwritten moral or ethical duty to 

protect the public. However, I suspect a 

key to understanding our traffic laws may lie 

in identifying the state’s “legitimate interest” 

in cars. Does the state’s “legitimate interest” 

lie in the fact that the state owns legal title to 

“our” cars? 

In other words, the term “legitimate interest” 

may mean far more than mere “concern”. 

Instead, does the state really have an 

“interest” (probably “legal title”) in “our” cars? 

Based on that “interest” (ownership), can 

the state insist we insure the cars that the 

state owns but permits us to use? Can the 

state-owner legitimately declare that “driving 

(a vehicle owned by the state) is not a 

right (which would flow from legal title and 

ownership of the vehicle) but a privilege (an 

equitable title to drive the state’s vehicle).” 

Yes. 

See my point? We assume we own 

“our” cars. But if that assumption is false 

and the state (secretly) owns legal title to 

“our” cars, then we only have equitable title 

to “use” (drive) the state’s cars – but we 

don’t actually own “our” cars. If so, the state 

(as legal owner) has every right to impose 

any restrictions or requirements it likes (including 

drivers licenses and insurance) on 

those “permitted” to drive the state’s vehicles. 

We’ve touched on the issue of who actually 

owns “your” car in previous issues of 

the AntiShyster. But this is the first time I’ve 

begun to realize a key phrase in the state’s 

case against any driver may be the “state’s 

legitimate interest”. 

How would the state react if a “driver” 

used an Administrative Notice of Request 

for Information to compel the state to precisely 

specify its “legitimate interest” in “his” 

car? If the state actually owned the car, would 

they dare admit it publicly? Or would they 

rather dismiss the case? 

Similarly, does the state have a “legitimate 

interest” in your children, guns or drugs? 

If so, can the state be compelled to precisely 

specify that interest? 

A fool and his books are soon parted. 


Milosovic Indicted 

for Abusing 

Emergency Powers 


During a war, when our very survival 

may be at stake, constitutional protections 

for our God-given, “unalienable rights” are 

largely suspended to allow government to 

exercise whatever unbridled, dictatorial powers 

are necessary to win the war and ensure 

our survival. Essentially, protecting our 

rights takes second place to protecting our 

lives. When the war is over, constitutional 

protections should be restored. 

The Great Depression threatened our 

economy but not our survival. Nevertheless, 

in 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt 

declared a National Emergency and asked 

Congress to grant him “emergency powers” 

equal to those he’d exercise during a 

wartime threat to our survival. Congress 

obliged and gave FDR executive powers far 

beyond the intent and limits of the Constitution 

to end the Depression. However, though 

the Depression ended with World War II, 

FDR’s 1933 “national emergency” has continued 

unabated for sixty-six years. 

In 1994, Dr. Gene Schroder exposed 

our unending “national emergency” and its 

anti-constitutional effect on our liberties. I.e., 

as a result of the 1933 “national emergency,” 

our government still exercises enormous 

non-constitutional powers and We the People 

have only a semblance of our former constitutionally-protected 

rights. To date, no solution 

has been found to force government 

to admit the “emergency” is over, surrender 

its emergency powers and restore con- 

stitutional protections for all of our unalienable 

rights. 

On May 27, 1999, the chief prosecutor 

at the International Criminal Tribunal for the 

Former Yugoslavia, indicted Yugoslavia 

President Slobodan Milosevic and four top 

aides for war crimes. Milosevic’s indictment 

offers some surprising insight for ending 

America’s own “national emergencies”. 

The first late-night TV report of 

Milosevic’s indictment explained its legal 

foundation: Milosevic personally invoked a 

national emergency to suspend his country’s 

constitution and gain “emergency” powers 

which he abused by implementing his policy 

of “ethnic cleansing”. Under international 

law, since Milosevic personally invoked the 

“emergency,” he is also personally responsible 

for whatever crimes or abuses are committed 

under “his” emergency. He and his 

four aides abused their emergency powers and 

were thereforce charged as a war criminals. 

I’ve seen no further reference to the relationship 

between emergency powers, international 

law, and personal responsibility 

for officials who invoke emergencies since 

that first late-night TV newscast. I’m not 

surprised. I am amazed, however, that even 

one newscast let that cat out of the bag. 

Those of you who study our own “national 

emergency” (invoked in 1933 and sustained 

by every succeeding President) might 

do well to study Milosevic’s indictment. If, 

under international law, Milosevic is person- 

ally responsible for damages committed under 

an emergency he invoked, it follows that, 

under international law, Bill Clinton (the one 

person responsible for sustaining our current 

national emergency) might also be personally 

liable for any damages or crimes committed 

by our government while exercising 

“emergency (non-constitutional) powers”. 

This makes surprising sense: even 

though an “emergency” has been declared, 

someone must still be legally liable for whatever 

abuses take place under that emergency. 

(It’s a little like shouting “Fire!” in a crowded 

theater; if there’s no real fire, whoever declared 

the emergency is liable for any subsequent 

damages.) Until now, we’d assumed 

that once an emergency was declared, government 

not only gained enormous powers 

but also lost all accountability for abusing those 

powers. We therefore assumed we had no 

remedy to enforce our rights or hold anyone 

in government accountable for abuse. 

However, if the President alone is empowered 

to initiate, sustain or terminate a 

“national emergency,” it follows that the President 

may also be solely responsible for whatever 

abuses occur under “his” emergency. 

Thus, Milosovic’s indictment implies that the 

remedy for ending America’s 66-year old 

“emergency,” may be to sue our President in 

his personal capacity under international law 

for whatever damages have been sustained 

during his administration’s “emergency”. 


International 

International 

International 

humanitarian humanitarian law 

law 

Under its U.N. Security Council mandate, 

the Hague tribunal is authorized to prosecute 

four categories of serious violations of 

international humanitarian law: 

Grave breaches of the 1949 

Geneva Convention; 

Violations of the laws and customs 

of war; 

Violations of the 1948 Genocide 

Convention; and 

Crimes against humanity. 

Milosevic’s Prosecutor (Louise Arbour) 

chose to prove three “crimes against humanity” 

and one “violation of the laws or customs 

of war.” She avoided the more sensational 

charges of “grave breach of Geneva 

Convention” and “genocide” because, 

1) “Grave breaches of the Geneva Convention” 

can only be charged during an international 

armed conflict. Despite two 

months of NATO bombing, the fighting in 

Kosovo was essentially an internal conflict 

between Serbs and Kosovar Albanians, all 

of whom are citizens of the same Federal 

Republic of Yugoslavia. 

2) Genocide is difficult to prove because 

it requires the element of intent to destroy 

a group of people, in whole or in part, 

based on their national, ethnic, racial, or religious 

affiliation. 

Many agree the Serbs’ egregious behavior 

constitutes war crimes but doesn’t fit 

the extremely precise definition of genocide. 

William Schabas (senior fellow at the D.C.based 

United States Institute for Peace and 

author of a book called The Law of Genocide) 

explains, “When you drive people out 

of a country, you’re committing ethnic cleansing, 

but it’s not genocide.” 

Cultural Cultural genocide genocide 

genocide 

Mr. Schabas also claims that when the 

1948 Genocide Convention was being formulated, 

the United States strongly argued 

that forcing people to assimilate or change 

their identity – so-called cultural genocide – 

should not be included as part of the legal 

definition. 2 [Emph. add.] 

I am intrigued by the idea that changing 

a people’s identities might constitute “cultural 

genocide.” In Volume 8 No. 3 and Vol. 

9 No. 1, the AntiShyster hypothesized that 

1933, our government has created an “evil 

twin” entity (identified by an all uppercase 

name like “ALFRED N. ADASK”) and im- 

posed that identity/status on each natural person 

(identified by a proper, capitalized name 

like “Alfred Adask”). If so, every natural 

person who accepts an “evil twin” persona 

surrenders his God-given, “unalienable 

rights” in return for government “benefits,” 

civil rights and privileges. Worse, each natural 

person is thereby made subject to absolute 

control by its government-creator. 

If our government has in fact created 

and imposed an “evil twin” identity/status 

on each of us, it would not be surprising for 

government to insist that a “change of identity” 

should not be included in the legal definition 

of “cultural genocide”. To do so would 

admit that any systematic effort to “convert” 

natural Americans into artificial entities (“evil 

twin”) would constitute “cultural genocide” 

– a criminal act. Nevertheless, it may be 

possible for charges similar to “cultural genocide” 

to be used by natural persons who object 

to being reduced to the status of artificial 

entities. 

According to William Schabas, genocide 

jurisprudence was further refined in the 

1960s when the Israeli court trying Adolf 

Eichmann determined that there was no genocide 

against the Jews prior to 1941 because 

the Nazi government was only trying to drive 

them out of Germany. It was only in 1941, 

when Germany closed its borders and decided 

to eliminate the Jews physically, that 

genocide began to occur. 

I won’t argue that the U.S. Government 

has decided to physically eliminate natural 

persons who refuse to accept the “evil 

twin” status/identification. However, it is 

arguable that since government effectively 

prevents natural persons from enjoying their 

former “unalienable,” God-given rights (like 

traveling without an “evil twin” drivers license; 

owning rather than merely possessing 

property; or having access to Article III 

judicial courts) government has figuratively 

“closed its borders” to the presence of natural 

persons. In a sense, by changing our 

identity-status from natural persons (“Alfred”) 

to artificial entities (“ALFRED”), government 

has figuratively “driven us” out of 

our natural “homeland” (The United States 

of America) and forced us to relocate like 

exiles into a corporate refugee camp called 

the “United States”. As such, this change of 

identities and consequent political “deportation” 

seems virtually identical to “cultural 

genocide”. 

Violations Violations of of 

of 

the the customs customs of of war 

war 

Milosevic and his four aides were indicted 

for individual murders as violations 

of the “laws and customs of war.” Such 

violations are based on a set of standards 

first outlined at a 1907 Hague convention 

later recognized by the Allied powers and 

(corporate) U.S. at the post-World War II 

Nuremberg trials. These violations involve 

abuses by the military in how it wages war. 4 

Laws or customs of war, for example, 

forbid the use of poisonous weapons, 5 attacks 

against undefended towns, murder, and 

the plunder of private or public property. 

Until recently, such violations could only be 

invoked in an international conflict. But in 

1995, the tribunal’s appeals court ruled that 

internal conflicts were also subject to the 

laws or customs of war. 

As previously argued in the AntiShyster, 

true ownership of private property may 

no longer be available to most Americans. If 

so, might be argued that government has 

“plundered” our private property (and the 

rights that flow from title to property) and 

thereby violated a “custom or law of war”. 

Crimes Crimes Crimes against against humanity 

humanity 

“Crimes against humanity,” first recognized 

at Nuremberg and directed more at civilian 

populations, is perhaps the broadest 

war crime charge and does not require proof 

of an armed conflict. According to Professor 

Theodore Meron of New York University 

School of Law. “Crimes against humanity 

are also the easiest to prove.” 2 

However, unlike violations of the laws 

of war, which can be prosecuted for only a 

single act, crimes against humanity requires 

proving a “widespread or systematic” attack 

on a civilian population involving murder, 

deportation, torture, rape, and “other inhumane 

acts.” 

Milosevic and his four aides were indicted 

for three “crimes against humanity” – 

widespread murder, deportations and persecutions 

on political, racial, or religious 

grounds. 

I don’t have a more precise definition 

of “other inhumane acts,” but I suspect “profiling” 

(the police tactic of detaining certain 

ethnic, racial or economic groups based on 

only their appearance) could be construed as 

a “systematic” and “inhumane act” directed 

against certain racial or ethnic groups. As 

such, “profiling” might be challenged under 


international law as a “crime against humanity”. 

Here in America, are natural persons 

who refuse to accept the identification/ status 

of artificial entities provided by Social 

Security Numbers and drivers licenses being 

subjected to political persecution? That 

argument might be made if natural persons 

can’t get bank accounts, own legal title to property 

or drive safely without fear of arrest. 

Could government’s attempt to reduce 

all natural Americans to the status of artificial 

entities be construed as “widespread and 

systematic”? Yes. Could “moving” the 

population of natural Americans from the 

natural realm of the States of The United 

States of America into the artificial realm of 

the states and districts of the corporate United 

States constitute a kind of political “deportation”? 

Perhaps. If so, would that “deportation” 

constitute a “crime against humanity” 

under international law? 

Religious Religious persecution? 

persecution? 

There is an ancient principle at the heart 

of the Bible which declares any entity is property 

of and subject to its creator. If I am 

God’s creation, I am His property and subject 

to Him alone. My creator – whoever or 

whatever that may be – is my “master” and I 

am his servant/property until such time as he 

releases, sells or assigns me to someone else. 

This principle holds true today in our secular 

law insofar as any inventor, artist or other 

“creator” of physical and intellectual property 

is automatically said to be it’s owner. 

Both Old and New Testaments declare 

that man can serve but one master – and, at 

least initially, that master must be your Creator. 

But what if I apply for a government 

benefit and thereby accept the status of a creation 

of government (“ALFRED,” a beneficiary 

and/or “evil twin”) – have I compromised 

or even forfeit my title as “Alfred,” the 

servant and natural property of my Biblical 

Creator? Have I jeopardized my immortal 

soul for a bowl of government pottage? If 

so, wouldn’t that constitute an “inhumane 

act”? 

I suspect that any attempt by government 

to deceive and deprive me of my religious 

(not merely political) status and identity 

as a natural man created by my God and 

in His image is a form of religious persecution. 

(It’s a little like forcing Jews to attend 

High Mass.) If so, any “systematic” attempt 

to deceive me and others into surrendering 

our natural relationships to God to become 

subjects of government might constitute a 

“crime against humanity” under the same international 

law used to indict Milosovic. 

More More unanswered unanswered questions 

questions 

Everyone agrees that I have a constitutionally-protected 

right to practice my religion. 

But could I also claim an unalienable, 

God-given right to be officially recognized 

and treated as natural man created by my 

God rather than an artificial entity created of 

the state? According to our Declaration of 

Independence, “We hold these truths to be 

self-evident that all men are created equal, 

that they are endowed by their Creator with 

certain unalienable rights . . . .” If it’s “selfevident” 

that all men are “endowed by their 

Creator with certain unalienable rights,” then 

no amount of unstated “presumptions” 

should be able to overcome or otherwise refute 

our “self-evident” status as a creation of 

God who enjoys unalienable rights. 

Nevertheless, our government seems 

unwilling to allow anything to “appear” in 

its courts except artificial entities which are 

“presumed” to have been created by government 

itself. Do our courts thereby deny us 

a unalienable right to be recognized as a creation 

of God? 

At first, these questions may seem farfetched, 

but suppose government deceived 

a tribe of Navaho Indians into accepting a 

legal status that compromised their relationship 

to their tribal religion. If such deception 

was shown to “trick” unsuspecting Indians 

out of their ancient religions, there’d be liberals 

screaming from coast to coast. And 

could that deception be condemned as a 

“crime against humanity”? Maybe. 

But if tricking Navahos out their native 

religion is wrong, isn’t it be equally wrong 

to “trick” Christians and Jews into accepting 

a legal status subject to a creator-government 

rather than to Yahweh, the Creator-God 

of the Bible, and “Nature’s God” in our Declaration 

of Independence? 

After all, the first of the Ten Commandments 

reads roughly, “I am Yahweh your 

God . . . Thou shalt have no other gods before 

me.” I understand that Commandment 

to be deadly serious. No other gods; not 

even government. 

I suspect it might give the government 

fits if a defense against government abuse 

argued that any attempt to change my identify 

or otherwise “deport” me from my status 

as a creation of God into the government-created 

realm and status of artificial 

entity constituted religious persecution. As 

a political defense, I’d expect this tactic to 

fail. But as a religious defense that claimed 

an unalienable right to not only practice my 

religion, but to be recognized by government 

as a natural man, created by Yahweh, the 

God of the Bible – this defense might be powerful. 

It would certainly be interesting. 

Insights Insights or or or delusions? 

delusions? 

Milosovic’s indictment hints at a host 

of improbable (but not impossible) insights 

that might be usefully applied to evade or 

resist government abuse. For example, 

closely studied, Milosevic’s indictment may 

help confirm (or deny) whether Bill Clinton 

is personally responsible under international 

law for governmental abuses committed under 

“his” national emergency. The underlying 

principles of international law might also 

offer insight into the apparent conversion of 

natural Americans into artificial, corporate 

entities and whether that conversion can be 

challenged as an act of “ethnic cleansing,” 

“cultural genocide,” or political or religious 

persecution. 

1 “U.S. Evidence Enhances Case 

Against Milosevic” by William Branigin 

Washington Post Friday, May 28, 1999. 

2 ibid 

3 “War Crimes Prosecutor Takes 

Careful Aim at Milosevic,” T.R. Goldman, 

Legal Times June 1, 1999 

4 Some American patriots believe the 

gold-fringed flags in our courts signify the 

presence of martial law. If so, it might be 

possible to use the 1907 Hague convention 

to challenge such martial law. 

5 The U.S. used an internationallybanned 

poisonous gas on the Branch 

Davidians in Waco, Texas 


Dear Al, 

Recently, I was poring over maps with 

my brother-in-law. He makes maps for the 

State of Oklahoma Department of Transportation. 

We were discussing a piece of land 

some friends were thinking of buying in 

Eastern Oklahoma. He said, “I guess you 

know who your neighbors are going to be. 

You remember that bunch out there with the 

trailer park and the church that was on the 

news, EEE-looo-heeem something or other.” 

(He was talking about the “Elohym City” 

that was indirectly linked to the Oklahoma 

City bombing.) 

“Oh, you’re kidding,” I said. “My 

friends are kinda new age; they’re going to 

love it when they hear they’re right next to 

AK-47 Central.” 

“Here’s the trailer park;” he continued, 

“there’s some kind of main building, and 

there’s a symbol for church right here.” 

“I don’t see any name telling you what 

it is,” I said. 

“Oh, you won’t see that,” he replied. 

“You’ve got to be incorporated to be on the 

map; those are our guidelines.” 

“Really,” I said. 

“Yeah, we don’t record any unincorporated 

townships. You’d have to be a historical 

site or specifically request to be on the 

map, or you’re not there. You’ve got to have 

a birth certificate or be a registered voter or 

you don’t go down in the county population 

figure, either. Unless, they just happened to 

catch you in the census. That’s why they 

want to approve estimated population numbers. 

. . . I don’t imagine the census people 

would be too keen on knocking door to door 

out in that area.” 

So, that’s the story. Nobody there but 

us chickens Or is it 14th Amendment citizens? 

Interesting, don’t you think? 

John G. 

Dallas, Texas 

Apparently, the State of Oklahoma does 

not normally record unincorporated entities 

on its maps, nor does it record natural 

persons who don’t have birth certificates or 

voters registrations in its population figures. 

All of this is generally consistent with our 

previous speculation concerning artificial 

entity/ “evil twins”. Our government seems 

to be a corporation rather than a Republic 

and seemingly can’t recognize any entity 

which is not also incorporated and similarly 

artificial. If you’re a natural person 

like Alfred Adask, the government can’t “see” 

you. However, artificial entities like “AL- 

FRED N. ADASK” can “appear” and be 

“seen” in our courts and bureaucracies. 

Letters 

Ther There Ther e ain’ ain’t ain’ t nuthin’ 

nuthin’ 

like like a a a claim! 

claim! 

Dear Boss, 

John Hamilton of Querro, Texas, recently 

related a series of events, which 

strengthen the concept that our Courts operate 

under Commercial Law (Uniform Commercial 

Code/ UCC). Mr. Hamilton’s been 

in a Bankruptcy proceeding for about ten 

years, during which time the bankruptcy 

“trustee” has reduced his assets to nearly 

ZERO while not paying any creditors. Recently, 

the court instructed John to have his 

wife sign a document transferring title to a 

piece of property which John possessed for 

many years before marrying his wife. John 

refused and was told that if he didn’t get his 

wife’s signature, he’d be arrested. Ultimately, 

an arrest warrant (capias) was issued against 

John. 

On June 3, 1999, John went to the 

Querro Justice of the Peace and asked if the 

J.P. had a “claim” against him. The J.P. 

twitched, hemmed, hawed, said “No” and 

advised John to go see the District Court 

Judge who signed the Order on which the 

arrest warrant was based. Curiously, once 

John started asking about the existence of a 

claim against him, John wasn’t even threatened 

with arrest. 

John went to the District Court Judge 

and asked him if he had a “Claim” against 


John Hamilton. This judge also danced 

around and finally admitted that he had no 

claim against John but that John needed to 

talk to the District Attorney. John went to 

the D.A.’s Office and asked the same question: 

“Do you have a Claim against me?” 

The D.A. also squirmed, finally admitted 

having no Claim against John and advised 

him to go back to see the J.P. again. John 

returned to the J.P. and told him that the District 

Judge and D.A. denied having a Claim 

against John and since there appeared to be 

no Claim against him he wanted the J.P. to 

release the Order authorizing his arrest so he 

could be on his way. The J.P. obliged. John 

left the Court House with the original Court 

Order for the Warrant and the Arrest Warrant 

thus ending his liability to being arrested. 

One persistent theory about our court 

system is that they operate as Courts of Equity, 

ruled by the commercial law (a.k.a. 

U.C.C.). If this theory is valid, then any 

action taken must be based on a Claim verified 

under the terms of the U.C.C. The 

U.C.C. requires the filing of a UCC-1 Form 

(Financing Statement) with the Secretary of 

State to verify the existence of any Claim 

against someone. The existence of a Claim 

under the U.C.C. is based upon the existence 

of a contract between two parties and 

the only reason for any court action is a controversy 

caused by one party’s breach of 

contract. Filing a UCC-1 Form verifies the 

existence of a contract and a claim. The absence 

of such UCC-1 filing is evidence of 

the non-existence of any Contract or Claim 

and therefor NO CONTROVERSY CAN 

EXIST and the case should be dismissed. 

Gary Graham 

We’ve recently heard similar reports 

wherein an individual being tried for traffic 

ticket violations got the arresting officer on 

the witness stand and asked if the officer had 

a “claim” against the defendant or knew of 

anyone who had a “claim” against the defendant. 

The police officer admitted under 

oath that he had no claim and knew of no 

claim. The defendant reportedly moved the 

court to dismiss the case for lack of a claim, 

and the court obliged. It is believed that civil 

courts can’t proceed without a true “claim” 

supported by an UCC-1 Form. If they do, 

the plaintiff or even the judge may incur some 

measure of personal liability that no government 

employee will knowingly assume. 

This report is pure hearsay and un- 

verified. Even if the report is accurate, it 

doesn’t prove much since the judge might’ve 

dismissed for any number of other reasons. 

Nevertheless, we’re getting enough preliminary 

reports to suspect that a thorough 

understanding of “claims,” UCC-1 Forms 

and their relationship to court actions may 

provide a strong defense against many government 

prosecutions. We invite anyone 

having addition information to confirm or 

deny these suspicions to please pass the word. 

Count Count the the cost 

cost 

Hi Al, 

I’m presently researching actual Federal 

prison costs. The feds claim a $35,000 

per cost for each inmate. However, the annual 

federal inmate population for the past 

five years has averaged around 100,000 while 

the budget for the Bureau of Prisons has 

been averaging $10 billion. If you do the 

math, that roughly comes out to $100,000 per 

federal prisoner per year. I’m working with 

Congressman Joe Barton of the 8th District of 

Texas on getting exact figures. 

Larry Cullum, Colorado 

Congressional Congressional resistance 

resistance 

Congress of the United States 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515-4304 

Mr. Rick Donaldson 

Royse City, TX 

Dear Rick: 

Thank you for contacting my office to 

express your opposition to the United States’ 

involvement in Yugoslavia. I always appreciate 

the opportunity to learn the views of 

my constituents, as I apply these views to 

my decision making process. 

In my opinion, there are constructive 

ways to rectify the situation in Yugoslavia – 

and it’s not by sending American troops. I 

was never in support of our military involvement 

in this situation for many reasons, one 

of which is our lack of compelling national 

interest. Because I regret suffering in the 

world, I do support diplomatic means to end 

such problems. Furthermore, I would support 

lifting certain embargoes, thus providing 

a way for those in conflict to arm and 

defend themselves and their families. 

In addition, I cannot see a plan, or any 

end in sight, to Kosovo. The only thing I see 

for sure, is that Kosovo is a “no win” situation. 

In my opinion, there is no meaningful 

reason or national interest to risk American 

blood. I am not pleased with our role in the 

U.N. or NATO and I am opposed to the 

U.S. acting as the sole world policing authority 

– we cannot be the “911” for the rest 

of the world. As I said in a recent speech, if 

I had my wish, I would salute smartly, give 

Saddam to Russia, China and the U.N., go 

by Bosnia and Kosovo, retrieve our troops 

and bring them all back home. 

Thanks again for contacting me. If I can 

be of further assistance to you in the future, 

please do not hesitate to call upon me. 

Sincerely, 

Ralph M. Hall 

Member of Congress 

It’s nice to see that some members of 

Congress are openly critical of the U.N., 

NATO, the U.S. serving as the “world’s 

policeman” and Clinton’s “dog-wagging”. 

Congressman Hall’s comments on 

Kosovo “embargoes” also illustrates the 

dangers of gun control. If Kosovo had “easy 

access” to arms, would the Serbs have attacked? 

Would America be called to expend 

lives and resources to defend Kosovo? Probably 

not. An unarmed (or relatively unarmed) 

populace invites oppression by its 

own government. That’s as true in Waco 

and Ruby Creek as it is in Kosovo and Red 

China. Every nation tends to trust its own 

government thinking, “It couldn’t happen 

here”. But history proves they’re inevitably 

wrong. An unarmed America is every bit as 

vulnerable to violent government oppression 

as the people of Kosovo. 

Plea Plea Plea “bargains”? 

“bargains”? 

“bargains”? 

Dear Al, 

I think you missed a salient point in the 

Angel Lerma letter (“Letters,” AntiShyster 

Vol. 9 No. 1). You’re right that, although 

Angel was caught with only 13 grams of 

pot, he chose to go to jail by voluntarily accepting 

a plea bargain for possessing 115 

lbs. of pot which carries a 2 to 3 year sentence 

under the federal sentencing guidelines. 

But he was sentenced for 40,715 lbs of pot. 

As the guidelines are tied to the weight of 

“controlled substances,” I believe 40,000 lbs 

carries at least a 10-year mandatory minimum 

(and perhaps 20 years). That’s a big 


increase over 2 to 3 years. By signing a plea 

bargain, Angel gave up his right to appeal 

(most pleas are designed for that purpose). 

That’s why the court won’t answer his motions. 

In a similar case, a friend of mine went 

to trial for “conspiracy to distribute” 4,000 

lbs of pot (10 years mandatory minimum) 

and was found not guilty – but he was found 

guilty of “possession with intent to distribute 

400 lbs (5 years mandatory minimum). 

I’d bet you’d never guess what weight he 

was sentenced for. That’s right, he was sentenced 

for the 4,000 lbs and got 10 years. A 

few months ago, the Supreme Court also 

refused to hear his case. 

Richard Geer 

According to Gary Graham, a question 

of Good Faith may come into play in 

application of “Sentencing Guidelines,” 

especially in prosecutions for “conspiracy”. 

For example, in his plea “bargain,” Angel 

Lerma agreed to plead guilty and accept 

conviction for “possession” of 115 lbs of 

marijuana in return for a 2 to 3 year sentence. 

However, Mr. Lerma was sentenced 

to 10 years as if he were a “conspirator in 

the distribution” of 40,000 lbs – even though 

he was never convicted of that charge. 

How is this possible? Everyone convicted 

in Federal Court undergoes a Pre- 

Sentence Investigation which will determine 

the sentence which is later imposed by the 

Judge. The Pre-Sentence Report lists the 

prisoner’s “relevant conduct” and includes 

all available information gathered by investigators, 

prosecutors, co-defendants and 

even snitches – not just information from the 

trial, itself. Thus, even though Angel Lerma 

only pled guilty to possessing 115 pounds of 

marijuana, the original unproven charges 

were for over 40,000 pounds. The Pre-Sentencing 

report will reflect the original charge 

of 40,000 pounds and Angel Lerma (who 

pled guilty to avoid a lengthy sentence) was 

still sentenced as if he’d been convicted of 

possessing 40,000 pounds. In theory, if 

Angel had pled guilty to merely spitting on 

the sidewalk, he might still have been sentenced 

to ten years based on the unproven 

allegations that he possessed over 20 tons 

of pot. 

In fact, Angel would’ve been better off 

to challenge the government in court and 

make the government prove it found 40,000 

non-existent pounds of pot. Because he 

didn’t go to court (where the 40,000 pounds 

could be disproved and a sentence based on 

that quantity avoided), Angel allowed government 

to sentence him based on mere allegations, 

irrational allegations at that, and 

no evidence. 

The effect of Pre-sentencing Reports 

can be especially dangerous in conspiracy 

cases, even if the “conspiracy charge” is 

defeated in trial or dropped in a plea bargain. 

In a drug conspiracy, the sentence is 

based on the total amount of drugs each 

alleged conspirator may have possessed 

during his/her involvement over the entire 

life of the conspiracy. This amount is calculated 

based on information from the other 

co-defendants, informants, and/or the investigators’ 

“best guess estimates”. 

For example, suppose a drug conspiracy 

investigation lasts for six months. 

Based on the investigators’ observations 

during the six months, the government may 

determine that the conspiracy had been ongoing 

for as much as ten years. Then, if 

investigators see a suspect buying one ounce 

of cocaine per week during the six months, 

that defendant (who never had more than 

one ounce of cocaine in his possession at 

any time) may be ultimately charged for 

possessing 520 ounces (32 pounds) of cocaine 

(1 ounce per week times 52 weeks per 

year times the ten years of the alleged 

conspiracy’s duration). Moreover, mere allegations 

by an informant or co-defendant 

can dramatically increase your sentence. In 

Angel Lerma’s case, someone probably said 

something like, “I know Angel. He comes 

around two-three times a week and buys 100 

to 200 pounds each time. Been doing it for a 

couple of years.” Of course, the more information 

a co-defendant provides, the 

greater the reduction in his sentence. Thus, 

reduced sentences can subtly encourage and 

effectively “pay” co-defendants to provide 

exaggerated information used to sentence 

other defendants. 

But the key point is this: just because a 

major charge (say, possession with intent to 

distribute 1,000 pounds) is defeated in court 

or dismissed by plea bargain, does not mean 

the underlying factual allegations will be ignored 

at sentencing for a minor charge. If a 

defendant pleads guilty or is convicted on 

just one minor charge, his final sentence can 

still be “enhanced” according to “relevant 

information” that he possessed the 1,000 

pounds indicated in the previously dismissed 

major charge. Thus, a plea bargain may be 

no bargain if a defendant pleads guilty to a 

minor charge to avoid a major charge but 

still receives the maximum sentence called 

for by the alleged “facts” associated with 

the (dismissed) major charge. Prosecutors 

and defense attorneys know exactly how this 

system operates. When a prosecutor or defense 

attorney recommends a plea bargain 

for a relatively minor charge and implies 

that the final sentence will be based solely on 

that minor charge, they may be guilty of deception, 

incomplete disclosure of facts relevant 

to the agreement, fraud and even acting 

in bad faith. Though difficult to prove, 

such deception, incomplete disclosure, fraud 

and bad faith may create subsequent legal 

liabilities for the prosecutor and defense attorney. 

Early Early news news reports 

reports 

Dear Mr. Adask, 

I wanted you to know that my favorite 

TV show is Early Edition (you know, where 

the guy gets the newspaper a day early when 

the cosmic cat leaves it on his doorstep). And 

my favorite magazine (news & otherwise) is 

the AntiShyster BECAUSE the AntiShyster 

is the a real “Early Edition” as witness your 

articles on: 

1) Congress declares Bible Word of 

God (1993) 

2) Gulf War Syndrome (1995) 

3) IRS Revelations (1995) 

4) Politics of Fear (1996) 

5) The Corporate/ Government corruption 

& Chinese Communist Connection 

(1999) 

God Bless you for your Courage and 

Common Sense, both of which are in short 

supply these days. 

Craig W. Fletcher 

Irvine, California 


Whenever we go to court, virtually everyone 

presumes that the opposing attorney 

has proper authority to represent the 

opposing side. After all, a lawyer wouldn’t 

dare show up without proper authority 

(whatever that is), right? Right? 

Maybe not. We are beginning to realize 

that a significant percentage of lawyers 

may be representing parties in court without 

proper contractual authority. Until now, 

they’ve been confident that no one (certainly 

no fellow lawyer) would dare to call their 

bluff. However, some pro se litigants are 

more aggressive about challenging a lawyers 

authority. For those Texans who are 

sceptical about the opposing lawyer’s authority 

to represent the opposing party, Rule 

12 of the Texas Rules of Court reads as 

follows, 

“RULE 12. ATTORNEY TO SHOW 

AUTHORITY. A party in a suit or proceeding 

pending in a court of this state may, 

by sworn written motion stating that he believes 

the suit or proceeding is being prosecuted 

or defended without authority, cause 

the attorney to be cited to appear before the 

court and show his authority to act. The 

notice of the motion shall be served upon 

the challenged attorney at least ten days before 

the hearing on the motion. At the hearing 

on the motion, the burden of proof shall 

By What Authority? 

from Robert Fox & Gary Graham 

be upon the challenged attorney to show 

sufficient authority to prosecute or defend 

the suit on behalf of the other party. Upon 

his failure to show such authority, the court 

shall refuse to permit the attorney to appear 

in the cause, and shall strike the pleadings 

if no person who is authorized to prosecute 

or defend appears. The motion may be 

heard and determined at any time before the 

parties have announced ready for trial, but 

the trial shall not be unnecessarily continued 

or delayed for the hearing.” 

Thus, it’s possible to challenge an opposing 

lawyer’s authority to represent your 

opposing party. If it turns out that the lawyer 

does not have proper authority, he will 

not only be prevented from representing his 

alleged client, all of his previous pleadings 

will be stricken from the court record. If all 

the pleading disappear, so does the case — 

at least until proper authority can be secured. 

You wouldn’t think this sort of challenge 

could possibly work, but you might 

be wrong. For example, when a California 

trust company tried to sue Daniel Boudreau 

(and Robert Fox, a fellow occupant at 336 

Crooked Lane, Mesquite, Texas), Mr. Fox 

(who has an established reputation as a 

determined, won’t back down, pro se litigant) 

prepared the following challenge to 

the authority of three Texas lawyers to represent 

the California trust company. 

Robert Fox had already tried to discover 

the chain of authority that led from 

California to Texas, and had learned that 

chain included a woman allegedly named 

Janet Brown who had an answering machine 

in Kentucky which ultimately led to 

another answering machine in Cincinnatti, 

Ohio, that never responded to Fox’s questions. 

Apparently, the California trust company 

had given Ms. Brown authority to represent 

them, and Ms. Brown in turn assigned 

her authority to the three Dallas lawyers. 

The problem is that, apparently, a lawyer 

must have a contract/ agreement directly 

with the party he’s representing. In 

other words, while the Texas lawyers apparently 

had an agreement to represent Ms. 

Brown, but she was not a party in the case, 

and therefore they had no direct agreement 

with the California trust company. Without 

that direct agreement between themselves 

and the California trust company, the three 

Texas lawyers lacked proper authority to 

represent that party in court. 

Suspecting their authority to represent 

the California party might be inadequate, 

Boudreau and Fox filed the following sworn 

challenge: 


NO. CC-99-879-b 

COUNTY COURT AT LAW #2 

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 

BANKER’S TRUST COMPANY OF 

CALIFORNIA, NA, AS TRUSTEE UN- 

DER POOLING AND SERVICING 

AGREEMENT DATED AS OF SEPTEM- 

BER 1,1992, FOR RTC SERIES1992-14 

W1THOUT RECOURSE, Plaintiff, 

Vs. 

DANIEL A. BOUDREAU 

AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 

336 CROOKED LANE, MESQUITE, 

TEXAS 75149 

RULE 12 CHALLENGE 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE 

OF SAID COURT: 

I, Robert James: Fox, alleged to be 

Defendant, file this my rule 12 challenge to 

wit: 

RULE 12 CHALLENGE 

1. Without waiving any other remedy 

or right, I state that I do not believe that 

Janet Brown, L.R. Tipton Jr., Stephen C. 

Porter, Tommy Bastian, and/or Barrett 

Burke Wilson Castle Daffin & Frappier, 

L.L.P., or any other alleged agents sent by 

such interlopers absent lawful authority, 

have the authority to act for the Plaintiff 

and demand proof pursuant to your Rule 

12 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Janet Brown’s Affidavit provides no mailing 

location and Kentucky directory assistance 

giving me a phone number referring 

me to a Cincinnati, Ohio phone number that 

only accessed an answering machine was 

of no help. I was unable to confirm that 

Janet Brown is anything other than a fictitious 

entity. It is further requested that citation 

be issued to the forgoing that they be 

ordered to appear and present evidence of 

their agency or why the pleadings filed on 

behalf of Plaintiff should not be stricken. 

s/ Robert James: Fox, in propria persona 

general delivery, Mesquite post office 

Mesquite, Texas, North America 

Rule 12 calls for the challenge to be 

sworn, so Fox attached the following: 

VERIFICATION 

I have read the forgoing Rule 12 Challenge 

and it is true and correct. 

s/ Robert James: Fox, in propria persona 

SUBSCRIBED TO before me, the undersigned 

authority this 26th day of April 

s/ ___________________ 

Notary Public, State of Texas 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing RULE 12 CHALLENGE was 

sent by mail, postage prepaid, to L.R. Tipton 

Jr. at 11304-D Park Central Place, Dallas, 

Texas 75230 and Stephen C. Porter/Tommy 

Bastian at 1500 Surveyor Boulevard, Suite 

100, Addison, Texas 75244 this twenty-sixth 

day April 1999. Janet Brown’s Affidavit 

provides no mailing location and Kentucky 

directory assistance giving me a phone number 

referring me to a Cincinnati, Ohio phone 

number that only accessed an answering 

machine was of no help. 

S/ Robert James: Fox, in propria persona 

Based on this Rule 12 challenge, the 

three Texas lawyers were summoned to appear 

in court. Two didn’t bother to show; 

the third appeared with insufficient evidence 

of his authority to represent the California 

party, so the court issued the following: 

ORDER REGARDING 

TEXAS RULE 12 HEARING 

CAME ON TO BE HEARD IN A TEXAS 

RULE 12 HEARING ON MAY 10, 1999: 

Attorneys Stephen C. Porter, G. 

Tommy Bastian, and L. R. Tipton were duly 

served citations by process server thereby 

commanding them to appear and show their 

authority to prosecute this cause of action. 

Attorneys Stephen C. Porter and G. 

Tommy Bastian failed and neglected to appear. 

L. R. Tipton did appear however he 

failed to present testimony or actual evidence 

of authority sufficient under the law of 

agency to prove that he acts for Banker’s 

Trust Company of California; there was no 

appearance by any corporate officer of 

Banker’s Trust Company of California. 

Upon consideration defendants Rob- 

ert James Fox and Daniel Alexander 

Boudreau are entitled to the relief afforded 

by the Texas Rule 1 2 Challenge wherefore 

the Plaintiff’s pleadings are hereby stricken 

from the record, and this case is hereby dismissed 

without prejudice. All other relief 

not expressly granted is denied. 

SO ORDERED this 21 st day of May, 1999. 

s/ Judge Carlos Lopez 

With that, the California trust 

company’s case simply disappeared, pending 

revival by Texas attorney’s directly authorized 

to represent the California party 

and start the entire proceeding again from 

square one. 

According to Robert Fox, the California 

trust company (the principal) is the only 

party that can verify its agent (the attorney) 

has proper authority to appear in a representative 

capacity. In other words, the attorneys 

themselves can’t prove their authority 

— they must have testimony or affidavit 

from their principal – the party they claim 

to represent. 

In most cases, especially if the opposing 

party is a private individual and the 

attorney is a sole practitioner, adequate 

proof of authority to represent is probably 

found in the lawyer-client’s contractual 

agreement. 

But the issue of proper authority may 

be more complex when a corporation like 

General Motors hires a world-renowned, 

500-lawyer law firm like “Dewey, Skrum, 

& Howe” to represent GM in court. Suppose 

GM signs a contract with Dewy, Skrum 

& Howe, a corporation. Can a corporation 

represent a corporation in court? I 

don’t think so. I believe that only a flesh 

and blood lawyer can represent a corporation/ 

artificial entity. So suppose Dewey, 

Skrum & Howe sends Bob Jones, Esquire 

(one of their 500 lawyers) to represent GM 

in court. Is that lawful? After all, when 

lawyer Jones appears in court, is he representing 

GM? Or is he representing his 

employer (Dewey, Skrum & Howe, Inc.)? 

If lawyer Jones doesn’t have a direct contract 

with GM, his authority to represent 

GM is suspect. 

Preliminary investigation suggests 

that if GM’s contract with Dewey, Skrum & 

Howe specifies that lawyer Jones will handle 

the case, then the question of proper authority 

might be solved. But this kind of 


specification may not appear very often in 

contracts with big law firms since nobody 

really knows how soon a case will start or 

who precisely will be the representing attorney. 

What happens if that specific attorney 

quits? Dies? Is too busy or becomes 

unexpectedly tied up with another case? 

Does the contract with GM have to be renegotiated 

to specify another lawyer? What 

if lawyer Jones is specified in the contract, 

but he brings in two other lawyers not 

named in the contract who also represent 

GM. Do those other lawyers (unnamed in 

the contract) have proper authority to represent 

GM? 

These questions of representational 

capacity can also be alleviated through the 

use of employment contracts drawn up with 

the various member lawyers of Dewey, 

Skrum & Howe, Inc., but even then, it might 

be necessary for those employment contracts 

to be referenced in the original contract 

with GM. 

According to pro se litigant Gary Graham, 

“In order for an Attorney to represent 

someone (something) in Court he must first 

obtain an Agreement (Contract) with that 

Client. The problem arises that most Attorneys 

belong to a “Law Firm” (Corporation) 

and it is this Firm that has a Contract with 

the Client. The Attorney must have an employment 

Contract with the Law Firm, 

which authorizes the Attorney to represent 

specific Clients of the Law Finn. This Employment 

Contract must also be recognized 

in the Contract between the Law Firm and 

the Client. If the Client does not specifically 

authorize the Attorney to represent him/ 

her in Court the Attorney does not have the 

authority to do so.” 

“This situation is further complicated 

by the Corporate Status of most Law Firms 

in Texas. The Texas Business Code requires 

at least two individuals be listed as officers 

(President and Secretary) in any Corporation. 

While there may be more officers and 

even a Board of Directors, the Law requires 

at least these two positions be filled by different 

people. After examining several “Law 

Firm” Corporate Charters (secured from the 

Texas Secretary of State), I’ve found that 

these firms have a habit of Incorporating 

with a Board of Directors but no Officers. 

If the Law Firm is not properly incorporated, 

it does not exist in the eyes of the 

Law. The validity of any contract entered 

into by such a Firm could then be questioned. 

Does the Attorney have an Employment 

Contract with a Law Firm if such Firm 

is not properly incorporated? Does a Client 

have a Contract with a Law Firm if such 

Firm is not properly incorporated? Can an 

Attorney who does not have an Employment 

Contract represent a Client who does 

not have a Contract?” 

“If there is no document specifically 

naming the Attorney as the Representative 

of a Party in an Action, can the Attorney 

represent such Party? Is the Attorney representing 

the Law Firm or the Party/Client? 

Can a Law Firm represent a Party/Client if 

the Law Firm itself is a Corporation? Can a 

Law Firm or Attorney represent a Party/ 

Client in the absence of a specific Authorization/Contract? 

Can a Law Finn make Political 

Donations if such Firm is not properly 

incorporated? Can an Attorney hide 

behind the “shield” of a Professional Corporation 

if such corporate entity cannot appear 

in Court?” 

The questions surrounding proper authorization 

to represent a party in court 

can be complex and sometimes sufficient to 

remove a given lawyer, or even a law firm, 

from a case. Those of you who are troubled 

by some annoying lawyer representing a 

third party might do well to look for a rule 

in your state similar to the Rule 12 challenge 

in Texas. Then you might want to 

closely examine the employment contract(s) 

and corporate charter for whatever firm 

or lawyer is troubling you. You might also 

want to closely study the rules of principal 

and agent. Properly employed, this information 

might be enough to give lawyers 

fits. 

A serious challenge to the legitimacy 

of a corporation contracting to represent 

another corporation in court might have 

massive repercussions. Suppose it’s not 

lawful for corporations to represent corporations 

in court. If that could be proved, 

virtually all of the mega-member law firms 

might be forced to dissolve, and all court 

cases would once again be handled by sole 

practitioners who each contracted directly 

with their clients. Although unlikely, such 

result could have a revolutionary impact 

on the courts. 


Administrative notice 

Biblical Proof of Insurance 

from David Deck 

As in most states, automobile insurance 

is mandatory in the State of Texas. As a 

result, auto insurance rates are unreasonably 

high, extortionistic, annoying to some and 

unaffordable for others. Although 20% or 

more of Texas drivers routinely drive uninsured, 

at least once a year we must all show 

documentary proof of insurance when we 

register our autos in the State of Texas. So if 

you don’t have insurance for at least the 

month when you register, your registration 

will be out of date which invites official scrutiny, 

discovery that you may also be driving 

uninsured and traffic tickets that can run into 

hundreds of dollars. 

As a result of high, mandatory insurance 

rates, some drivers simply drive 

“nekkid” and take their chances with accidents 

and the police; others support a growing 

market in forged insurance documents. 

But David Deck used a religious strategy 

that I’ve thought about superficially for several 

years, but never dreamed could actually 

work. (Oh, me of little faith, hmm?) 

In essence, David claimed that he’s insured 

by God, and therefore not only needs 

no additional secular insurance, but because 

of his religious principles, can not purchase 

secular insurance without violating his faith. 

To the uninformed, this argument must 

seem absurd. Surely, it couldn’t possibly 

work. But it did. 

From a spiritual perspective, Mr. Deck’s 

argument makes perfect sense since most devout 

Christians and Jews understand that their 

faith mandates that they “trust in God” ex- 

clusively for their providence, prosperity and 

protection. No true believer is likely to purchase 

any kind of secular insurance without 

at least wondering if he’s offended the living 

God by relying on false “gods” (insurance 

companies) for his protection. 

I don’t know that the State of Texas 

will ever again accept this spiritual exemption 

from purchasing secular insurance. But 

I know David Deck. I’ve seen his application 

for automobile registration. I’ve seen the approved 

registration sticker that was sent to 

David despite the fact that his only “proof of 

insurance” was a copy of Psalm 91. 

What follows are the text of David 

Decks application, Psalm 91 and the relevant 

Texas laws. I’ve inserted my own [bracketed] 

and/or italicized text in the body of 

David’s paperwork to clarify his meaning or 

purpose. 

Cover Cover sheet 

sheet 

David opens his application with a short 

cover letter. No threats, no long-winded explanations. 

No conclusions. Simply a list of 

enclosed documents and instructions for filling 

out the attached affidavit. 

June, 2nd 1999 

Dear Sirs, Enclosed, you will find the 

following, 

#1 - Vehicle Registration Renewal Notice 

#2- Check in the amount of 62.70 

#3- A copy of my proof of insurance 

Policy # Psalms 91 

#4- A copy of your laws Sec. 106.001, 

Sec. 106.002, & Sec. 106.003. 

#5- An affidavit, to be filled out and 

signed and returned along with the entire 

contents of this notice within 15 days of the 

receipt of this notice, if you are unable to 

renew registration under these conditions. 

Until then I am 

s/ David Deck 

David Deck 

P.O. Box 92861 

Southlake Texas 76092-0861 

Item #1 (the “Vehicle Registration Renewal 

Notice”) is a standard form used by 

the State of Texas; it’s not reproduced in this 

article. Likewise, the check (#2) paying the 

required registration fee is also not reproduced 

here. However, items #3 (proof of 

insurance), #4 (State of Texas laws concerning 

religious discrimination), and #5 (an affidavit 

to filled out by anyone who rejects 

David’s application for Registration) are reproduced 

below: 

Proof Proof of of of insurance 

insurance 

Psalm 91 

1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of 

the most High shall abide under the shadow 

of the Almighty. 

2 I will say of the LORD, He is my 

refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will 

I trust. 

3 Surely he shall deliver thee from the 

snare of the fowler, and from the noisome 

pestilence. 


4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, 

and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth 

shall be thy shield and buckler. 

5 Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror 

by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; 

6 Nor for the pestilence that walketh in 

darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth 

at noonday. 

7 A thousand shall fall at thy side, and 

ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not 

come nigh thee. 

8 Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold 

and see the reward of the wicked. 

9 Because thou hast made the LORD, 

which is my refuge, even the most High, thy 

habitation; 

10 There shall no evil befall thee, neither 

shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling. 

11 For he shall give his angels charge 

over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. 

12 They shall bear thee up in their hands, 

lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. 

13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and 

adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt 

thou trample under feet. 

14 Because he hath set his love upon me, 

therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on 

high, because he hath known my name. 

15 He shall call upon me, and I will 

answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I 

will deliver him, and honour him. 

16 With long life will I satisfy him, and 

shew him my salvation. 

By presenting a copy of Psalm 91, 

David Deck served notice that he is a true 

believer in the God of the Bible and that he 

believes (as stated in Psalm 91) that his God 

will protect him from harm — thus making 

secular insurance unnecessary. David implies 

that because his God demands his fol- 

lowers trust in Him alone, by purchasing 

secular insurance, David would demonstrate 

a lack of faith in his God. A demonstrated 

lack of faith would compromise David’s relationship 

to his God and perhaps even invite 

God’s wrath. Therefore, secular insurance 

is not only unnecessary for a man of 

God, it is an intolerable blasphemy since 

such insurance betrays a lack of faith. Thus, 

if government forced David to purchase insurance, 

it would violate his religious beliefs. 

Relevant Relevant law 

law 

Here, David lists laws of the State of 

Texas which prohibit discrimination based 

on religious beliefs and also list both remedy 

and punishment for any government official 

or employee guilty of religious discrimination. 

Note that David provided photocopies 

of the pages of the Civil Practice & Remedies 

Code carrying the relevant law as additional 

“proof” of this is truly the “law”. Although 

retyping a statement of the law might 

provide proper notice, it seems to me that a 

verified photocopy provides even stronger, 

less refutable notice. 

State of Texas Civil Practice 

& Remedies Code 

Chapter 106. Discrimination Because of Race, 

Religion, Color, Sex or National Origin. 

Section 106.001. Prohibited Acts 

(a) An officer or employee of the state 

or of a political subdivision of the state who 

is acting or purporting to act in an official 

capacity may not because of a person’s race, 

religion, color, sex, or national origin: 

(1) refuse to issue to the person a license, 

permit or certificate; 

(2) revoke or suspend the person’s license, 

permit or certificate; 

(3) refuse to permit the person to use 

facilities open to the public and owned, operated, 

or managed by or on behalf of the 

state or a political subdivision of the state; 

(4) refuse to permit the person to participate 

in a program owned, operated, or 

managed by or on behalf of the state or a 

political subdivision of the state; 

(5) refuse to grant a benefit to the person; 

(6) impose an unreasonable burden on 

the person; 

(7) refuse to award a contract to the 

person. 

. . . . 

Section 106.002. Remedies 

(a) If a person has violated or there are 

reasonable grounds to believe a person is 

about to violate Section 106.001, the person 

aggrieved by the violation or threatened violation 

may sue for preventive relief, including 

a permanent or temporary injunction, a 

restraining order, or any other order. 

(b) In an action under this section, unless 

the state is the prevailing party, the court 

may award the prevailing party reasonable 

attorney’s fees as a part of the costs. The 

state’s liability for costs is the same as that of 

a private person. 

Acts 1985, 69 th Leg., ch. 959, Sect. 1, 

eff. Sept. 1, 1985. 

Section 106.003. Penalties 

(a) A person commits an offense if the 

person knowingly violates Section 106.001. 

(b) An offense under this section is a 

misdemeanor punishable by: 

(1) a fine of not more than $1,000; 

(2) confinement in the county jail for 

not more than one year; or 


(3) both the fine and confinement. 

Acts 1985, 69 th Leg., Ch. 959, Sect. 1, 

eff. Sept. 1, 1985. 

Note that Section 106.003(a) declares 

that “A person commits an offense if the person 

knowingly violates Section 106.001.” In 

other words, unless a state officer or employee 

knows that: 

1) that you are a religious person; 

2) your failure to comply with a particular 

statute is based on your religious beliefs; 

and 

3) there is a law (Section 106.001) 

which prohibits government officials and 

employees from discriminating (denying licenses, 

benefits or use of public facilities) 

against individuals whose nonconformist 

behavior is based on religious beliefs. 

Therefore, just because religious discrimination 

is prohibited doesn’t mean it can’t 

happen or will necessarily be punished. 

Government officers and employees will not 

incur any personal liability for religious discrimination 

against you unless you provide 

him with proper administrative notice (cause 

him to “know”) that: 

1) you are religious; 

2) your behavior is based on your religious 

beliefs; and 

3) the particular government official or 

employee is prohibited from (and may be 

personally liable for) discriminating against 

you for religious reasons according to sections 

106.001, 002, 003. 

The key to enforcing this law is proper 

notice (see “Bad Faith Immunity” and “Administrative 

Notices,” this issue). Without 

proper notice of all relevant facts and law, a 

government official and/or employee could 

probably commit an act of religious discrimination 

and still avoid personal liability so 

long as they could argue they “didn’t know” 

what they did was wrong. However, once 

an official or employee receives proper notice 

(comes to “know”), he can’t proceed 

against you without incurring serious personal 

liability. 

If you decide to try registering your car 

without secular insurance, I suggest you keep 

multiple, verified copies of the relevant Bible 

passages and state laws in your car so you 

can provide any officer who stops you with 

instant and proper administrative notice that 

your behavior is an expression of your religion 

and thus his normal enforcement procedures 

against secular “drivers” may rise to 

the level of religious discrimination if applied 

against you. However, if you can’t 

present proper paperwork sufficient to persuade 

a reasonable person that your actions 

are justified by your religion and protected 

against government’s religious discrimination, 

you shouldn’t be the least bit surprised 

if all your verbal protests are ignored all the 

way to the slammer. Proper administrative 

notice is your shield. 

Affidavit 

Affidavit 

Last, Mr. Deck attaches a homemade 

affidavit for the convenience of whatever 

government official or employee decides to 

reject Mr. Deck’s application for auto registration 

for lack of proof of secular insurance: 

AFFIDAVIT 

DATE: ______________ 

TO: David Deck 

P.O. Box 92861 

Southlake, Texas 76092-0861 

Dear Mr. Deck, 

We are unable to renew vehicle registration 

at this time because __________ 

________________________________ . 

The statutes and implementing regulations 

[which justify refusing to renew the 

vehicle registration] can be found in 

_________________________________. 

Signed under penalty of perjury. 

s/______________________________ 

Typed or Printed Name: ___________ 

Title: __________________________ 

Identification No. ________________ 

My Physical Address is ____________ 

Date Signed: ____________________ 

Deck’s affidavit is short, simple and 

seemingly innocent — but potentially devastating. 

Can anyone provide adequate legal 

foundation for ignoring sections 106.001, 

002, and 003? Probably not. But anyone 

who dares to sign his name to this affidavit 

“under penalty of perjury” automatically becomes 

the principle target for prosecution 

for religious discrimination. 

If no one signs the form, what possible 

reason can government give for refusing to 

register Mr. Deck’s car? If he’s misguided 

and he has no real religious reason to refuse 

to purchase secular insurance, why not tell 

him the laws that nullify his application? 

After all, he’s simply asking for help. And in 

a sense, he’s giving the government an opportunity 

to proved him with a sworn “administrative 

notice” of why he must purchase 

secular automobile insurance. 

If there’s one flaw in David Deck’s application 

for vehicle registration, it might be 

a failure to send the application by registered 

mail. By sending his application through 

ordinary mail, it’s possible for government 

to “deny” the application by simply tossing 

it in the trash and claiming it was never received. 

But if the application is sent by registered 

mail and David gets a signed “green 

card” back to prove someone in the correct 

government office received his documents 

and notice, I don’t think government’s got 

much wiggle-room. They must then either 

approve the registration without secular insurance, 

or they must deny it and give reason 

for doing so. Either way, Deck wins. 

More More speculation 

speculation 

David Deck relied primarily on Section 

106.001(a)(1) to argue that the state could 

not refuse to register his vehicle because of 

his religious objections to insurance. 

However, it seems to me that Section 

106.001(a)(3) (“refuse to permit the person 

to use facilities open to the public and owned, 

operated, or managed by or on behalf of the 

state or a political subdivision of the state;”) 

might also be used by anyone whose religious 

principles prohibited securing a drivers 

license. After all, if the streets and highways 

are “facilities open to the public,” perhaps 

the state can’t lawfully prevent the devout 

from driving thereon even if they’re 

unlicensed. 

However, I wouldn’t bet that these sections 

106.001, 002 and 003 could directly 

excuse a refusal to register an automobile 

since virtually all automobile’s previously 

registered in the State of Texas appear to be 

property of the state (not private property of 

the driver). 

According to the State of Texas Transportation 

Code, 

Title 7. Vehicles and Traffic 

Subtitle A. Certificates of Title and 

Registration of Vehicles 

Chapter 501. Certificate of Title Act 

Subchapter A. General Provisions 

Section 501.004(a) “This chapter applies 

to a motor vehicle owned by the state or 

political subdivision of the state.” 

In other words, the entire Chapter 501 


(Certificate of Title Act) applies only to “vehicles 

owned by the state or political subdivisions 

of the state.” This implies that either 

1) all vehicles carrying a current Texas license 

registration are presumed to be property 

of the State of Texas; or 2) property of a 

“political subdivision of the state” (which 

presumably identifies some incorporated city 

or municipality like the City of Dallas or the 

City of Fort Worth). In either case, it appears 

that any vehicle registered in the State 

of Texas is presumably owned by the state 

or local government. 

But when David Deck’s application for 

vehicle registration was approved, the Texas 

Department of Transportation sent back a 

standard “Registration Renewal Receipt”. 

This “Receipt” read in part: 

“OWNER NAME AND ADDRESS 

“DAVID W DECK 

“PO BOX 92861 

“SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092-0861” 

Although I’m highly confident that 

“my” car is actually owned by the State of 

Texas, I have to admit that unless David’s 

Receipt was written in fraud, it appears that 

the car’s “OWNER” is not the corporate State 

of Texas (as I have believed) but DAVID W 

DECK. 

Unfortunately, such ownership seems 

to violate the law since according to State of 

Texas Transportation Code Section 

501.004(a) “This chapter applies to a motor 

vehicle owned by the state or political subdivision 

of the state.” DAVID W DECK is 

clearly not “the state”. Likewise, DAVID W 

DECK is not an incorporated city, county or 

municipality (political subdivision) of the 

State of Texas. 

The only explanation I can see is that 

maybe the term “political subdivision of the 

state” includes much more than incorporated 

cities and municipalities. Perhaps “political 

subdivision” includes any artificial entity 

that’s been incorporated/ created by “the 

state”. 

In other words, perhaps the “OWNER” 

of a vehicle registered in the State of Texas is 

not a natural person (David Deck), but the 

artificial entity/ “evil twin” (DAVID W 

DECK) which was created by “the state” 

and might therefore be properly described as 

a “political subdivision of the state”? (This 

speculation is not so farfetched since every 

corporation is legally an agent of its state- 

creator. I.e., technically, GM and IBM are 

agents of their government-creator.) Therefore, 

it might not be absurd to wonder if the 

artificial entity DAVID W DECK might also 

be a “political subdivision of the state” that 

created him. 

But even if DAVID W DECK were a 

“political subdivision of the state,” the “evil 

twin” hypothesis has so far rested on the 

assumption that the artificial entity “DAVID” 

was created by the federal (not state) government 

(probably through use of the birth 

certificate and/or SSN). Therefore, the idea 

that DAVID W DECK is a “political subdivision” 

of the corporate State of Texas rather 

than the corporate United States simply 

doesn’t “feel” right. If DAVID W DECK is 

a political subdivision of the State of Texas, 

then (since I was born in Illinois), my “evil 

twin” (ALFRED N ADASK) might be a 

“political subdivision” of the corporate State 

of Illinois (even though I currently live in 

Texas). And you, born in Ohio, raised in 

New York, and currently residing in Florida 

might be a “political subdivision” . . . of 

what?? 

No. The idea that DAVID W DECK or 

ALFRED N ADASK might be “political 

subdivisions” of any one of the fifty commonly 

recognized states strikes me as ridiculous. 

Too many wheels within wheels. If 

the “evil twin” hypothesis is valid, there can 

only be a single corporate creator for those 

artificial entities, and that creator must be the 

federal (not state) government. 

OK, if the artificial entity DAVID W 

DECK can’t be a “political subdivision” of 

the State of Texas, maybe the problem is that 

I don’t understand the correct definition of 

“the state”. Remember Section 501.004(a): 

“This chapter applies to a motor vehicle 

owned by the state or political subdivision 

of the state”? Virtually everyone on earth 

would presume “the state” means the “State 

of Texas”. But what if that presumption were 

wrong? 

“This “This “This state” state” or or “the “the state”? 

state”? 

However, there is another possible explanation. 

One researcher I respect has told 

me repeatedly for most of a year that whenever 

you see the term “this state” in a state 

law, regulation, etc., the term does not signify 

a de jure State like “Texas” but instead 

always represents to the local, corporate 

“State of Texas” (or State of Oklahoma or 

State of California, etc.). 

For most of a year, I’ve found the assertion 

that “this state” exclusively signifies 

the local corporate state both unconvincing 

and – even if true – unimportant. But maybe 

I misjudged. What if “this state” truly signifies 

the local corporate State of Texas, State 

of Oklahoma, etc., while “the state” identifies 

the “mother of all corporations” – the 

corporate United States? 

If so, the term “political subdivision of 

the state” used in Section 501.004(a) might 

not mean a corporate city or municipality located 

in “this state” (the corporate State of 

Texas) – it might mean an artificial entity 

created by “the state” — the corporate United 

States. Then the artificial entity DAVID W 

DECK could be both the OWNER of “its” 

truck and a “political subdivision of the state” 

(corporate U.S.). 

Yes, this is pure conjecture based on 

the flimsiest of evidence. Nevertheless, I 

gotta admit the idea that the artificial entity/ 

evil twin is a “political subdivision of the 

state” feels intuitively correct. Moreover, I 

like that idea because, so far – although I am 

convinced that DAVID W DECK and David 

Deck are two entirely different kinds of entities 

– I have yet to find a “comfortable” explanation 

for the kind of artificial entity that 

is identified by all upper-case names. I am 

98% sure that David Deck is a natural person 

while DAVID W DECK identifies an 

artificial entity. But what kind of artificial 

entity? A trust? Corporation? DBA? Although 

elements of all of those entities or 

capacities may be present in DAVID W 

DECK, none of them has yet provided me 

with a satisfactory understanding of the “evil 

twin’s” true nature. 

But I am intrigued by the possibility that 

our “evil twins” may be “political subdivisions 

of the state” (corporate United States). This 

possibility is a long shot and unlikely, but I like 

the smell of it. I like the feel. 

Keep your eyes peeled for evidence of 

the meaning of “political subdivision of the 

state” (Black’s Law Dictionary has apparently 

overlooked that topic). If any of you 

have any pertinent information that might illuminate 

this topic, please let me know. 

In the meantime, you should all cheer 

for David Deck and his remarkable success 

at compelling the State of Texas to register 

his truck without proof of secular insurance. 

It appears that Mr. Deck may truly be “in 

good hands.” 


Etc. 

A bus station is where a bus stops. 

A train station is where a train stops. 

On my desk, I have a work station . . . 

I married Miss Right. . . . I just didn’t 

know her first name was “Always”. 

You never really learn to swear until 

you learn to drive. 

True Stories 

DOUGH-BOY WANTED FOR AT- 

TEMPTED MURDER (AP) After San Diego 

resident Linda Burnett, 23, left the supermarket, 

several customers noticed her sitting 

in her car with the windows rolled up 

and both hands behind the back of her head. 

After a while, one customer became concerned 

and approached the car. He noticed 

Linda’s eyes were open but she looked very 

strange. He asked if she was okay, and she 

replied that she’d been shot in the back of the 

head, and had been holding her brains in for 

over an hour. 

Paramedics arrived and broke into the 

car because the doors were locked and Linda 

refused to remove her hands from her head. 

When they finally got in, they found 

that Linda had a wad of bread dough on the 

back of her head. A Pillsbury biscuit canister 

had exploded from the heat, making a loud 

noise that sounded like a gunshot, and the 

wad of dough hit Linda in the back of her 

head. When she reached back to find out 

what it was, she felt the dough and thought it 

was her brains. She initially passed out, but 

quickly recovered and tried to hold her brains 

in for over an hour until help arrived. 

And, yes, Linda is blonde. 

The Darwin Awards are given each year 

to those individuals who exhibit exceptional 

incompetence. Two of 1998’s nominees were 

discovered in the Arkansas DemocratGazette 

which reported: 

Thurston Poole, 33, of Des Arc, and 

Billy Ray Wallis, 38, of Little Rock, are listed 

in serious condition at Baptist Medical Center. 

An accident occurred Sunday night as 

the two men were returning home after a 

frog-gigging trip. Their pickup truck’s headlights 

malfunctioned when the fuse burned 

out. They had no replacement fuse but Wallis 

noticed that a bullet from his pistol fit perfectly 

into the fuse box next to the steering 

column. Sure enough, on inserting the bullet, 

the headlights turned on again and the 

two men continued driving home. After 

driving another twenty miles and just before 

crossing a bridge, the bullet apparently overheated, 

discharged and struck Poole in the 

right testicle. 

The vehicle veered sharply to the right, 

exiting the pavement and striking a tree. Poole 

suffered only minor cuts and abrasions from 

the accident, but will require surgery to repair 

his other wound. Wallis sustained a broken 

clavicle, was treated and on release, 

stated, “Thank God we weren’t on that bridge 

when Thurston shot his balls off or we might 

both be dead.” 

According to Woodruff County deputy 

Dovey Snyder, “I’ve been a trooper for ten 

years, but this is a first for me. I can’t believe 

that those two would admit how this 

accident happened.” 

Upon being notified of the wreck, 

Lavinia, Poole’s wife asked how many frogs 

the boys had caught and did anyone get them 

from the truck. 

When a woman reported her house burglarized, 

the Baltimore Police Department 

responded by sending a K-9 unit that was 

already patrolling close to the scene. As the 

K-9 officer approached the house with his 

dog on a leash, the woman ran out on the 

porch, clapped a hand to her head and 

moaned, “My God! I come home from work 

to find all my house robbed – I call the police 

for help, and who do they send? A BLIND 

policeman!” 

A young woman was pulled over for 

speeding. As the motorcycle officer walked 

to her car window, flipping open his ticket 

book, she said, “I bet you’re gonna sell me a 

ticket to the Highway Partrolman’s Ball.” 

The officer replied matter-of-factly, 

“Highway Patrolmen don’t have balls.” 

There was a moment of awkward silence 

while she smiled and he realized what 

he’d just said. He then closed his book, got 

back on his motorcycle and left. 

She was laughing too hard to start her 

car for several minutes. 

Possibly true stories 

A barber cut a priest’s hair but refused 

the priest’s payment saying, “I can’t take your 

money for you’re a good man who does 

God’s work.” The next morning the barber 

found a dozen bibles at the door to his shop. 

A policeman came in for a haircut, and 

again the barber refused payment saying, “I 

can’t take your money for you’re a good man 

who protects the public.” The next morning 

the barber found a dozen doughnuts at the 

door to his shop. 

A lawyer came to the barber for a haircut, 

and again the barber refused payment 

saying, “I can’t take your money for you’re a 

good man who serves the justice system.” 

The next morning the barber found a dozen 

more lawyers waiting for haircuts. 

A man was forced to miss a day from 

work to appear for a minor traffic summons. 

He grew increasingly restless as he waited 

all day for his case to be heard. When his 

name was finally called, the judge adjourned 

court until the following day. 

The man yelled, “What for?!?!?” 

The judge, equally irked by the tedious 

day and sharp query, roared out, “Twenty 

dollars contempt of court! That’s what for!” 

Then, noticing the man checking his 

wallet, the judge relented: “Ohh, that’s all 

right – you don’t have to pay right now.” 

The man replied, “I know. I’m just 

checking to see if I have enough for two 

more words.” 

I haven’t talked to my wife in 18 

months. 

She gets mad if I interrupt her. 


For whom the internet tolls 

From 1990 (when I started the Anti- 

Shyster) through 1996, this publication grew 

by 50% to 100% per year. Since we started 

at nothing (I earned an average of $650/ 

month in 1991), we were several years into 

the publication before growth rate pushed us 

into the lower middle class. 

I entered the middle class in 1996, and 

if the 50% to 100% growth had continued, 

expected to be in the upper middle class in 

1997. I was excited. After all those tough 

years, I was about to “make it”. 

However, instead of growing by 50% 

to 100% in 1997, our business abruptly fell 

by 60%. After a much shock and soul-searching, 

I learned that our decline wasn’t unique 

but had similarly afflicted other patriot publications. 

Later, I found out that the entire new 

media (magazines, newspapers, and even national 

TV news) had also experienced a serious 

declined in 1997 (although not to the degree 

experienced by patriot publications). 

Since virtually all news media declined 

in 1997, I concluded the cause was President 

Clinton. After years of selling fear (terrorists, 

corporate downsizing, crime in the 

streets, etc.) to the public, the dirty so-andso’s 

completely reversed their “spin” and 

started preaching that we have no inflation, 

no unemployment and everyone’s getting rich 

in the best economy since the 1960s. 

As soon as the body politic realized 

there were no credible foreign or domestic 

threats, interest in news fell. Interest in serious 

news (patriot publications) plummeted. 

Once I understood what’d happened, I 

realized that news in general and the Anti- 

Shyster in particular are “counter-cyclical”. 

That is, when the economy is hot and consumer 

confidence is high, interest in news 

and the AntiShyster will wane. (Nobody cares 

about a dreary old thing like the Constitution 

Introducing 

the “e-AntiShyster” 


when they’re having a sale on Jetski’s.) On 

the other hand, when the body politic is anxious 

over foreign or domestic threats, they 

become ravenous for news and the AntiShyster 

prospers. 

The solution to my 1997 financial decline 

was obvious. I would simply hang on 

until government managed to precipitate another 

recession (or worse) and the AntiShyster 

would once again flourish. How long 

could it take? Everyone knew the stock market 

was overpriced, the economy was built 

on sand, and collapse was not only inevitable 

but probably imminent. 

Enter the Internet 

Two years have come and gone, and 

my business has (at best) only held on. We 

got a good bounce in the fourth quarter of 

1998 from the Fall stock market “crash,” but 

otherwise, our financial struggle has only 

intensified. 

While I’m sure that Clinton’s 1997 declaration 

that we live in the best of all possible 

times precipitated the AntiShyster’s economic 

problems, I lately realize that a second phenomenon 

– the internet — has also entered 

our financial equation. I’m now convinced 

that even if I wait patiently for the next economic 

downturn, the AntiShyster’s former 

50% to 100% annual rate of growth is gone 

forever. Although we may get a temporary 

boost if the stock market falls 2,000 points, 

the long-term prognosis for the paper version 

of AntiShyster is not optimistic. 

I suspect the reason for our financial 

difficulty is that there’s so much free information 

on the internet that, unless a person is 

a real fan of a particular magazine, he has to 

be a little nuts to pay $30 for paper subscriptions 

when he can download more free information 

off the internet in an afternoon than 

he can read in a year. I know this reasoning 

is real because, last year, I used it myself to 

terminate my subscription to the Dallas 

Morning News. At the time, I even chuckled 

a little to see the internet strangling that mainstream 

newspaper – but I didn’t realize that 

the AntiShyster was even more vulnerable to 

the internet. (Ask not for whom the internet 

tolls, hmm?) 

By love possessed 

It’s funny how you can look at something 

for years and not see it. I’ve had a 

website for several years that I completely 

neglected. I was so much in love with the 

paper AntiShyster, I didn’t even glance at her 

sister media, the internet. See, I love the 

paper media. I love books. Old books. I 

like to see them, fondle them, and time permitting, 

read them. So my love for paper 

blinded me to the internet. 

However, in July, 1999, I realized that 

the internet is putting the AntiShyster out of 

business. Our readers are moving onto the 

internet. They’re spending one, two, three 

hours a day sifting through the mass of free 

internet information. 

I don’t blame ‘em. The internet’s a very 

seductive media. I know. I probably spend 

twelve to fifteen hours a week on the ‘net, 

myself. And of course, anyone who spends 

two hours a day exploring the internet, will 

necessarily have less time and need for paper 

copies of any magazine, including the 

AntiShyster. 

So, as our readers move up onto the 

internet, the paper AntiShyster is being left 

behind. We’re not alone. Virtually every 

other patriot publication is suffering a similar 

decline in readership. 

The problem also afflicts mainstream 

media. For example, the internet is destroy- 


ing the print media’s former dominance of 

classified ads. Media trade publications admit 

widespread financial stress and resulting 

heightened competition within the print industry 

is now fierce and bloodthirsty. I’d bet 

that 20% of the magazines we see on newsstands 

today will be gone within a year. The 

internet tolls for all paper publications. 

Ready or not, here it comes! 

There’s an old saying that “when the 

student is ready, the master appears.” Well, I 

don’t think anyone explained that saying to 

the internet, because that “master” is coming 

hard and fast regardless of whether you “students” 

ever thought about getting “ready”. 

Facing an internet-precipitated bankruptcy, 

I am now a very serious student of 

the internet. I may be slow, but I finally got 

the message: The internet is a technological 

tsunami which can’t be resisted or escaped. 

You either learn to ride on top of it or drown 

underneath. 

So I’ve started to publish an electronic 

or “e-AntiShyster” – for free – on our website. 

I’m hoping to attract enough attention 

on the website to sustain the publication by 

simply selling ads. No paid subscribers, 

probably no tangible products for sale. Just 

free copies of the AntiShyster including 

enough ads to sustain the business. If we 

don’t attract enough website interest to support 

me in the style to which I’ve become 

accustomed (a box of crackers a week, plus 

all the tap water you can drink), I’ll have to 

make other arrangements. 

However, it looks like the AntiShyster 

website will prosper. It was dead for several 

years prior to July and drew only 30 or 

40 “hits” a day. However, since we started 

publishing free copies of the magazine, we’ve 

jumped to over 25,000 “hits” a week and 

publish about 4,000 electronic copies of the 

“e-AntiShyster” each month. And that’s without 

making any attempt at promotion. If we 

triple that “publication rate,” we’ll be financially 

viable, and at the current rate of growth, 

I think we’ll do it before the end of the year. 

Of course, the e-AntiShyster is not a 

guaranteed success. Our website “hits” are 

encouraging, but it may still be tough to sell 

enough website ads to survive. I may have 

to return to roofing to subsidize the publication 

until the website (hopefully) generates a 

full head of steam. 

By love possessed . . . again 

For several years, I was simply too ignorant 

to appreciate the internet when it was 

staring me right in the face. So it damn near 

bankrupted me, got my attention, and frankly, 

now I’m in love. For 40 years I’ve loved 

paper. Today, I love digital. (Men are so 

fickle, hmm?) 

In fact, I’m increasingly excited about 

the e-AntiShyster. On the internet, I can produce 

a better-looking publication that reaches 

more people than I could ever reach in paper. 

I can use a larger font size to make the text 

more legible. I have much more creative 

freedom, especially with regard to color and 

graphics. Plus, there’s no production or mailing 

costs. As much as I’ve loved paper, I’ve 

got to admit, the ‘net’s better. Way better. 

I intend to sustain the paper version of 

the AntiShyster as long as possible, but a 

transition is in progress wherein the e-Anti- 

Shyster (published for free at 

www.antishyster.com) will be the future focus 

of this publication. 

I want to emphasize that moving to the 

internet is not my choice. I know that some 

subscribers will be upset if they can’t receive 

a paper edition of the AntiShyster or a 

refund on their subscriptions. Unfortunately, 

I may not be in financial position to do either. 

If it were up to me, I’d publish a paper 

AntiShyster until the day I die. But it’s not 

up to me. It’s up to my landlord who insists 

I pay the rent. And it’s up to the electric, gas 

and telephone companies that are equally insistent 

about being paid. 

I like this job . . . actually I love it. So if 

the AntiShyster can only survive on the internet, 

so be it. 

The cost 

of free subscriptions 

The AntiShyster’s survival will now 

depend primarily on how many people visit 

our website. I hope those of you who have 

computers will spend five or ten minutes 

every week downloading our magazines. The 

time you spend downloading issues will be 

the “cost” of your free subscription. If 

enough readers visit the AntiShyster website 

and download free copies of the magazine, 

we’ll survive. If enough readers recommend 

our website and publication to others, we 

will prosper. 

If you who don’t have a computer, I 

recommend you get one. They are surprisingly 

cheap (especially if you buy a used 

model). $500 will easily pay for a computer 

that’s more than adequate for internet access. 

There are even businesses like Flashnet that 

will give you a free computer, if you agree to 

use their internet connecting service for two 

or three years at about $20/ month. 

If you’re not already part of the internet 

revolution, you might as well join. It’s fascinating, 

infuriating, delightful and even a little 

dangerous – but it’s the tsunami of the future 

and impossible to ignore. 

Not so smart 

I realize that by publishing this article 

and alerting readers to our financial predicament, 

I’m inadvertently ensuring our failure. 

After all, having read this article, who’ll subscribe 

to a publication that may not be in 

business much longer? 

If I were smart, I’d keep my mouth shut 

and maybe more money would come in. But 

I really don’t feel like engaging in a life of 

complete deception. In business, there’s always 

a pressure to put a better face on things 

than may, in fact, be true. But right now, I 

feel compelled to let folks know that sending 

money for future issues of the paper Anti- 

Shyster may be viewed more as contributions 

and bets than legitimate subscriptions. 

I’ll do my best I can to keep publishing 

a paper version of the AntiShyster, but I doubt 

that the paper version will survive beyond 

the year 2000 – and it could be finished within 

90 days. It all depends on how much money 

comes in. If income falls further, the paper 

version is finished. If income rises, we can 

continue printing the paper version. 

But up or down, I want to thank everyone 

who’s ever subscribed or bought a book 

from us or just sent me a letter or article. For 

ten years you folks have fed me and paid my 

bills and allowed me to write for a living. I 

doubt that many of you can imagine how 

fortunate I feel to be able to support myself 

as a writer. 

And finally, I want to thank our Father 

Yaweh for the blessing of letting me read, 

study and write for almost a decade. This 

work can drive me nuts and keep me poor, 

but I live better than anyone I know and far 

better than I’d ever hoped. Every day’s a 

blessing and I am grateful. 

However, just in case this sounds like 

Douglas McArthur’s “fade away” speech, I 

want to emphasize that although the Anti- 

Shyster may be changing form, it’s a long 

way from finished. If we can’t afford to 

keep publishing a paper version, we’ll just 

publish it on the internet. 

Y’know the old saying: 

“If life gives you internet tsunami’s, 

make websites.” 

Actually, it’s not such an old saying – 

in fact, I just now made it up. But you get the 

point. 

Within a year, I expect to have all of the 

past nine years’ issues published on the website. 

I also expect to start a “chat room” and 

weekly internet radio program. Ultimately, I 

hope to establish the AntiShyster website as 

an electronic “town hall meeting” for any 

American interested in legal reform. I hope 

you’ll come look for us on the internet. We’ll 

be at www.antishyster.com. 


The previous article outlines my recent 

(and semi-painful) introduction to the internet. 

Having learned my (first) internet lesson 

the hard way – I’ve been nearly bankrupted 

by the internet – I’ve started studying 

the internet’s implications. 

Today, I’m in the process of discovering 

every cliche’ that’s already accepted as fact 

and thinking “my” discovery qualifies as something 

original and profound. I’m kinda like a 

kid on my first trip to the zoo, excitedly showing 

the elephant to the zoo keeper. It’s a 

miracle to me and old news to him. 

Nevertheless, I have reached some 

conclusions that I don’t think are typical. For 

example, I suspect the internet’s impact may 

precipitate widespread fear and anger in the 

American people. 

Consider: It appears that the AntiShyster 

can’t survive unless it’s published on 

the internet. If I publish the AntiShyster exclusively 

on the internet, I won’t need to print 

a paper version. That means my commercial 

printer (the guy who produces several thousand 

paper copies of this publication) will 

lose my business and resulting income. As 

more publications are either bankrupted by 

the internet or also begin publishing on the 

internet, those publications will also stop using 

commercial printers. 

Result: Commercial printers will experience 

ruthless competition as they fight 

among themselves for the diminishing number 

of print magazines and newspapers. 

Internet Deflation 


Result: Some (perhaps, most) commercial 

printers will be driven out of business. 

Similar business contractions and bankruptcies 

will cascade onto the producers of paper, 

ink, and printing press manufacturers. 

Result: As commercial printers, paper 

producers and press manufactures go bankrupt, 

they won’t need the offices, warehouses 

and industrial plants where they currently 

work. 

Result: Demand for commercial real 

estate will fall – and soon, the commercial 

real estate market will also decline. 

Result: As commercial real estate values 

fall, bank loans secured by commercial 

real estate may also be called in by nervous 

banks. Those called-in loans will push additional 

businesses toward bankruptcy. 

Thus, the internet releases economic 

forces capable of not only crippling little 

magazines, but capsizing the commercial real 

estate market and impacting major bank loans. 

A similar line of reasoning seems valid 

for the majority of retail products. While 

consumers may still insist on buying “personal” 

items like clothing and groceries from 

a store where you can touch, taste and see — 

most other products (computers, clocks, 

dishes, software, refrigerators, etc.) will be 

increasingly purchased over the internet. 

Price is king 

The primary reason for the shift to internet 

purchases is price. Conventional re- 

tail stores simply can’t compete on the basis 

of price with website stores (“webstores”). 

Why? Overhead. A typical retail store 

costs thousands of dollars a month in rent, 

utilities, and labor. All of that overhead must 

be included in the price of the products sold 

in the store. On the other hand, a webstore 

costs $20 a month and the entire “staff” can 

consist of a single entrepreneur who lives 

and works out of his own home. Because 

there’s virtually no overhead in the webstore, 

an internet entrepreneur can sell products at 

huge discounts that conventional retail stores 

can’t match and remain profitable. 

The second reason for the shift to internet 

purchases is convenience. While the retail 

store is open just six days a week from 9 

AM to 9 PM, the webstore is open 24/7. On 

the internet, I can shop for a refrigerator at 

midnight on Sunday. I can compare dozens 

of refrigerators and their prices, select the 

least expensive, and have it shipped to my 

door. I don’t have to start my car. I don’t 

even have to get dressed. 

Of course, if I need a refrigerator immediately, 

I must go to a local retail store. 

But if I’m willing to wait a few days for 

delivery, I can order over the internet and 

probably save $75 to $100 as compared to 

the retail store price. What would you do? 

Get dressed, drive to town, fight the traffic, 

pay for gas and parking, and pick up your 

refrigerator tonight – or wait a week and save 

$100 and a couple hours of your time? 


Soon, most people will buy on the internet, 

wait a week for delivery and save the 

$100. 

Result: The local retail appliance store 

can’t compete with the webstore, loses sales 

and therefore goes out of business. 

Result: the storefront is empty, the commercial 

real estate market continues to fall, 

and more bank loans are called in. 

Diminished traffic 

Obviously, people who buy on the internet 

don’t drive to town to buy their refrigerators. 

So, as we buy more products on the 

internet, we should all drive less. That means 

less wear and tear on our tires, less gasoline, 

less traffic to tear up our roads, less traffic 

jams, less need for newer or wider roads, 

and perhaps even lower taxes. Thus, internet 

commerce threatens to diminish much of 

our nation’s demand for cars, petroleum and 

concrete. Ford, Standard Oil and Goodyear 

won’t be pleased. 

How ‘bout office workers? Why commute 

every day to some downtown cubicle 

if you can do the same work in a corner of 

your own home? Businesses already employ 

“home workers” but even executives 

are beginning to work several days a week 

from their homes and commute to the office 

only for face-to-face meetings. 

Similarly, “virtual meetings” are being 

conducted with TV images transmitted over 

the internet between executives in New York 

and San Diego, so even face-to-face meetings 

are growing less frequent. 

Again, this means reduced travel, reduced 

traffic jams, and reduced gas, oil, tire, 

battery and automobile consumption. 

As the internet reduces the 

businessman’s need for face to face meetings, 

it will also diminish the need for air 

travel. The impact will spill over onto hotels, 

rental cars, travel agents and other businesses 

that cater to business traveler. 

But note that some of your neighbors 

feed their families by working in a retail appliance 

store. Others support themselves 

selling gasoline, automobiles, commercial real 

estate and airline reservations. As the internet 

diminishes demand for these products 

and services, many of these people will be 

unemployed. 

And where will they go for work? To 

the neighborhood webstore? I don’t think 

so. 

Thus, as the internet decreases the cost 

of goods and services, it will also increase 

unemployment. Lower costs and higher unemployment 

signal deflation, economic recession 

or worse. 

No refuge 

If the internet’s fierce efficiency bankrupts 

many “conventional” businesses and 

causes “conventional” workers to be unemployed, 

most of the clever folks hawking 

merchandise over the internet itself won’t 

fare much better. 

To illustrate, suppose I sell refrigerators 

over the internet. Once I cut a deal with 

the refrigerator manufacturer, I can theoretically 

ruin every “brick and mortar” retail appliance 

store in the country. After all, I have 

no overhead, I can sell 24/7, and my “territory” 

is the entire USA (actually, the world). 

Anyone who can find my website can buy 

refrigerators from me. 

Because my potential market is so vast 

and my overhead so small, I can sell so many 

refrigerators that (unlike conventional retail 

appliance stores) I don’t need to make $100 

on every sale. If I charge just $5 over the 

wholesale price of refrigerators, and sell 

1,000 refrigerators a week, I can earn 

$250,000 a year! And all I have to do is put 

up a pretty website, automate the order processing 

procedure, sit back, and bale the dollars 

as they fall off the internet money tree. 

Sounds great, hmm? Except when I 

brag about my sweet deal, my brother-inlaw 

decides to start an identical website, except 

he’ll sell the refrigerator’s for just $4 

over wholesale and steal my business. Sure, 

he won’t make as much as I did, but he’ll 

still be making about $200,000 a year and, 

for him, that’s great. 

Except, he bragged about his “money 

tree” when one of the neighbor kids was 

over visiting his son, and that nerdy kid stole 

the idea, created his own website and starting 

selling refrigerators for just $1 over the 

wholesale price. Sure, he’s not making 

$200,000 a year, but – hey - $50,000 a year 

is great money for a high school kid. (Except 

in California, of course.) 

But then some clever Mexican willing 

to work for $500 a week, starts selling refrigerators 

for just $0.50 over the wholesale 

price . . . . 

With each ensuing price cut, previous 

websites are largely put out of business. 

Thanks to search engines, anyone looking 

for refrigerators can quickly locate my web- 

site, my brother-in-law’s, the high school 

kid’s and the Mexican’s. Then all they have 

to do is shop among our websites to see who 

has the lowest total price and – bingo! – place 

their order. And what’s the determining factor? 

Price. The Mexican will win most of 

the sales. 

Can I take your order? 

It’s important to note that webstores 

seldom stock the refrigerators (or other products) 

they sell. Instead, most webstores are 

merely order-processing facilities. No matter 

whether you order a refrigerator from me, 

my brother-in-law, the high school kid or the 

Mexican, all we do is forward your order to 

the refrigerator manufacturer, and he ships a 

new refrigerator directly from his plant to 

your door. 

Thus, it doesn’t matter where the customer 

lives or the webstore is located. A customer 

in Chicago can shop just as easily for 

refrigerators on webstores located in Maine, 

California or even Hong Kong. If those 

webstores are all selling the same refrigerators 

manufactured in Seattle, once the order 

is placed, the freight costs will be the same 

from the Seattle plant to the Chicago customer 

no matter which webstore takes the 

order. There’s no salesman involved to persuade 

you with his sparkling personality (and 

make a fat commission). The factory warranty 

is identical in every case. So, again, 

the primary issue is price. 

Where price is the only issue, pricebased 

competition will be fierce and relentless. 

Internet competition should even drive 

the price of all refrigerators sold over the 

internet to just pennies above the wholesale 

price set by the refrigerator manufacturer. 

Thus, internet competition won’t merely 

bankrupt conventional retail stores, it will 

also bankrupt most webstores. 

And why not? Properly understood, 

most webstores are simply billboards on the 

“information superhighway” which are designed 

solely to catch the potential customer’s 

attention. Webstores don’t build refrigerators. 

They don’t stock ‘em, and they don’t 

ship ‘em. They just take orders, pass those 

orders on to the manufacturer, and then the 

refrigerator is shipped directly from the plant 

to customer. 

Although some webstores may currently 

flourish, they may not last long. Retail 

webstores have been successful primarily 

because a handful of brainy, adventur- 


ous individuals were among the first to try 

selling products over the internet. But as 

manufacturers slowly recognize the value, 

efficiency and necessity for internet sales, 

they’re building their own websites and selling 

their own products directly to customers 

at prices that neither retail “brick and mortar” 

stores nor webstores can hope to match. Thus, 

the internet should put a great deal of financial 

strain on most retail and wholesale businesses. 

Death of a middleman 

Almost all American employees are 

“middle men”. That is, somebody in Seattle 

builds a refrigerator that’s sold to an individual 

in Atlanta. That’s two people. 

But for the Atlanta customer to buy the 

Seattle refrigerator, he has to know about it. 

That means there’s advertising and media personnel 

filling the miles between producer and 

customer, trying to inform the potential customer 

and induce the sale. 

Then, there’s wholesale warehouses 

and retail stores in Atlanta to display the Seattle 

refrigerator. And there’s also railroad 

engineers, truck drivers and all the associated 

mechanics and gas station attendants who 

help keep the trains and trucks moving refrigerators 

from Seattle to Atlanta. 

Thus, between the single manufacturer 

and the single final customer there’s a massive 

distribution system consisting of hundreds 

of “middlemen” who directly or indirectly 

profit from moving refrigerators manufactured 

in Seattle to customers in Atlanta. 

The internet will eliminate many of those 

middlemen. Advertising (which supports almost 

all mainstream media) will be increasingly 

unnecessary. (How can you “sell the 

sizzle” when the only issue on the internet is 

price?) There’ll also be little need for wholesale 

warehouses and retail refrigerator stores. 

While it will still be necessary to transport 

refrigerators from Seattle to Atlanta, even 

the demand for railroad and truck transport 

may be reduced since there’ll be less need to 

stock a large number of pre-built refrigerators 

in some Georgia warehouse. Instead, 

refrigerators may not even be built in Seattle 

until the order is placed and paid for by the 

Atlanta customer. Then the transportation 

industry will only have to move one refrigerator 

to Atlanta. 

If the internet revolution cuts the cost 

of products, it will do so primarily by dismantling 

the traditional product distribution 

system and making most “middlemen” unnecessary 

and unemployed. 

But if the price of refrigerators falls, 

who will be able to buy them if the “middleclass” 

of distribution “middlemen” is largely 

unemployed? Even the refrigerator manufacturers’ 

sales and profits may decline. 

Thus, the internet’s long-range impact on the 

world economy appears to be deflationary 

and depressing. 

Direct relationships 

This chain of reasoning suggests that 

the only people who’ll remain employed and 

able to profit on the internet are those who 

actually create or manufacture a product, service 

or even magazine – and sell that product, 

service directly to the consumer. In other 

words, if fierce price-competition bankrupts 

retail outlets (both “brick and mortar” and 

webstores), only manufacturers will remain 

to sell their products directly to customers 

over the internet. 

If you don’t have a product or service 

which you personally create or help manufacture, 

you’ll probably be unemployed. Of 

course, every American has a personal “creation” 

to sell: his labor. But where will you 

sell it? The local refrigerator store will be 

bankrupt and not hiring. Likewise, local tire 

dealers, gas stations, and concrete mixing 

plants will also be diminished or bankrupted 

and unlikely to hire you. If most products 

are purchased directly from their manufacturers, 

there sure won’t be many “Help 

Wanted” signs for store salesman, clerks, and 

stock boys. 

While white collar executives working 

as “middlemen” may become largely unnecessary 

and unemployed, the internet’s impact 

on most blue collar manufacturing jobs 

may be minimal. Consumers may not need 

salesmen, ad men, and retail store clerks to 

promote and sell refrigerators, but they’ll still 

employ the guy who builds refrigerators – if 

there are any refrigerator manufacturing facilities 

left in the USA. 

Exported industrial base 

Unfortunately, over the last generation, 

the U.S. moved most of our manufacturing 

facilities overseas to countries with cheap 

labor. Thanks to “free trade,” Nike can pay 

peasants in Thailand just a few dollars a day 

to make sneakers to sell for $100 or more in 

America. 

An “exported” industrial base seems to 

simultaneously exploit foreign workers and 

deprive American workers of jobs. But from 

an economic point of view, so long as 

America had a “middleman” economy based 

on an extensive product distribution system, 

it didn’t matter too much if American corporations 

made our shoes in Thailand. So long 

as a vast number of ad men, salesmen, truck 

drivers, and store clerks moved Nike shoes 

from a pier in San Diego harbor to the customers’ 

feet in Iowa, Georgia and New York 

– all those middlemen got a percentage of the 

final sale of those shoes. The reason Nike 

charged $100 for sneakers was to pay $80 to 

all the middlemen. Thus, even without the 

actual workers who made the shoes, American 

middlemen prospered and could still 

support their families. Consumer confidence 

stayed high. 

Unfortunately, in the upcoming internet 

economy, most middlemen may be eliminated 

from the product distribution system. 

Where will these middlemen find new jobs 

if the entire middle man economy is reduced? 

If the distribution “middle” is gone, the only 

remaining employment will be at the manufacturing 

“end”. 

But our manufacturing jobs have been 

exported overseas. Therefore, the internet’s 

growth may force us to “import” manufacturing 

plants back into the USA. How can 

these factories be “imported”? By erecting 

high tariffs barriers to make foreign-made 

products prohibitively expensive and protect 

American manufacturing jobs. If they 

want to sell it in this country, they’ll have to 

build it here, too. If we don’t restrict free 

trade, Americans may quickly drive down 

the information highway into abject poverty. 

The ‘Net is alive 

with the sound of music 

The music industry illustrates the 

internet’s impact on the middleman economy. 

Thanks to the internet, musicians can market 

their music directly to customers as either 

downloadable electronic files or CD-records 

printed per order by the artists themselves. 

Instead of receiving pennies from major 

recording companies for every record 

sold, musicians can now receive several dollars 

from each sale and still cut the price of 

their records to a fraction of what the traditional 

record manufacturers charge. Thanks 

to the internet, records can be more profitable 

for musicians, and less expensive for 

customers. 


How is that possible? Because the internet 

is rendering “middleman” record distribution 

companies obsolete. As those 

middlemen are removed, the cost of records 

falls. As a result, the big record manufacturers 

(who’ve controlled the profitable “middle 

man” distribution position between musician 

and customer for the last three generations) 

are suddenly screaming in fear of losing their 

lucrative positions of power and wealth. 

However, their cries are probably in vain 

since they’re fighting an irresistible technological 

wave. 

The internet first impacted newspapers 

and magazines and other information outlets. 

Now, it’s impacting music. The telephone 

industry is facing the prospect of virtually 

free phone calls over the ‘net. Soon, 

other industries will also be impacted as the 

remorseless internet removes more and more 

middlemen from our economic system. 

If the internet decimates our middleman 

product distribution system, not many jobs 

will remain except for manufacturing. But if 

the majority of manufacturing facilities remain 

in Thailand, Mexico or Indonesia, we’ll 

have a lot of unemployed, impoverished 

Americans. 

Implication: the internet renders a prosperous 

America may incompatible with international 

free trade. Without high tariffs 

and trade barriers, we can’t hope to “import” 

manufacturing plants back into the USA and 

thereby provide American manufacturing 

jobs in the “internet economy”. 

But low tariffs and international free 

trade are the foundation for global governance 

and a “New World Order”. Implication: 

A prosperous America, the internet and 

the New World Order can’t coexist. For any 

two to survive, the third must be destroyed. 

Help wanted 

Besides manufacturing, I can imagine 

three other general categories of employment 

that will survive and prosper (relatively) once 

the internet is fully established: farmers, blue 

collar craftsmen and government. 

Government employment might increase 

if the internet precipitates widespread 

deflation and poverty. But even this is uncertain, 

since government welfare is really 

just another distribution system operating 

outside of the free market. It’s possible that 

the super-efficient internet distribution system 

might also diminish or replace the existing 

welfare distribution system and thus chal- 

lenge the structure and very existence of traditional 

government. 

However, plumbers, carpenters, electricians 

and roofers should remain employed 

to maintain our homes. A Chicago homeowner 

with a leaky pipe won’t use the internet 

to hire a less expensive plumber from 

Seattle. He’ll have to hire someone local. 

Like most fundamental home construction 

elements, plumbing wears out and fails 

at a fairly predictable rate. Therefore, our 

demand for home maintenance personnel 

should hold steady despite the internet. (Of 

course, demand for commercial property 

maintenance personnel may fall if the internet 

causes a decline in the commercial real 

estate market.) 

And of course, farmers are essential. I 

might be able to get by with a leaky roof or a 

dripping faucet, but I can’t live without food. 

The demand for agricultural products should 

not be badly diminished by the internet. More 

importantly, unlike American manufacturing 

plants which were exported to foreign countries 

to exploit cheap labor, you can’t very 

well “export” the soil of an Iowa farm to 

Mexico The farms are here, can’t be moved, 

can’t be replaced, and will survive the internet. 

In fact, I’d bet that the currently impoverished 

farmer may thrive in the internet 

economy. After all, he’s a true “creator” of a 

product we’ve got to have. His status should 

rise considerably if he can master the difficult 

job of marketing wheat, beef and eggs 

directly over the internet. 

The internet’s consequences may reach 

right into our homes and families. As unemployment 

rises, the first to be fired will be 

women and children. Kids will have less 

disposable income to get them into trouble. 

Women and children will be more dependant 

on husbands and fathers for support. 

Women, who currently file over 70% of all 

divorces, will gain new respect for their wedding 

vows. As respect for men rises, “angry 

white males” (like me) may become increasingly 

rare. 

If this reasoning is valid, it predicts serious 

economic stress and revolutionary political 

pressures. Nevertheless, I kinda like 

it. We’ll have a world that holds farmers, 

blue collar workers, property owners and 

true creator-innovators in higher esteem than 

the white collar, corporate “middlemen” 

who’ve hustled us and each other over the 

last fifty years. We’ll learn to value a person 

according to his actual work rather than his 

ability to hustle, hype and deceive. Feminism 

will be ridiculed. Men will be respected. 

I expect it’s gonna get scary. The internet 

may precipitate deflation, unemployment 

and recession or worse. Our entire economic 

– and then political – structures may be 

suddently forced to change into forms that 

would be unrecognizable and impossible just 

a few years ago. 

I predict a very bumpy ride. Nevertheless, 

I think I like it. 

Viva la internet revolucion! 


Media of exchange 

I have an old book entitled “Bills and 

Debates in Congress Relating to Trusts” published 

by the Government Printing Office in 

1903. Somewhere inside, I read one 

Congressman’s description of money as a 

mechanism for “distributing title to property” 

(I can’t find the precise quote, but trust me, 

it’s there). This is a powerful insight. Money 

doesn’t distribute property, it distributes title 

to property. I.e., when I buy a car, I don’t 

precisely buy the physical car, I buy a title to 

the car. My rights to use, drive and sell that 

car all flow from the kind of title that I buy. 

Today, we routinely speak of money as a 

“medium of exchange”. But few realize that, 

unlike legal tender/ Federal Reserve Notes 

(which merely “transfer” equitable title and 

physical possession of property from the apparent 

seller to the apparent buyer), lawful 

money (gold and silver coin) implements an 

“exchange” of legal title (true ownership, not 

mere possession) of property from the seller 

to the buyer. 

[Regular readers of the AntiShyster 

should be familiar with this hypothesis. However, 

if you don’t understand the difference 

between lawful money and legal tender (Federal 

Reserve Notes), get a copy of AntiShyster 

Volume 8 No. 2 for free from our website 

www.antishyster.com.] 

Essentially, my hypothesis boils down to: 

1) An ancient principle declares that whoever 

owns the money, also owns whatever 

that money is used to buy. For example, if I 

The Internet is Money 


send you to town with fifty of my silver dollars 

to buy a new TV, even though the receipt 

may show your name, the TV belongs to me 

because I was the legal owner of the money 

used to buy the TV. 

2) Because Federal Reserve Notes 

(FNRs) are loaned into circulation, they remain 

the legal property of the Federal Reserve 

System until the original loan is repaid 

in full. If those loans are not repaid during the 

typical 18 month useful life of a FRN, every 

piece of green paper in your wallet is technically 

the legal property of the Federal Reserve 

System. 

3) Based on items 1 and 2, I hypothesize 

that since the Federal Reserve System still 

holds legal title to the paper FRNs in your 

pocket, they should also receive legal title to 

whatever you purchase with those FRNs. Because 

you are using Alan Greenspan’s money 

(figuratively speaking) to purchase your TV, 

you only receive equitable title (right of use 

and possession – but not ownership) to the 

TV purchased with Alan’s FRNs. If so, Alan 

Greenspan and the Federal Reserve System 

technically own legal title to “your” TV, and 

“your” car and “your” house, and everything 

else you’ve purchased with “his” FRNs. 

If we accept my hypothesis concerning 

FRNs, then the Federal Reserve System is a 

perpetual “middleman” in virtually all financial 

transactions. That is, by using FRNs, we 

merely transfer equitable title (use) to property 

from the apparent seller to the apparent 

buyer – but the purported “buyer” is actually 

a mere “purchaser” and therefore does not 

receive legal title. 

Instead, legal title (true ownership) defaults 

to the “middleman” – the Federal Reserve 

System who still owns the FRNs. Using 

FRNs is kinda like using Don King to 

promote your heavyweight boxing fight. You 

and your opponent get your brains beat out, 

and Don gets rich. 

If the Federal Reserve System (or perhaps 

the government, but somebody up high) 

actually owns legal title to our homes, cars 

and computers, we have no legal rights (which 

flow from legal title) to that property, and thus 

no standing to argue actions concerning that 

property in courts of law (whose purpose is 

to determine legal rights). Instead, we are 

perpetually condemned by our use of FRNs 

to live as beneficiaries and virtual slaves whose 

only judicial recourse is in courts of equity 

(not law). 

If anyone (including the wholesale distributor, 

retail distributor or final customer) in 

the traditional distribution system uses 

“middleman” FRNs to purchase the refrigerator 

manufactured in Seattle, legal title to 

refrigerator defaults to the Federal Reserve 

System. All subsequent sales merely transfer 

equitable title (which confers the right of 

use and possession) to the refrigerator from 

one party to the next without affecting the 

Federal Reserve System’s legal title (which 

conveys true ownership) to that property. 


Enter the dragon-slayer 

But, if (as discussed in the previous article) 

the internet truly slays the middleman 

economy – and if internet customers can buy 

directly from a product’s manufacturer-creator 

without even using the middleman Federal 

Reserve System – then it’s theoretically 

possible for buyers to directly pay manufacturers 

in lawful money (gold or silver coin; 

not legal tender/ FRNs) and thereby secure 

legal title (not just equitable) to property bought 

over the internet. 

Thus the internet could conceivably empower 

us to regain legal title, ownership and 

standing in law for our personal property. The 

implications are fascinating. 

Internet businesses and strategies already 

exist to provide alternate money systems. Bill 

Gates and Microsoft tried to implement a digital 

cash system over the internet about 1996 

(which I suspect is the real reason the government 

went after Microsoft). By using the 

digital cash credits, people could buy and sell 

products over the internet without using FRNs. 

More recently, an operation called “e- 

Gold” (“electronic-gold”) has sprung up to 

pay your bills over the internet in grams of 

gold. I have a problem with this strategy since 

customers first purchase real gold with FRNs 

to be deposited into their e-Gold accounts. If 

my hypothesis about FRNs is correct, once 

you purchase your gold with FRNs, legal title 

to that gold should default to the Federal Reserve 

System. If so, legal title to any property 

you subsequently purchase with gold first 

purchased with FRNs should also legally default 

to the Federal Reserve System. 

However, I suspect that an internet banking 

system that paid bills in lawful money 

(pre-1933 gold and silver coins) might escape 

the Fed’s middle-man monetary monopoly. 

This suspicion hinges on the one 

exception to my FRN hypothesis: It appears 

possible that lawful money (gold or silver coin 

minted before 1933 by the mint of the United 

States of America) always carries intrinsic legal 

title. That is, even if you buy lawful money 

(coins) with FRNs, I suspect the legal title 

remains in the coin/ money. (If so, that’s why 

the pre-1933 coins are still in circulation and 

weren’t seized after 1933. Unlike gold bars 

and gold certificates, the government had no 

claim on lawful gold or silver coins.) 

So long as lawful money retains intrinsic 

legal title, it is a medium of exchange (of 

legal title) rather than a mere medium of transfer 

of equitable title. 

But even if FRNs convey legal title to 

gold and silver coins to the Fed, how can 

anyone prove who owns legal title to a coin 

without a receipt? Lawful money has no serial 

numbers, so even if a particular coin has 

been purchased with FRNs, unless there’s a 

receipt that specifically identifies each particular 

coin and denominates its most recent purchase 

in FRNs (symbolized by the $-dollar 

sign with a single vertical line) rather than 

lawful money (symbolized by the $-dollar sign 

with two vertical lines), I don’t think the Federal 

Reserve System can actually prove it owns 

or ever did own legal title to a particular coin. 

In the case of lawful money (coin), “possession 

is nine-tenths of the law,” so it would 

be difficult for government to overcome the 

presumption you legally own whatever lawful 

money (coin) is in you possession. 

Lawful internet banking? 

So, suppose an internet bank were created 

wherein you deposited lawful money 

(pre-1933 gold and silver coins) and used that 

lawful money to pay for whatever products 

your bought over the internet. The bank would 

work as a kind of clearing house which could 

send the physical coins to the seller or alternatively, 

fill the seller’s account with the actual 

coins moved from the buyer’s account. 

Real banking. Real money. Real legal 

title to property for the public. Restoration of 

legal rights. Standing in law (not equity). 

Personal freedom (not privilege or license). 

All of this could flow from an internet-based 

banking system using of lawful money. 

Back to basics? 

Most people view the internet as 

“merely” an extraordinary communications 

system. See, y’ gotcher text, y’ gotcher chat 

rooms, y’ gotcher internet radio and TV. 

Moolti-media on the info-mation sooper-highway! 

Very impressive. (Gee, what will they 

think of next, hmm?) 

More “advanced” students of the internet 

see it as the key to “e-Commerce” – the 

world’s most efficient product distribution 

system. Of course, even though the internet 

can enhance the distribution of products, it 

can’t actually replace the physical distribution 

of products. Yes, orders for products can be 

placed at the speed of light over the internet, 

but actual shipment will still take several days 

to construct the product, load it on a truck and 

haul it to the consumer. 

But. If the internet can’t distribute physical 

products through your telephone wires, it 

can distribute title to products through those 

wires. For example, there is no technical reason 

why an automobile title can’t be sent to a 

new purchaser over the internet rather than by 

mail. 

But remember what the Congressman 

said back around 1900? “Money is a device 

for distributing title to property.” 

Lessee . . . as I recall, the rules of logic 

mandate that if A equals B, and B equals C, 

then A equals C – right? 

Then if Money equals Distribution of 

title, and Internet equals Distribution of title, 

then Internet equals . . . Money? 

Intriguing hypothesis, hmm? 

Back to barter? 

The fundamental purpose for money is to 

escape the historic difficulty of a barter system. 

In other words, if one has a pig he wants to sell 

and another man has some corn he wants to 

sell, there’s always a problem trying to equate 

an exact quantity of corn for the pig. Worse, if 

the pig farmer wants a new plow, but doesn’t 

need any corn, the corn farmer can’t sell his 

corn, no sale is made, and both parties are stuck 

with products they own, don’t want, can’t sell 

and will therefore probably rot. 

With the invention of money, a pig farmer 

can sell his hog to corn farmer for money, 

then take that money to town and buy an new 

plow. Money eliminated the fundamental 

problem of precisely matching the products 

created by one person to the products created 

by another. 

But with the internet’s capacity to sort 

millions of transactions per minute, why 

couldn’t we return to direct bartering over the 

internet? For example, if I wanted a new $500 

TV, there’s no fundamental reason why I 

couldn’t exchange $500 worth of AntiShyster 

subscriptions to pay for that TV. Yes, there’d 

be some conversion problems in terms of 

agreeing whether a new TV was worth 10 or 

20 subscriptions, but that could all be worked 

out through bid or auctions similar to those 

that already occur on the internet. If I had 

already taken 20 orders for subscriptions and 

used them to fill up my electronic bank account 

as assets (not credits), I could barter 

(directly exchange) those 20 orders for a TV. 

Since I’m the AntiShyster’s creator, I own legal 

title to the subscriptions I’m selling and 

the orders I’m receiving in exchange. 

Thus, I should be able to directly ex- 


change my legal title to the subscription-orders 

for legal title to the TV (owned by the 

TV’s manufacturer-creator) – without using 

the Federal Reserve’s “middle-man” FRNs. 

Under a direct, computerized bartering 

system, legal title could be exchanged to products 

without any intervening medium other 

than the internet itself. Broadly speaking, I 

could trade the 20 orders for subscriptions 

for the TV without gold or silver coins, without 

grams of raw gold, without checks, credit 

cards, and even without FRNs. 

If I can do business without conventional 

money (media of exchange), then the 

internet itself becomes the “medium of exchange” 

. . . . 

This supports the hypothesis that, properly 

understood, the internet is not simply a 

place to make money or spend money – the 

internet is money. Potentially, the internet is a 

replacement for gold, silver, checks, credit 

cards, and Federal Reserve Notes. As such, 

the internet is more than a whiz-bang communication 

device on the information super-highway. 

Way more. More than the world’s most 

efficient “distribution system” for products 

and services. Way more! 

It appears that the internet is capable of 

functioning as a “medium of exchange” for 

legal titles to property directly from the manufacturer-creator 

to the buyer. If so, the internet 

is not merely a way to make money, or 

count money or even a place to get rich. More 

precisely the internet is money. 

If so, the internet directly threatens the 

world’s entire banking system and all of that 

system’s underlying legal and political systems. 

That means those guys must either destroy 

the internet or figure out how to own it 

(just like FRNs) as their own property. 

Prometheus II 

If this conjecture is valid, the internet’s 

importance ranks right up there with the invention 

of the wheel and the discovery of fire. 

And just as the ancient Greek gods 

chained and tormented Prometheus for giving 

fire to man, you can bet that today’s “gods” 

(bankers, globalists, politicians, etc.) will soon 

be screaming to limit, restrict, license, control 

or (ideally) destroy the internet’s electronic 

fire. 

Remember, we’ve explored the possibility 

(in the previous article) that the internet’s 

fierce efficiency and price-competition will foster: 

1) reduced prices (deflation) and 2) increased 

unemployment (depression). That’ll 

make a lot of ordinary folks mad. 

Moreover, if the internet is a new form 

of money that threatens to dismantle the world 

banking system, the bankers will be irate. This 

suggest that the internet may soon have a hoard 

of powerful enemies. 

Despite all the praise and excitement currently 

surrounding the internet, the time may 

be coming when internet stocks crash, 

websites are finally seen as barren money trees 

and public praise turns to fear or fury. If so, 

public hostility will be fanned by self-serving 

banking and political systems seeking to own 

or destroy the internet. 

But I doubt the bankers and politicians 

can destroy the internet. The internet is already 

so firmly intertwined in our socio-economic-political 

system, it’s unlikely that it can 

be excised even now without killing the system 

itself. Further, even if the internet’s destruction 

were theoretically possible, it is growing 

and evolving at a rate too fast for Globalist 

bureaucrats to react to or even comprehend. 

The “gods” may regret letting mortal man receive 

fire and the internet, but once the gift’s 

given, it’s unlikely to be returned. 

If the internet can’t be destroyed, I’d bet 

the “gods” will do it the “old fashioned way” 

and try to buy the internet. If some single 

institution (similar to the Federal Reserve System) 

could “own” the entire internet, that institution 

would also own the internet “medium 

of exchange” (just as Federal Reserve 

System currently owns Federal Reserve 

Notes). If so, legal title to products purchased 

over “their” internet would theoretically default 

to “them”. 

The problem with “owning” the internet 

is that the internet is an international structure. 

While I can imagine our government granting 

“ownership” of the U.S. portion of the internet 

to some U.S. institution, how will the U.S. 

government also grant ownership of that part 

of the internet lodged in France, India and 

Brazil? And if government doesn’t own all 

of the internet, it’s claims to own any of it are 

suspect. 

Since the internet is international, the 

only way the internet can be owned is if that 

owner is an agency of a single world government. 

But as noted previously, it appears that 

the primary economic force of the internet will 

be to restore domestic manufacturing, encourage 

high protective tariffs and end free trade – 

all of which is contrary to the principles of the 

New World Order. 

So how can a world government own 

the internet, if the internet is antithetical to 

world government? The contradiction makes 

me laugh. The New World Order’s got a 

serious problem. How can they control the 

world from a single centralized source, if the 

internet is uncontrollable and fosters de-centralized 

individual power? 

Things to come 

I applaud the internet’s potential for foiling 

the New World Order, but I still anticipate 

that within two to five years, the internet will 

be seen as a primary cause for economic dislocation. 

This dislocation may easily precipitate 

revolutionary political change. Unemployment 

of 20% to 30% is conceivable, and 

any political outcome is possible in that context. 

Some of us may be impoverished. Some 

may die. Maybe me. 

Still, I welcome the internet. It’s efficiency 

offers a fierce justice that may push us 

back toward a kind of honesty where “political 

correctness” is damned and people are paid 

what they’re worth – no less and also no more. 

If so, the internet may dismantle the existing 

de facto government and restore respect for 

unalienable rights. 

And if the internet is “money,” it may 

even help dismantle the existing banking system, 

the love of which . . . . 

Well, boys and girls, that’s today’s 

sermonette. It may be hard to follow and 

harder to swallow. But if anyone asks, tell 

‘em you heard it here first: 

The internet is more than a glorified 

communication network and more than a 

product distribution system. It is, potentially, 

a system to distribute and directly exchange 

title to property. As such, the internet is a 

“medium of exchange” and potentially, not 

merely a place to spend money or make money, 

but an incredible new form of money. 


Film review 

Waco: A New Revelation 

by Arthur Niedleman 

In almost ten years of publishing the 

AntiShyster, I’ve only presented one or two 

other book or film reviews. Normally, I’ve 

got more important topics to cover. 

However, in this case I’ve made an exception 

because – not only is the film itself 

exceptional – but it was the film’s producers 

who actually discovered “pyrotechnic gas 

canisters” hidden away in a Texas Rangers’ 

Waco evidence locker. The story is extraordinary 

because the gas canisters had been 

mis-labeled as “gun silencers” and it’s only 

through the grace of God that one of the 

film’s personnel recognized the error and 

realized the significance of his discovery. 

In theory, the pyrotechnic gas canisters 

might’ve remained mis-labeled and unrecognized 

forever if it weren’t for this film’s 

production crew. Instead, the discovery of 

the mis-labeled pyrotechnic gas canisters ignited 

the current Waco furor and renewed 

investigations. Thus, this film doesn’t merely 

report a story, it is the story – and an extraordinary 

one, besides. 

And so we publish. 

The whole story reminds me of a bit of 

poetry from the Book of Virtues: 

The ages come and go, 

The mountains weep along, the stars retire. 

Destruction lays earth’s mighty cities low 

And empires, states and dynasties expire. 

But caught and handed onward by the wise, 

Truth never dies! 

And that, my friends, must give the government 

fits. Cover-ups have a short shelflife. 

Sooner or later, the undying truth appears. 

Six years after the fiery deaths of David 

Koresh and 80 Branch Davidians, investigations 

and a new MGA movie — Waco: A 

New Revelation — have again moved the 

infamous siege at Waco to the forefront of 

our national conscience. 

MGA Films precipitated this heightened 

activity after it was allowed to enter the 

Texas Ranger evidence locker on four occasions. 

In that evidence locker, MGA found 

500 boxes of evidence including 28 videotapes 

– all previously unseen by Americans 

and unavailable during the Davidian trial. 

While digging through this mass of evidence, 

MGA uncovered four objects identified 

as “gun silencers” but realized that these 

objects were mis-labeled and were, in fact, 

the now-famous pyrotechnic gas canisters. 

By discovering four “mis-labeled” gas canisters, 

MGA Films precipitated the current 

Waco investigation. 

Dallas author, Dick Reavis, investigated 

the “siege” from the very beginning. “We know 

now that the FBI had explosive charges at 

Waco, showing us that their intentions were 

NOT what we have been told they were.” 

According to a September 4, 1999 Dallas 

Morning News story by Lee Hancock, 

the GAO’s report on Waco showed that the 

FBI asked for and received 50 illumination 

rounds and 250 explosive rounds from the 

military. 

Faced with these allegations and other 

recent disclosures, the FBI admitted that pyrotechnic 

devices “may have been used” at 

Waco. This admission represents a reversal 

of a long-standing denial that the agents used 

anything capable of sparking a fire at the 

compound. While there is no direct proof 

that the pyrotechnic devices caused the fire, 

Attorney General Janet Reno stated that “we 

must get to the bottom of the ATF’s and FBI’s 

involvement in this matter.” 

As a result, Attorney General Reno appointed 

former U.S. Senator John Danforth 

as an independent investigator to investigate 

these “new revelations.” 

However, Danforth immediately came 

under sharp criticism when he decided to 

exclude any examination of the ATF’s role at 

Waco. Instead, Danforth will strictly focus 

on whether the FBI lied about not using pyrotechnic 

devices and then engaged in a coverup 

– and whether Federal personnel directed 

gunfire into the building on that final day. 

However, evidence indicates that illegal 

acts may have been committed by more 

than the ATF or FBI. Department of Defense 

documents released to attorney David 

Hardy revealed that the army’s Special Forces 

command at MacDill Air Force Base in 

Florida was heavily involved in helping the 


FBI in Waco and that military personnel provided 

technical and equipment support. 

The Pentagon vehemently denied that 

military forces were used in the attack, but 

former CIA officer, Gene Cullen, gave MGA 

Films an exclusive interview that detailed 

accounts from antiterrorist Delta Force commanders 

of the military’s active involvement 

at Waco. According to Cullen, Delta Force 

operatives admitted that their secret unit’s 

involvement was far deeper than mere discussions 

or tactical observations. Portions 

of Cullen’s interview is included in the Waco: 

A New Revelation documentary. 

Waco is also making headlines on the 

legal front. Represented by former attorney 

general, Ramsey Clark, survivors of Waco 

are suing the government for wrongful death. 

Mr. Clark says the evidence of wrongful 

death is overwhelming. “The first civil right,” 

Mr. Clark says, “is to be free from unlawful 

and excessive force by your own police. That 

is the difference between a free society and a 

police state.” 

In the six years since the Waco siege, 

thousands of investigative man-hours have 

been spent examining witness testimony, 

autopsy reports, physical and forensic evidence. 

According to experts, the preponderance 

of evidence directly contradicts the 

government’s version of what really happened. 

One of the main investigators, Mike 

McNulty, dispelled many of the myths relating 

to automatic weapon fire, direct military 

involvement and BATF cover-ups in the 

Emmy award-winning documentary, Waco: 

Terms of Engagement. More recently, 

McNulty has also researched MGA’s Waco: 

A New Revelation. This documentary summarizes 

current investigations into Waco including 

MGA’s extraordinary discovery of 

the mis-labeled pyrotechnic gas canisters. 

MGA’s documentary stirred tremendous 

attention in the Washington establishment 

when it was previewed by members of 

Congress on November 3rd, 1999. At the 

conclusion of the film the audience stood up 

and clapped. Florida Congressman Cliff 

Stearn’s response was typical, “This is an 

excellent film that should be seen by all 

Americans!” 

As a result of MGA Film’s discovery 

of the four pyrotechnic gas canisters and subsequent 

documentary, both houses of Congress 

have opened new investigations, and 

are expected to convene full congressional 

hearings Waco in the early part of next year. 

According to MGA executive producers, 

Rick Van Vleet and Steve M. Novak, their 

film presents compelling evidence to answer 

the following questions: 

Why didn’t the Branch Davidians 

and their children come out of the compound? 

Did the FBI actually start the fire 

at Waco using pyrotechnic devices? 

Why was critical evidence missing 

from the evidence lockers nearly six 

years after the incident? 

What was the role of the elite U.S. 

Army Delta Force at Waco during the final 

assault? 

Does the trail of Waco evidence 

lead to the White House? 

The MGA film documentary “Waco: A 

New Revelation” is now available in VHS. 

For further info, call 1-800-277-9802 or visit 

www.waco-anewrevelation.com. 


In the last AntiShyster (Vol. 9, No. 2), 

we began to explore government’s reliance 

on the concept of “good faith” and the resulting 

“good faith immunity”. We suggested 

that “good faith” was based on the 

presumption that even when a government 

employee violates a citizen’s rights or a governmental 

duty, that violation was caused by 

the employee’s ignorance of the law or his 

duties, rather than a willful, criminal act. 

Thus, if he violated your rights, he presumably 

didn’t do so knowingly or intentionally, 

and was therefore afforded a “good faith 

immunity” from personal liability for the violation. 

Good faith, then, was ultimately based 

on the presumption that an errant government 

employee was ignorant of the relevant 

law, duties or rights. 

In Volume 9 No. 2, we also reported on 

the remarkable but inexplicable success that 

some administrative notices have had at 

stopping government harassment. We 

speculated that the reason administrative notices 

worked was that they “notified” officials 

of relevant laws and facts so as to eliminate 

any later claim of “ignorance” necessary 

to establish a “good faith immunity” 

for violating a citizen’s rights. 

Although we have much to learn about 

“good faith” and administrative notices, 

we’ve had a good response from our readers 

and it appears we are on the right track. 

The following letter is from J. Kingston, 

a retired judge: 

Administrative Notice 

Feedback 

Probably the most comprehensive 

book on the subject of administrative 

law is “Administrative 

Law Text” by Kenneth Culp Davis, published 

by West Publishing Company, 3rd edition, 

1972. It is a “must” read for all those 

whose adversaries are bureaurats (sic). 

The first sentence in the preface states 

that, “This book is primarily for law students, 

not primarily for judges or administrators 

or practitioners.” (Interpretation: This 

is easy for the layman to understand!) 

Administrative notices can be very effective 

in separating bureaurats from sovereign 

immunity. Nineteen states and the District 

of Columbia have abolished large chunks 

of the sovereign immunity doctrine by judicial 

action. Possibly, the leading state case is 

Muskopf v Corning Hospital District, 55 

Cal.2d 211; 11 Cal.Rptr 89; 359 P.2d 457 

(1961). 

In “Muskopf” the court held (5-2) that 

“After a reevaluation of the rule of governmental 

immunity from tort liability we have 

concluded that it must be discarded as mistaken 

and unjust . . . The rule of governmental 

immunity for tort is an anachronism, without 

rational basis, and has existed only by 

the force of inertia . . . None of the reasons 

for its continuance can withstand analysis . . 

. It has become riddled with exceptions . . . 

and the exceptions operate so illogically as 

to cause serious inequality.” 

But the courts are not stupid. They went 

on to say that their decision did not “. . . 

affect the settled rules of immunity of government 

officials for acts within the scope of 

their authority . . . Government officials are 

liable for the negligent performance of their 

ministerial duties . . . but are not liable for 

their discretionary acts within the scope of 

their authority . . . even if it is alleged that 

they acted maliciously . . .” 

What does this mean? It means that 

government officials are immune for acts 

within the scope of their authority. Conversely, 

if the bureaurats’ acts are outside the 

scope of their authority, they are not immune 

from suit. We can point this out through administrative 

notices. 

It also means that, “Government officials 

are liable for the negligent performance 

of their ministerial duties . . .” Using these 

same words that the court used, in your allegations 

against a bureaurat, will help you 

prevail. 

We are also informed that the bureaurats 

“. . . are not liable for their discretionary acts 

within the scope of their authority . . . even if 

it is alleged that they acted maliciously . . .” 

In other words, their discretionary acts must 

be “. . .within the scope of their authority . . 

.” That, in a nutshell, is “good faith.” 

When the bureaurat is notified administratively, 

that they are not authorized to act 

the way in which they are contemplating, 

and they continue to so act, their “good faith” 

has been put in jeopardy. I.e., the bureaurat 

has been administratively noticed that the discretionary 

acts they are contemplating are 


clearly not within the scope of their authority, 

and in fact, are plainly outside the scope 

of their authority. If they continue to act, it 

may be safely alleged that they are acting 

without immunity and in “bad faith.” 

It’s now up to another bureaucratic tribunal 

to determine who has the preponderance 

of evidence: you, providing evidence 

that his acts are not authorized, or, the 

bureaurat, providing evidence that his acts 

are authorized. (Remember, evidence presented 

by a bureaurat to a bureaucratic tribunal 

carries more weight than the same evidence 

presented by a non-bureaucrat! Funny 

how that seems to work!) 

The Supreme Court, in Myers v 

Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, 303 

US 41, 50-51; 58 S.Ct 459, 463; 82 L.Ed 

638 (1938) informed us that “. . . no one is 

entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or 

threatened injury until the prescribed administrative 

remedy has been exhausted.” 

When a complaint is filed in a judicial 

court of competent jurisdiction against a 

bureaurat, and the case is dismissed, we call 

the judge a commie pinko fag, and walk away 

with our proverbial tail between our legs. 

Did we lose the case? Or, is our case still 

alive, and we just haven’t exhausted our administrative 

remedies? Don’t expect them to 

tell you. 

Administrative notices, hearings, law, 

and procedure, are powerful weapons to add 

to your arsenal. Witness, the Freedom Of 

Information Act and the Privacy Act (5 USC 

551 et seq.). 

I’m glad to see you bringing this 

weapon (especially administrative notices) 

to light. 

Thank you. 

Generally speaking, Mr. Kingston’s 

recommendations and comments indicate 

our understanding of administrative notices 

is both important and fundamentally valid. 

However, I’ve read and edited enough 

articles to be able to infer a great deal about 

a man from his writing. This is our second 

letter from Mr. Kingston, and although I’ve 

never met the man, I judge from his writing 

that he is not only unusually intelligent, perceptive, 

and well-educated – he is disciplined. 

That is, Mr. Kingston’s text is unlikely to 

reveal anything he did not intend to reveal. 

Thus, you can not only learn from what he 

does write, but also from what he does not. 

His letter is complimentary, but re- 

served. There is less praise than a teacher’s 

“pat on the back” for an earnest student 

who shows promise but still has a lot to learn. 

I suspect Mr. Kingston is telling those of us 

who can read that we’re on an important 

path, but that our understanding is at least 

incomplete and possibly flawed. 

Mr. Kingston’s letter mentions one textbook 

and two cases which explain or illuminate 

administrative notices and their relationship 

to government claims of immunity. 

Anyone with a serious interest in those topics 

should read those documents closely. 

Speaking of cases, American Communications 

Assoc. v. Douds 339 U.S. 382, 442 

(1950), contains and excerpt that is regularly 

quoted by the “patriot” community: 

“It is not the function of our Government 

to keep the citizen from falling 

into error, it is the function of the citizen 

to keep the government from falling into 

error.” 

This quote has been generally interpreted 

as proof that: 1) government has little 

or no business enforcing “proactive” regulations 

to “protect” the People in advance 

from their own possible errors; and/or 2) 

the People have a duty to distrust, closely 

monitor and control all government activities. 

In other words, the quote has been 

traditionally viewed as evidence that We the 

People are sovereign, and government is our 

servant. 

But perhaps that quote is equally valid 

as proof of our responsibility to notify the 

government of the relevant law and facts in 

a particular case in order to keep them from 

“falling into error.” Closely read, the quote 

implies that government has no duty to inform 

us of all the relevant the law, but we 

have an obligation to inform/ notify them. If 

we fail to notify government officials of relevant 

facts or law, who can blame them for 

“falling into error”? Thus, in administrative 

hearings, much of the burden of proof is 

shifted from government (whose former duty 

was to prove we were guilty) to the People – 

whose new administrative duty is to prove 

we are innocent. 

Thus, administrative procedure seems 

to shift the presumption of innocence formerly 

enjoyed by the People to the government. 

I.e., if an administrator says you’re 

guilty of some infraction, it’s not his duty to 

prove you’re actually guilty – it’s your duty 

to prove he’s “fallen into error”. If you fail 

to properly prove the bureaucrat’s error, his 

allegation is presumed correct and you therefore 

are presumed guilty. 

I suspect that administrative notices 

may satisfy our “duty” to keep the government 

from “falling into error,” defeat the presumption 

of government ignorance, establish 

administrators’ personal liability and 

thereby shift much of the presumption of innocence 

back to We the People. 

Here’s part of a letter from a convict 

sentenced to life I prison without parole asking 

about administrative notices. Most of his 

letter has no relevance here, but one part 

stuck me as curious. 

Mr. Adask, 

When I was incarcerated in California 

in 1981, guidelines for when an inmate like 

myself would be considered for a modification 

of the term of sentence were set forth in 

the state Administrative Code rather than the 

Penal Code. That Admin. Code stated that I 

should receive a “Clemency Hearing” after 

serving twelve years. At this clemency hearing, 

factors in aggravation and mitigation 

would be weighed, and the decisions of the 

panel would be sent either to the Governor, 

or the State Supreme Court (depending on 

certain parameters) for final adjudication. 

However, I was not afforded my clemency 

hearing in 1993 (after twelve years) 

since the administrative manual was changed 

in 1983, and the minimum time set forth for 

the first clemency hearing was raised from 

twelve to thirty years. 

Regards, 

Mr. Andrew Lee Granger 

Corcoran, Calif. 93212 

Dear Mr. Granger, 

First, I’d like to know what 1981 “parameters” 

determined whether your clemency 

“appeal” would be ultimately decided 

by the Governor (head of the executive 

branch of government) or the State Supreme 

Court (head of the judicial branch). Perhaps 

those parameters could help us understand 

how to distinguish between administrative 

hearings and judicial trials. 

The fact that either the Governor or the 


Supreme Court might have control suggests 

that in some cases (where a defendant was 

convicted in an administrative process) the 

Governor (as head of the executive/ administrative 

branch of government) would have 

final clemency power. In other cases (where 

the defendant was convicted in a true judicial 

trial), the State Supreme Court (as head 

of the judicial branch of government) would 

have final clemency power. 

If so, your first order of business might 

be to determine whether you were convicted 

in an administrative procedure operating 

under the Executive Branch of state government, 

or if you were convicted in a judicial 

trial under the Judicial Branch. 

I’d bet that until the laws were changed 

in 1983, persons might be equally likely to 

be tried in a judicial or administrative tribunal. 

However, since 1983, I’d bet that true 

judicial trials are uncommon, and virtually 

all “trials” are in fact administrative hearings. 

I’d also read the relevant law closely to 

discover whether the precise name of the 

“State Supreme Court” changed between 

when you were incarcerated and 1983 (when 

your state’s administrative code was 

changed). 

We already know that a “District Court 

of the United States” is a judicial court created 

by Article III of the Constitution while a 

“United States District Court” is some sort 

of administrative tribunal operating under 

Article I, II or IV of the Federal Constitution 

(see Cochran et al v. St. Paul & Tacoma 

Lumber Co., 73 Fed Sup 288). 

The government is running two court 

systems: one, judicial; the other, administrative. 

While we assume we are being tried 

as individuals in a judicial court, I suspect 

that instead our case is being administered 

in an administrative tribunal. (The significance 

of the “case” is explored in the following 

article, “The Battle’s in the Case – 

Not the Court”.) Thus, if you appear in a 

“District Court of the United States” you 

will be tried judicially as an individual — 

but if you appear in a “United States District 

Court” your case may be processed 

administratively. 

Similarly, I wouldn’t be surprised if 

there were once a “California Supreme 

Court” or perhaps a “Supreme Court of 

California” which has been supplanted by a 

more recent “Supreme Court of the State of 

California”. The first court would be cre- 

ated by the State Constitution to serve the 

People of the State called “California”. The 

latter court would be created by the state 

legislature to serve the corporation called 

the “STATE OF CALIFORNIA”. If you were 

tried under the first court, you were probably 

tried judicially and might receive all of 

the “constitutionally guaranteed” rights you 

expect. However, if your case was administered 

under the second (corporate) court, 

that case would probably be determined with 

reference to few if any “constitutional 

rights”. 

Thanks, 

Alfred Adask 

Here’s another excerpt that fires my 

imagination: 

Alfred: 

I was “indicted” (?) on two counts: 

7212(a) and 18 Sec. 153. Both were not 

“criminal” cases, but the Assistant U.S. Attorney 

sure made it that way. Like most “pro 

se” litigants, I was swamped by government 

actors and found guilty on both counts in 

one hour and 15 minutes. 

I used “Administrative Notices” in my 

“railroad” case, though I could not/did not 

start until after the trial. 

The Judge in this case, never issued an 

order with findings of fact and conclusions 

of law. Instead, he always issued his orders 

with comment “based on position, or findings, 

of the United States”. 

Sincerely, 

Kent Shaw 

First, our “criminal” courts are dangerously 

biased and dedicated to achieving 

convictions rather than providing impartial 

decisions. While some people may receive 

justice, they are exceptions. Anyone who 

enters a court expecting “justice will be 

done” is a damn fool. Our courts’ purpose 

is to convict people – and that’s exactly what 

they do over 95% of the time. 

Implication: The most effective means 

of defeating a government prosecution is 

through administrative procedure, long before 

the case gets to court. Once you get to 

court, your defeat is virtually guaranteed. 

(As a practical matter, criminal court is not 

where your guilt is determined – that was 

done long before you appeared before the 

judge. Instead, the criminal court is where 

your sentence is determined.) 

Second, I suspect the purpose of administrative 

notices is to inform an adversary 

of relevant law and facts before that 

adversary acts in violation of those laws and 

facts and “falls into error”. Once they have 

notice, if they commit a particular violation 

at some time in the future, they presumably 

incur personal liability. I.e., acting in violation 

of the earlier notice is evidence that they 

acted willfully and are thus personally subject 

to criminal liability. 

If so, administrative notices are primarily 

useful as devices to stop prosecution 

during the administrative process that proceeds 

courtroom determinations. Likewise, 

it follows that administrative notices sent during 

— and especially after — a trial can’t 

have the desired effect. It’s like sending me 

an administrative notice that I shouldn’t have 

skipped my college classes back in the 1960’s 

to go get drunk. It’s too late. It’s virtually 

impossible for a notice sent after the fact to 

establish earlier willful violation of the law 

and thus criminal liability. 

However, I am interested in your observation 

that: 

“The Judge never issued an order with 

findings of fact and conclusions of law. Instead, 

he always issued his orders with the 

comment ‘based on position, or findings, of 

the United States’ denied (or whatever).” 

This observation implies that perhaps 

you didn’t have a “trial” — at least not in 

the “judicial” sense. Instead, you may have 

only had an administrative hearing masquerading 

as a judicial trial. As you’ll see in the 

next article (“The Battle’s in the Case – Not 

the Court”) it appears that only juries are 

“finders of fact”. If so, it follows that administrators 

(bureaucrats, etc) cannot “find 

facts” — they can only report the facts and 

law that are agreed to by all parties to a 

case. 

Whenever there is disagreement within 

the case as to the relevant facts or law, I 

suspect the issue must be settled by a judicial 

trial wherein a judicial (not administrative) 

judge and jury can determine the contested 

law and “find (contested) facts”. Your 

“judge’s” refusal to “find facts” or issue 

“conclusions of law” (duties reserved for 

the judicial system), implies that perhaps he 

wasn’t acting in a judicial capacity. Instead, 

he might’ve been acting in an administrative 


capacity and was therefore lawfully prevented 

from issuing “findings of fact and 

conclusions of law”. 

Also, a judge that “always issued his 

orders with comment “based on position, 

or findings, of the United States” seems consistent 

with my hypothesis (explained in the 

next article) concerning the “case”. 

If the judge based his rulings entirely 

on the “position and findings of the United 

States” – but not on your “position and findings” 

– where did he find the government’s 

“positions and findings”? 

I.e., if the judge ignored all of the “positions 

and findings” that you presented in 

court, and instead accepted all of the 

government’s “positions and findings” presented 

in court, he might be challenged for 

personal bias and failure to adjudicate impartially. 

But – what if the judge acted administratively 

and therefore relied only on those 

“positions and findings” found in the case 

(not the court)? And what if you didn’t understand 

the difference between “case” and 

“court” and therefore entered your “positions 

or findings” into the court but failed to 

enter anything into the case? Then, if the 

judge’s administrative determination was 

based strictly on whatever “appeared” in 

the case, you would lose by default since you 

entered nothing into the case. 

Of course, all of this is conjectural and, 

worse, ambiguous, irrational or possibly 

nuts. But when you read “The Battle’s in the 

Case, not the Court,” come back and read 

this section again and you might begin to 

understand this lunacy. 

After you’ve read the next article, let 

me know if the “case vs. court” hypothesis 

seems plausible or absurd. 

Thanks, 

Alfred Adask 


Administrative Notices 

Is the Battle in the Court? 

Or in the Case? 


Alfred - I read with great interest the 

article about administrative notices. But!! – 

nowhere did I find out how to do this – should 

the notice follow a specific format? Should 

it contain cites of particular laws? I remain 

bemused. Keep up the wonderful articles! 

Lucy Alexander, Austin, TX 

First, note that this entire article is conjectural. 

I have little to support what follows 

other than speculation. While I hope you’ll 

consider the ideas in this article, I don’t want 

anyone to automatically believe them. 

I suspect the trouble with administrative 

notices is that they are almost incomprehensibly 

simple. 

To understand how to write an Administrative 

Notice, first understand its purpose: 

To inform (notify) the recipient of facts and 

law relevant to the issue at hand. 

Sounds simple, doesn’t it? 

The hard part is that the purpose (to 

inform the recipient of facts and law) appears 

to exclusive. Relevant facts and law – 

that’s all you should include in your notice. 

And that’s the trouble. Proper notices 

do not include statements of personal belief 

or personal opinion. They do not include 

“True Confessions” of your most sincere 

feelings, nor predictions of the recipient’s 

fate (“God will strike you down if you con- 

tinue to harass His servant!”). Likewise, 

proper notices don’t include endless rants 

on the Founding Fathers, the difference between 

a democracy and a Republic, and the 

reason we are all under Martial Law, Admiralty 

Law, or no Law whatever (depending 

on your point of view). 

In other words, a good notice includes 

almost no trace of you. No reference to your 

cherished opinions, insightful judgments and 

wise conclusions. Just facts and law relevant 

to the case at hand. 

Unfortunately, writing is a very egotistical 

exercise (I know). Most people can’t stand 

to write anything that’s not filled, colored and 

embellished with hints, clues and declarations 

revealing the wonder and glory of their lives. 

But egotistical, self-serving prose renders most 

“notices” irrelevant, inconsequential and selfdefeating. 

The average person will probably think 

that removing any trace of his “personality” 

from a notice is not only difficult, it’s absurd. 

After all, if the IRS comes after you for 

back taxes, you are the central figure, and 

thus you should be the focus of whatever 

administrative notices you send as a reply – 

right? 

Maybe not. 

I suspect that in an administrative action, 

your status is more like that of a “witness” 

than a “party” or “defendant”. In an 

administrative action, you are not the central 

figure, party or issue. Instead, the focus of 

an administrative action is the case – the file, 

the physical record. 

A bureaucrat’s lot 

Imagine the IRS is processing a “case” 

with your name on it. Understand that the 

bureaucrat in charge of “your” case has not 

only never seen you – but doesn’t want to 

see you, either. He did not choose to “administer” 

you. Instead, a computer (or bureaucratic 

superior) dumped a case (a physical 

file containing some papers) on the 

bureaucrat’s desk and told him to “handle 

it”. Note that the bureaucrat’s job is not to 

handle you, it’s to handle the case, the physical 

file or record. 

How does a bureaucrat “handle” a case? 

He gets it off his desk. That’s all the bureaucrat 

really wants to do: clear his desk. Why? 1) To 

keep his screaming boss off his back and 2) get 

some free time to hang around the water cooler 

and talk to that new, amply-endowed secretary. 

How does a bureaucrat get the case off 

his desk? By reading the case and then either 

filing it or passing it to another bureaucrat 

for further administrative action. 

That’s the essence of a bureaucrat’s job. 

He reads and sorts cases. That’s all. 

Figuratively speaking, every bureaucrat 

has two chutes (A and B ) where he can file 

the cases piled on his desk. It’s the 

bureaucrat’s job to read cases and – depend- 


ing on their content – determine which 

“chute” gets the case. 

Unfortunately, the boss piles hundreds 

of cases on the bureaucrat’s desk – far too 

many to actually read and fully evaluate. 

However, over time, the bureaucrat learns 

that, on average, 99% of the cases always go 

into chute A, and 1% into chute B. That 

means that when the boss gives him another 

100 cases to “handle,” all the bureaucrat has 

to do is stuff ‘em all down chute A since, 

presumably, that’s where 99% of all cases 

belong anyway. 

As for the one case that belongs in chute 

B – tough. If someone complains later (which 

is unlikely) about an improper determination, 

the bureaucrat can correct his error and 

explain it away as a mistake rather than willful 

negligence. 

In the meantime, based on his statistical 

presumptions, the bureaucrat has cleared his 

desk and found plenty of time to chat up the 

new secretary. Thanks to presumptions, a 

bureaucrat’s life can be sweet. 

Presumed assent 

Unfortunately, once the boss, Congress 

or the public realizes that the bureaucrat isn’t 

really reading and evaluating cases, but is 

simply “piling” them into chute A, there’ll be 

trouble. A living human being must make 

each determination. Therefore, the bureaucrat 

may be forced to actually read and properly 

sort all those silly cases – that is, actually 

work! Worse, he won’t have time to 

woo the secretary and she (the fickle b____!) 

will take off with the screaming boss who 

keeps piling cases on the poor bureaucrat’s 

desk! (Alas!) 

So how could a clever bureaucrat avoid 

the work of actually evaluating his cases, 

keep using his handy presumptions to sort 

cases, and still avoid personal liability . . . ? 

What if he shifted the burden of evaluation 

onto the poor schnook whose name is 

on the case? What if – instead of actually 

reading the case – the IRS programmed a 

computer to send an Administrative Notice 

to the schnook out there in TV land? I.e., 

“Dear Mr. Schnook, the IRS has determined 

that the case associated with your name 

should be sent down chute ‘A’ (taxpayer).” 

Although the Notice looks like a declaration 

of absolute facts or law, it might really 

be a statement of the bureaucrat’s presumptions. 

Properly understood, the “notice” 

might really be an inquiry wherein the IRS 

implicitly asks, “Do you agree with our presumption 

that you are a taxpayer?” 

If Mr. Schnook does not respond properly, 

the IRS can legally presume Schnook is a 

“taxpayer” and stuff his case down chute A. 

Schnook’s silence is legally interpreted as his 

agreement with the government presumption that 

he is a taxpayer. 

Thus, through use of notice, the bureaucrat 

cleverly evades personal liability for 

unilaterally presuming that Schnook is a “taxpayer”. 

The bureaucrat used a notice to delegate 

the job of determining whether the case 

should be sent down chute “A” (taxpayer) or 

chute “B” (non-taxpayer) to Mr. Schnook. 

OK, if Schnook sits still (try saying 

that five times fast) for the first notice, why 

not send another? 

How ‘bout, “Dear Mr. Schnook, the 

IRS has determined you owe another 

$483.67 on your 1997 income tax return.” 

The IRS may be merely guessing whether 

Schnook owes more money. Their notice 

may be less a statement of truth than presumption. 

Even if the notice poses no express 

question, I suspect IRS uses the notice 

to ask Mr. Schnook if he agrees that he owes 

another $483.67. 

If Mr. Schnook does not expressly refute 

the alleged debt, the debt will be presumed 

valid and enforcement will begin. 

Schnook’s silence effectively turned a 

notice of government presumptions into a 

stipulation of facts. By failing to respond to 

the government’s notice, Mr. Schnook made 

the “determination” that he owed more 

money to the IRS. 

Death by 

a thousand notices 

In real life, IRS computers send a series 

of sequential, administrative notices to 

alleged delinquent taxpayers. I suspect each 

notice carries just one or two presumptions 

cleverly constructed to look like statements 

of relevant fact or law. As the alleged taxpayer 

ignores or fails to properly refute each 

of these notices, the IRS weaves a noose of 

unrefuted presumptions around his neck 

which are viewed in court as facts sufficient 

for conviction. 

If Schnook’s case finally goes to court, 

Schnook will have virtually prosecuted and 

convicted himself. 

How? Note that through most of the 

administrative procedure, the notices were 

sent by computer rather than IRS agents. As 

a result, Mr. Schnook was the only human 

actor making “determinations”. I.e., the computer 

sends Notice #1, and if Schnook 

doesn’t respond properly, the computer is 

programed to assume Mr. Schnook agrees 

with the presumption in Notice #1, and automatically 

send Notice #2. If Schnook does 

not reply, the computer sends #3, #4 and so 

on, until it’s time to send another notice to 

actual IRS agents that Mr. Schnook has “de- 

termined” (silently assented to) the presumptions 

that the government can seize his bank 

account and put him in jail. 1 

Nightmare on 

bureaucrat street 

Note that the IRS system of notices is 

built on the presumption that Mr. Schnook 

doesn’t have the brains, gonads, or financial 

resources to properly respond. The system 

seemingly depends on our silent assent. If 

so, it follows that the system is probably 

incompetent to cope with persons who reply 

properly to IRS notices. 

For example, suppose that, unlike 99% 

of all Americans who receive IRS Notice #1, 

you don’t ignore it or send a meaningless 

letter in reply, but instead send a proper Administrative 

Notice. 

Generally speaking, a couple of things 

might happen: 1) A real, live person in the IRS 

will receive (and thus become liable for) the 

information on your notice; 2) your notice must 

be read, correctly evaluated, and its information 

keyed into the computer; 3) depending on 

the quality of your notice, the computer’s automated 

notice program may be derailed, forcing 

a live agent to determine (and be responsible 

for) whichever subsequent notices are sent; and, 

worst of all; and 4) a “personal” relationship 

may develop between you and the agent assigned 

to “your” case. 

No bureaucrat wants a “personal relationship” 

with a party to the case. You’ll call 

him on the phone; you’ll send more notices; 

you might even send copies of the Constitution, 

Magna Charta or passages from the 

Bible. You’ll ask questions he can’t answer, 

humiliate him in front of his peers, implicitly 

remind him that his job is dishonest, and 

cost him so much time he can’t process the 

other cases on his desk nor find time to woo 

the new secretary. 

Remember, it’s the case (the collection 

of papers) – not you, the flesh and blood 

person – that’s the focus of an IRS administrative 

procedure. When you realize how 

much trouble a persistent “tax protestor” can 

cause for a particular bureaucrat, you can see 

why the IRS wants nothing to do with any 

living “taxpayer”. Cases are easy; tax protestors 

are hard. 

That’s why we repeatedly hear stories 

about the “disappearing” cases of people who 

resist the government. The government is 

too busy, too swamped to waste time and 

money pursuing uppity “protestors”. Result? 

“Difficult” cases tend to disappear. 2 

But besides being a pain in the cheeks, 

patriots can at least slow and possibly derail 

government administrative enforcement actions 

with proper notices. How? By being: 


1. Persistent. Never receive a notice 

without sending a response. No matter what 

the government sends, challenge it on every 

available factual and/or legal ground. 

2. Prolific. If one notice is good, one 

per week is even better. Once you get the 

hang of writing Administrative Notices, it’ll 

probably take government more time to process 

your notices than it takes you to write 

them. Thus, you might win by attrition alone. 

3. Concise. A good notice should almost 

never take more than one page. The 

“briefer” the better. 

Traffic signs like “65 M.P.H.” are a 

good examples of “notice”. They don’t read, 

“If you drive 75, you’ll be ticketed, fined or 

possibly jailed!” Instead, they simply notify 

drivers of the speed limit at that location. 

Period. Once the driver is notified of that 

fact, if he drives in violation of that fact, he 

becomes personally liable precisely because 

he knew (or should’ve known) the speed limit 

was 65. 

Similarly, a good notice does not include 

anything about you – it only includes 

brief statements of law or facts relevant to 

the case. 

4. Positive. In logic, you can’t prove a 

negative. This probably explains why defendants 

are presumed innocent – they can’t 

possibly prove they’re “not guilty”. 3 

For example, if I allege that you killed 

John F. Kennedy in 1963, you can’t prove 

that you did not. I don’t care if your birth 

certificate says you weren’t born until 1973, 

you still can’t prove that you didn’t kill JFK, 

since I can argue your birth certificate was 

forged, you were really born in 1935 and 

you merely look very young for your age. 

No matter how hard you try, you can’t prove 

a negative. 

Therefore, courts can only prove or disprove 

positive statements. Thus, the burden 

of proving that you killed JFK falls on the 

prosecutor. There is no burden of proof on 

the defendant (which one reason why defendants 

need not even testify). If the prosecutor 

can’t find enough witnesses and tangible 

evidence to prove that you killed JFK, the 

presumption of your innocence remains intact. 

Since negative statements (“I did not 

kill JFK,” or “I am not a taxpayer,” or “I was 

not speeding”) can’t be proved, I suspect 

such statements are effectively “inadmissible” 

as evidence in court and are therefore likewise 

irrelevant or meaningless when included 

in a notice. Thus, a notice that you “did not 

kill JFK,” is probably ineffective since an 

administrator can’t be bound by that statement 

of “negative fact” that’s impossible to 

prove. 

If negative statements are legally irrelevant, 

how can you express the opinion that 

“John Smith did not murder Bill Brown”? 

You can’t. And rightly so, because that negative 

statement is also a personal conclusion 

that’s every bit as irrelevant as a personal 

belief. I.e., even if John Smith didn’t pull 

the trigger, he could have hired the actual 

killer and thus still be guilty of Brown’s murder. 

The truth is that you not only don’t 

know, but can’t know – for a fact – that 

Smith did not murder Brown. 

However, you might positively affirm 

that “I have not seen or heard any evidence 

to suggest that John Smith shot Bill Brown,” 

or “I have seen or heard evidence which refutes 

the allegation that John Smith shot Bill 

Brown,” or “John Smith was at my home at 

the time the alleged murder took place.” 

See the difference? You can’t prove 

Smith did not kill Brown, but you can offer 

positive statements of fact to contradict and 

refute that allegation. 

Thus, a good notice probably excludes 

“negative” statements, and you must learn to 

write notices using “no” and “not” judiciously 

or not at all. 

5. “Disagreeable”. It seems logical to 

me that if juries are “finders of facts,” bureaucrats 

are not. That is, if you swear it’s a 

fact that John Smith shot Tom Brown and I 

swear it’s a fact that Brown was shot by Jim 

Jones, only a judge or jury (not a bureaucrat) 

can determine which of our sworn but contradictory 

“facts” is true. Likewise, if the 

bureaucracy presumes you’re a “taxpayer” – 

and you say (better yet, swear) that their presumption 

is false and/or unsupported by evidence 

– the bureaucrat may be estopped from 

proceeding until a court/jury rules on whether 

you are in fact a “taxpayer”. 

If bureaucrats can’t determine facts or 

law, it follows that the fundamental purpose 

for any administrative procedure is to reach 

an agreement between the parties to the case 

as to the relevant facts and law. Once the 

bureaucrat establishes that all the parties agree 

to the government’s version of facts, law or 

presumptions, he can proceed to summarily 

“administer” the case. There’s nothing left to 

argue or adjudicate. Pay up. 4 

But, if you can insert evidence into the 

case/record which controverts the 

government’s version of facts, law and presumptions 

– each controverted fact, law or 

presumption becomes an issue that can only 

be determined by a court or jury. 

Even if the alleged “facts” in your no- 

tice are incorrect – by creating a disagreement/ 

controversy the bureaucrat can’t resolve 

without your assent – you force the 

government to quit or go to trial. Even if 

you’re wrong, the expense of litigation may 

persuade the bureaucrat to “bury” the case. 

If your facts are right, the case should 

end right there. Otherwise, the properly notified 

bureaucrat may be personally liable for 

malicious prosecution of a case based on facts 

or law which – by virtue of your Administrative 

Notice to him – he knows or should’ve 

known are irrelevant or false. 

6. Aggressive. The power of an administrative 

notice appears to be its ability to 

place bureaucrats in peril. Once they know 

the proper law or facts in a particular case, if 

they act in violation of that knowledge, they 

become personally liable. They forfeit the 

“presumption of good faith” (ignorance) 

which grants them a “good faith immunity” 

from prosecution. Their house, car, boat and 

retirement are all on the table exposed to your 

counter-suit. 

Few bureaucrats will risk their personal 

property to violate your rights. Discretion, 

as they say, is not only the better part of 

valor, it’s also the better part of oppression. 

Proper administrative notice appears to prove 

that the responsible bureaucrat knew (or had 

reason to know) that he was violating your 

rights or his duties and is therefore personally 

liable. 

But – while it’s good to be aggressive, 

don’t threaten. You don’t need tell the opposing 

bureaucrat that you will sue, take his 

house and leave him penniless. That’s a conclusion/ 

prediction which has no place in administrative 

notices. Merely notify him of 

the relevant law that establishes your rights 

and/or his personal duties. If he acts in violation 

of those known rights or duties, he 

creates his own liability. 

7. Understated. Although government 

computers send a lot of notices, the average 

bureaucrat is just as ignorant about sending 

and receiving notices as the average citizen. 

Don’t mistake the computer’s “expertise” for 

the bureaucrats’. By subtly including your 

own presumptions and statements of law or 

fact within your notice, you may be able to 

“trap” bureaucrats, much as their computers 

try to trap us. At minimum, your notice may 

establish issues for later determination by a 

court. 

Just as the government can weave a 

noose of sequential notices around your neck, 

you may be able to weave a similar noose of 

notices around theirs. Most people’s first 

attempts to write notices include everything 


from the Magna Charta forward. But I suspect 

it’s better to send a single administrative 

notice for each fact, law or presumption that 

you wish to assert or challenge. If the notice 

is not threatening and innocuous, it may be 

ignored and thus assented to. 

8. Impersonal. The key to proper 

administrative notices may be writing them 

impersonally. Remember, the issue is not 

you, it’s the case. Therefore, your notices 

should not be about you, but rather about the 

case. You must learn to write notices not as 

the principal party, but rather as a “material 

witness” to the case. 

I suspect that a recipient is not bound to 

take Notice of your personal opinions, beliefs, 

feelings or conclusions. If so, you’re 

wasting your time and possibly defeating the 

effect of your Notice whenever you use the 

word “I” (or “We”) as in “I feel,” or “I believe” 

or “I’m sure”. 

Similarly, proper Administrative Notices 

don’t seem to include personal conclusions 

– and this creates another “fine line”. For 

example, while you can quote the precise 

law that establishes a $1,000 penalty for anyone 

convicted for requiring a person to provide 

his Social Security Number, you can 

not embellish that statement of Law with your 

personal conclusion that the recipient will (at 

some later date) be fined $1,000 (or perhaps 

jailed, etc.) if he requires you to provide your 

SSN. 

Whether or not he will be jailed, fined 

or exonerated is a decision which may be 

made in the future by a court. Any future 

decision is not a current “fact”. Notices are 

not about future events which do not yet exist; 

notices are about facts and laws as they 

exist right now. 

However, you can probably notice the 

administrator that if he requires your SSN, 

he may be violating SSN law and thereby 

exposing himself to subsequent charges. In 

other words, it’s not a “fact” that he will be 

fined (that’s a determination for a court), but 

it is a “fact” that by demanding your SSN, he 

exposes himself to possible prosecution. See 

the difference? It’s a fact that if he violates 

current law, he may be prosecuted; it’s not a 

fact that he will (at some future date) be convicted. 

No “Miss Personality” awards 

If you want to see a good Administrative 

Notice, read virtually any computerized 

letter from the IRS or Traffic Court summons. 

They are typically devoid of a government 

official’s personal opinions. Usually, 

they’re so impersonal they seem incomprehensibly 

lifeless, aren’t even signed by a 

natural person, but are merely printed under 

the agency’s letterhead. 

As a general rule, I suspect you must 

remove most traces of your “personality” 

from any effective Administrative Notice. For 

example, consider the “personality component” 

in the following four statements: 

* “I believe John Smith murdered Bill 

Brown.” 

Uh-huh. Well, I believe in the tooth 

fairy. But our personal beliefs are irrelevant 

since they are not a statements of objective 

fact. Your beliefs have no more administrative 

relevance to the Brown murder case than 

a statement that you are Christian, Hindu – 

or have pretty blue eyes. 

* “On May 14, 1999, at approximately 

8:00 PM, I observed John Smith shoot Bill 

Brown.” 

Better. This is not a statement of personal 

belief or opinion, it’s an allegation of 

factual observation. Although a personal element 

remains, it does not exist in the sense 

of expressing a personal judgement or conclusion. 

It is (or is not) a fact that you saw 

(or didn’t see) Smith shoot Brown. If you 

say (and especially, swear) that you saw 

Smith shoot Brown, that’s a relevant fact, 

the validity of which may be proved or disproved 

in court at a later date. 

Further, this notice does not include the 

conclusion that Smith “killed” Brown. Unless 

you’re a coroner or licensed physician, 

you don’t actually know what killed Brown. 

This may sound like nitpicking, but I suspect 

linguistic precision is the soul of Administrative 

Notices. I.e., even if you watched the 

shooting, all you actually know is that you 

saw Smith aim a gun in Brown’s direction, 

heard a shot, and then saw Brown fell. 

But maybe Smith was firing blanks as 

a joke and Brown accidentally died of fright. 

Or maybe Smith missed and another unseen 

villain shot Brown in the back from behind 

some bushes. Or maybe Smith wasn’t trying 

to kill Brown, but was actually trying to 

save him by shooting past Brown at the villain 

in the bushes. 

All you know are the “facts” that you 

saw Smith aim a gun in Brown’s direction; 

you heard a shot; you saw Brown fall. Those 

are facts. But you don’t know that Smith’s 

gun fired the bullet that struck Brown and 

caused his death. Thus, to say Smith actually 

killed Brown is a conclusion which can 

be reached by a court or jury but is probably 

improper in a notice. 5 

* “In a sworn affidavit, dated June 12, 

1999, I testified before Notary Wilma White 

licensed by the State of Texas that I observed 

John Smith shoot Bill Brown. A verified 

copy of that affidavit is attached to this Administrative 

Notice.” 

Ohh, now you might have something 

solid! This is a notice of (Fact # 1) you testified 

at the stated time and place concerning the 

Brown/ Smith murder; (Fact #2), your sworn 

testimony was witnessed by a government officer 

(the notary); and (Fact #3), a copy of your 

testimony is attached to the notice. 

If administrators are not empowered to 

determine the validity of sworn facts, once 

they’re faced with a notice backed up by one 

or more affidavits entered into the case, the 

administrator may be forced to: 1) suspend 

administrative procedures in that case and 2) 

submit the case to a court to determine which 

of several contradictory “facts” are true. 

That takes time, money and manpower 

and unless some bureaucrat really wants to 

hang you, they just might walk away. 

9. Effective. You must insert all of 

your controverting facts, law and presumptions 

into the case. I don’t know how to be 

“effective,” but I doubt that any information 

you provide the government over the phone, 

in meetings, or by letter are likely to wind up 

in the case. 

For example, suppose you meet an IRS 

agent and absolutely prove with unrefutable 

arguments, facts and law that you are not a 

“taxpayer”. What part of that conversation 

goes into the “case”? 

Often, only as much as the IRS agent 

cares to mention in his written report. 

After your meeting, the IRS agent might 

simply record in the report that goes into the 

case file: “Met with Mr. Schnook for two 

hours during which time Mr. Schnook refused 

to pay taxes.” If so, what did your two 

hours of “unrefutable arguments” achieve? 

Nothing. If your arguments, facts and law 

don’t “appear” in the physical case, they do 

not exist as evidence to be considered in the 

final administrative determination. 

I suspect that unlike letters, phone calls 

and face-to-face conversations – proper affidavits 

must be included within a “case”. But 

I’m not sure whether administrative notices 

are normally included as evidence when the 

case is decided. Since the notice is intended 

to inform the administrator, it’s possible that 

the notice itself “belongs” to the administrator 

but does not belong within the case itself 

– unless it’s attached as an exhibit to another 

document (perhaps an affidavit) that is properly 

inserted into the case. 

For example, if decisions are based exclusively 

on the specific contents of each 

physical case file, logic suggests that any 

reference to the Constitution, an 

administrator’s Oath of Office, or a particular 

statute might be ignored – unless a veri- 


fied copy of those documents were inserted/ 

incorporated into the physical case. 

This suggests that if you wanted to rely 

on a “constitutional” or statutory argument 

in a particular case, you might: 

1) File an official or verified copy of 

the Constitution or relevant statute into the 

case to establish the “law of the case”. 

2) File a copy of the official’s Oath of 

Office to support and defend the Constitution 

and/or statutory job description into the 

case. This is done to establish (within the 

“law of the case”) the official’s duty to obey 

the relevant Constitution/ statute. 

3) Provide an Administrative Notice to 

the proper bureaucrat (or judge) that a copy 

of the Constitution (or statute), and his Oath 

of Office and/or statutory job description 

have been incorporated into the case. Make 

sure there is evidence (postal green card) that 

the bureaucrat/ judge received your notice. 

This evidence should establish the fact that 

the official knows both the law of the case 

and his duty to obey it and thereby strips him 

of any future claims to “good faith” ignorance 

and personal immunity. 

4) File an affidavit into the case swearing 

that you served the administrative notice 

to the bureaucrat and/or judge that the Constitution, 

Oaths and/or job description was 

incorporated into the case, and attach copies 

of those notices and proof of the official’s 

receipt of your notice to your affidavit. This 

provides more (possibly redundant) proof 

of both the “law of the case” and the official’s 

knowledge of that law and his duty to obey 

it. 

5) If you’re a real burr under their 

saddle, you’d better get a verified copy of 

your case file, update it regularly, and check 

the court’s copy of your case file at least 

monthly. It’s not uncommon for important 

documents to “mysteriously” disappear from 

case files. In a serious case, don’t bet that 

because you filed something last month, it’s 

still in your file the day you go to court. 

Check closely, especially just before you go 

to trial. Verify that all of your documents are 

still included, and watch closely for new or 

unexpected documents filed by your adversary. 

In most worldly affairs, an ounce of 

prevention is sufficient. In court, you need 

several pounds. Maybe tons. 

Administrative haiku 

Writing administrative notices is a 

strange art. You must first learn to distinguish 

between your own observations of 

facts and your personal opinions. You must 

then learn to write in a way that is impersonal 

and devoid of any obvious trace of 

your ego, conscience, anger, fear, or moral 

values, etc. You must learn to write such 

lifeless, impersonal and precise statements 

of facts and law, that the recipient will think 

you’re an IRS computer. You must learn to 

write “like a machine”. 

Bizarre, no? It is an “art” to write like a 

“machine”. 

I am increasingly convinced there are 

few, if any, real “court room battles”. Instead, 

the primary contest between you and 

the government is waged within the confines 

of the “case”. Not out here in the real world, 

but there, inside that collection of documents 

called the “case”. That’s the arena; that’s 

where the fight takes place. You can talk to a 

judge who’s holding the “case” in his hands 

all day, but unless your comments are physically 

inserted as documents into that “case,” 

it is as if they were never said. We don’t 

fight in court, we fight within the case. 

Nevertheless, as I warned at the beginning 

of this article, this is pure conjecture – 

don’t believe a word I wrote. We’re still 

exploring administrative notices, and all I can 

say for sure is that they seems to work. Why 

and how they work remain unclear. 

1 And who can Schnook sue for 

malicious prosecution? Since no agents 

were involved in the initial “determinations” 

(which were graciously performed 

by Mr. Schnook and the computer), the 

agents aren’t liable. And since Schnook 

can’t very well sue the computer, he 

seemingly has no one to sue. 

Although I doubt that it’s ever been 

done, there is one group that might be 

sued: programmers and system analysts 

who constructed or maintained the 

computer notice program that tricked Mr. 

Schnook into convicting himself. What 

would happen if the programmers were 

put on proper notice of the relevant law 

and neglected to correct their computer 

programs accordingly? Could the 

programmers be held liable in court? 

2 At least one government agency 

was so overwhelmed by its case load, that 

its bureaucrats started stuffing unprocessed 

cases in the space above the ceiling tiles 

over their desks. This system of “handling” 

cases worked well until the frame 

supporting the ceiling tiles buckled under 

the weight, collapsed, and a shower of 

ceiling tiles, light fixtures and “disappeared” 

cases rained down on the 

bureaucrats below. 

3 This is an interesting insight since 

our courts typically ask defendants if they 

wish to plead “guilty” or “not guilty”. If 

you plead guilty, you are. If you plead 

“not guilty” you offer a statement that’s 

logically impossible to prove. Heads they 

win, tails you lose. Since it’s logically 

impossible to prove you are “not guilty,” I 

suspect you’d be better off pleading to be 

“innocent”. 

4 Once you’ve expressly agreed (or 

silently assented) to all relevant law and 

facts, I suspect some sort of “contract” 

may be established. Without a disagreement/ 

controversy for a court to resolve, 

you must simply pay your fine as agreed, 

or risk trial for breaching the “contract” 

created by the agreed presumptions. 

But what is the disagreement/ 

controversy about? The facts of the case 

(that you were speeding)? Or the agreed 

“contract”? For example, when you go to 

court for a speeding ticket, is the issue 

whether you were driving over 65 M.P.H.? 

Or is the issue whether you subsequently 

assented to a “contract” wherein you 

unknowingly agreed to pay a fine for 

speeding? If the “fact” that you were 

speeding is established by the ticket and is 

uncontroverted within the case, the 

defendant’s first (perhaps only) issue is to 

challenge the validity of the (presumed) 

“contract”. 

I suspect you’re not being tried for 

speeding, but for breach of a subsequent 

breach of “contract”. 

5 There may one enormous exception: 

A conclusion might be included in a notice, 

if the conclusion were presented as a 

presumption to be verified and agreed to 

by the notice recipient. Thus, if the 

government sends a notice including the 

conclusion that Smith shot Brown, and 

Smith does not deny, the presumptive 

conclusion might be elevated to the status 

of fact. 


Plea Bargains II 

We published “Are Federal Plea Bargains 

Unconstitutional” in the AntiShyster 

Volume 9 No. 2. This article explained that 

according to the 6th Amendment, “In all 

criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy 

the right to a speedy and public trial, by 

an impartial jury . . . .” 

Plea bargains are agreements where, in 

return for a reduced sentence, defendants 

agree to plead guilty and waive their 6th 

Amendment right to a trial by jury. 

Anyone who’s watched a plea bargain 

sentencing hearing has heard the wise old 

judge sternly question the defendant to insure 

that his waiver of right to trial by jury 

was based on adequate knowledge and understanding. 

The criminal defendant (who 

typically doesn’t understand how to spell his 

middle name) will solemnly assure the judge 

that he understands the significance of waiving 

his right. The charade over, the judge 

will cheerfully sentence the defendant to five 

years in the slammer. 

Over 95% of all criminal cases are 

handled by plea bargains rather than trials by 

jury. In fact, the entire criminal justice system 

is so dependent on plea bargains that if 

plea bargains were ruled unconstitutional (or 

if defendants simply stopped agreeing to go 

to prison without a trial by jury), the backlog 

on criminal court cases would instantly grow 

by over 2,000%, the system could only prosecute 

truly violent or egregious crimes and 

would be forced to ignore trivialities like 

“possession of a controlled substance.” The 

holy drug war would collapse. Prison overcrowding 

would be a thing of the past. Additional 

prison construction would be unnecessary 

for several decades or generations. 

However, while everyone has focused 

on the defendant’s right to demand (or waive) 

Kids, Please Don’t 

Try This At Home 

a trial by jury as guaranteed by the 6th 

Amendment, Article III of the Constitution 

(which also mentions trials by jury) has been 

overlooked. 

Article III establishes the judicial 

branch of federal government, and mandates 

in Section 2, Clause 3 that “The Trial of all 

Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, 

shall be by Jury;. . . .” (emph. add.) 

This Article III “trial by jury” is not a 

right afforded to defendants. It is a duty imposed 

on the entire federal judiciary. No individual 

— be he judge, prosecutor or defendant 

– can waive a constitutional duty imposed 

on the judiciary. The only way to avoid 

that duty is to pass a constitutional amendment. 

Until such amendment is passed, there 

can be no constitutional plea bargains for 

Crimes prosecuted in Article III courts at the 

federal level. 

And yet, the federal government uses 

plea bargains every day to obtain the majority 

of federal “convictions”. Obviously, these 

plea bargains violate the duty imposed on all 

Article III courts for Criminal trials. So are 

federal plea bargains unconstitutional? 

Prob’ly not. 

Why? 

There are several hypotheses which 

might explain why a seemingly prohibited 

plea bargain might still be “constitutional”: 

1) The Criminal cases are not being 

heard in Article III courts. Instead, Congress 

has the power to create entirely different 

kinds of courts that may look like Article 

III courts, but actually function under Article 

I (legislative branch of government), Article 

II (executive branch of government) or Article 

IV (territorial government). Article III 

courts are designated as “District Courts of 

the United States”; courts operating outside 

of Article III are designated as “United States 

District Courts.” 

Although the Constitution prohibits plea 

bargains in Article III (judicial branch) courts, 

there is no similar prohibition for legislative, 

executive or territorial courts operating outside 

of Article III. 

2) Although defendants are apparently 

charged with a “crime” to be prosecuted under 

“criminal jurisdiction,” their actual offence 

is prosecuted as something else – perhaps 

a “civil” offense in a “civil” court. For 

example, the apparent “crime” of murder 

might be prosecuted as a civil offense in a 

noncriminal court. In this case, a “crime” is 

not truly a “Crime”. There is no constitutional 

duty to provide trial by jury in cases 

which are not truly “criminal.” 

3) The defendant’s status does not entitle 

him to a Trial by jury for a Criminal 

offense in an Article III court. For example, 

is the defendant a “Citizen of the United 

States” as used in Article I, Section 2, Clause 

2 of the Constitution? Is he a member of the 

class of persons created by the 14th Amendment 

and designated “citizens of the United 

States”? Is he a “U.S. citizen” as denoted on 

the back of voters registration cards? Does 

he have a Social Security Number indicating 

that he is a “beneficiary” of a government 

trust such as Social Security? 

Although a “Citizen of the United 

States” (a Citizen of a State of the Union like 

“Texas”, but not the corporate “State of 

Texas”) would probably be tried in an Article 

III court, a member of the class “citizens 

of the United States” created by the 14th 

Amendment might automatically fall under 

the legislative jurisdiction of the Congress 

and thus, not necessarily the Article III judicial 

jurisdiction. I suspect the “U.S. citizen” 


and “beneficiaries” of government-created 

trusts are also subject to congressional legislative 

jurisdiction and legislative tribunals 

other than Article III. 

Thus, although federal plea bargains 

would be unconstitutional violations of Article 

III, it’s possible that current plea bargains 

are constitutional. However, if that 

constitutionality is real, it must be based on a 

massive deception since virtually anyone who 

is tried as a “criminal” in federal court is led 

to believe that he’s in an Article III court of 

the judicial branch of government. 

So, if prisoners convicted by plea bargains 

challenge those plea bargains as unconstitutional 

violations of Article III, the 

courts must either rule: 

1) pleas bargains are unconstitutional 

(in which case the use of plea bargains and 

massive expansion of federal “criminal” jurisdiction 

and prosecution will be instantly 

terminated) or, 

2) plea bargains are constitutional – and 

in doing so, reveal some or all of the mechanisms 

that are currently used to deceive defendants 

into unknowingly accepting plea 

bargains for noncriminal charges in nonjudicial 

courts. 

If plea bargains are ruled unconstitutional, 

we win a battle in the war to reduce 

federal criminal jurisdiction and regain 

former state and local control of government. 

On the other hand, if plea bargains are ruled 

“constitutional”, we learn how the system 

actually operates and how better to defend 

ourselves against it. Either way, we’re better 

off since the federal government will lose 

it’s ability to prosecute insignificant cases 

based primarily on deception. 

If plea bargains aren’t heard in Article 

III judicial courts and/or alleged “crimes” are 

being prosecuted as something other than 

crimes, it’s a certainty that no one (not investigator, 

prosecutor, defense lawyer or judge) 

notified the defendant. I’m sure that every 

criminal defendant that plea bargains in federal 

court assumes 1) he is being tried as a 

“criminal” in exactly the same sense as the 

term “criminal” was used in 1787; and 2) his 

case is being heard in an Article III judicial 

court. 

If either of those assumptions are false, 

then it’s certain the defendant did not truly 

“understand” what he was doing when he 

waived his right to a trial by jury. If the 

defendant did not understand when he agreed 

to the plea bargain, the resulting contract with 

the state may also be voidable. 

The prosecutor and judge’s obligation 

to notify a defendant of his right to a trial by 

jury may be debatable, but the defense 

lawyer’s obligation should be clear. If a defendant 

is convicted by plea bargain in a nonjudicial 

court for a noncriminal “crime,” I 

suspect his defense lawyer may be liable for 

failing to fully notify his client of his rights. 

A threat to prison security 

The AntiShyster is read in some of the 

finest prisons in these United States. We 

therefore expected the article “Are Plea Bargains 

Unconstitutional” (Vol. 9 No. 2) to precipitate 

a number of prisoner challenges to 

the constitutionality of the plea bargains that 

landed them in prison. 

Although I can’t prove a causal link, 

it’s at least an interesting coincidence that 

since the Plea Bargain article first appeared, 

at least one prison has sent us notice of its 

determination that the AntiShyster is a “threat 

to prison security” and is henceforth prohibited 

in that prison. 

We’ve had several prisoners send us 

copies of motions they’ve filed to challenge 

the constitutionality of their plea bargains. 

But, while I expected to see individual prisoners 

file plea bargain challenges, I didn’t 

expect to spark a political movement. 

The following cover letter and Motion 

were used by Michael Adams (a self-described 

“Black American”) to try to extract 

himself from prison and inform Black officials 

and political organizations around the 

country of the Article III basis for challenging 

plea bargains. Given the enormous number 

of Blacks who are incarcerated by plea 

bargains, it follows that Black political activists 

have a strong incentive to investigate the 

Article III strategy. 

Although Mr. Adams’ motion to challenge 

plea bargains appears inept, his political 

actions (informing political activist organizations) 

were excellent. Perhaps the African-American 

community will spearhead an 

assault on federal plea bargains. 

Mr. Adams’ cover-letter (sent with copies 

of his motion to Black activist groups) 

and motion (which was sent without cover 

letter to the courts) follow. The cover letter 

and motion are reproduced exactly as received; 

the spelling and grammatical errors 

are in the originals. The [bracketed and italicized 

comments] are my additions. 

Cover letter 

TO THE HONORABLE 

BLACK PUBLIC SERVANTS 

WHO THINK WHITE (HN/UT): 

[This cover letter opens with a vague 

insult directed to the Blacks he’s petitioning 

for help. If Mr. Adams dislikes Blacks who 

“think White”, I presume he also dislikes 

Whites. His cover letter lists the names and 

addresses of Black officials and organizations 

contacted by Mr. Adams. For brevity, 

I’m deleting their mailing addresses, but they 

include: Justice Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme 

Court; Justice Leander J. Shaw, 

Florida Supreme Court; Board of Directors, 

national NAACP; Rep. Maxine Walters, 

Congressional Black Caucus; ACLU in both 

Florida and Georgia; President National 

Bar Association; Board of Directors, 

S.C.L.C.; and Ebony Magazine.] 

[From] A BLACK AMERICAN 

Michael Adams 

52854—004 Unit D—2 

2680 Highway 301 South 

Jesup, Georgia 31599 

7th day August, 1999 

RE: ILLEGAL PLEA BARGAIN BY 

D.O.J. AND CONGRESSIONAL BLACK 

CAUCUS: 

Dear Black Americans: 

There comes a time in the Black History 

of America where the Black Citizens 

will be called upon to stand-up and be counted 

for their roots which is the Black Communities 

of America. 

Clearly the Black Congress is absent 

any and all responsibility to their BLACK 

AMERICAN ‘constituents’ who sent them 

to Washington. Once in D.C. they lose all 

connection with the Blacks in their Congressional 

District. This will change in the 2000 

Election. 

[First, I object to the implication that 

Black Congressmen are more remote from 

their Black constituents than White Congressmen 

are from their White constituents. 

Once elected, all Congressmen – regardless 

of race – become equally remote from 

their constituents. Second, this problem will 

not be cured in the 2000 Election. Third, 

(again) there’s no point to insulting the people 

you’re asking for help.] 

Please read MY “MOTION TO VA- 

CATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SEN- 

TENCE AND IMMEDIATE RELEASE IN 

THESE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 

PURSUANT TO ‘NEW’ U.S. CONSTI- 

TUTIONAL LAW, WHICH IS THE SU- 

PREME LAW OF THE LAND. Period. 

Black Americans, over 500,000 of your 

Black Brothers and Sisters are illegally incarcerated 

in State and Federal prisons to- 


day. The main problem is YOUR ‘ignorance’ 

of the U. S. Constitution which is the SU- 

PREME LAW OF THE LAND”. 

This letter is for ME and the other 

499,999 Black Brothers who are illegally incarcerated. 

Get off you B——A— and do 

something NOW. 

[More insults] 

Respectfully submitted this the 7th day 

August, 1999. 

[“Respectfully”??] 

s/ Michael Adams, 

A Black American 

The motion 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE 

UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN 

DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

AN ARTICLE III COURT 

[Note that Mr. Adams is trying to have 

his Motion heard in a “District Court of the 

United States” (an Article III court) and not 

in a “United States District Court”. His 

reason is simple: according to headnotes in 

Cochran et al v. St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber 

Co. 73 Fed Sup 288, “A United States District 

Court is purely a creature of legislative 

branch of government, generally provided 

for by Constitution, but not a constitutional 

court in the stricter sense, and its jurisdiction 

comes from Congress.” (Emph. added.) 

By “stricter sense” I believe the case headnote 

means in the sense of “Article III” judicial 

courts which are constitutional.] 

United States of America, Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Adams, Defendant. 

FOLIO IN REM: 

97-CR-527-HIGHSMITH 

Judge, Shelby Highsmith 

Co-Defendant=Romeo Soriano 

Plead Guilty 

Co-Defendant=Winston James 

Plead Guilty 

[Mr. Adams’ two co-defendants also 

accepted plea bargains.] 

MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE 

OR CORRECT SENTENCE AND IMME- 

DIATE RELEASE IN THESE CRIMINAL 

PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO ‘NEW’ 

U. S. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW WHICH 

IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND 

COME NOW, Plaintiff, in this habeas 

corpus proceedings, dealing with Plea Bargain, 

in this collateral attack on procedure 

used by the Court (Judicial Branch) and the 

Department of Justice (Executive Branch) in 

the jurisdiction of the government (Court & 

Prosecutors) in this case. 

Honorable Court, the U. S. Attorney 

(Executive Branch) was absent authority to 

bring this case before the Honorable Court. 

The U. S. Attorney was absent ‘subject matters 

jurisdiction, & ‘territorial’ jurisdiction to 

prosecute this case before the Honorable 

Court. The U. S. Attorney, et al., violated 

their ‘oath of office’ under Title 28 USC § 

544 and are guilty of perjury, and barratry/ 

battetry before the court. 

[What do allegations against prosecutors, 

etc., have to do with the primary issue 

of challenging the plea bargain’s constitutionality?] 

Honorable Court (Judicial Branch), this 

Court was absent authority to preside over 

this case, and was and is absent ‘subject 

matter’ JURISDICTION, ‘territorial’ JU- 

RISDICTION, and ‘judicial’ JURISDIC- 

TION in the above listed case. Honorable 

Court, YOU violated YOUR ‘oath of office’ 

under Title 28 USC § 453, and Article III of 

the United States Constitution and this is 

abuse of power of the court (18 § 401). 

[How can accusing the judge (who will 

decide this motion) of a criminal act help to 

get a decision favorable to Mr. Adams?] 

FEDERAL PLEA BARGAIN IS TO- 

TALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER 

ART. III, SECT. 2, CL. 3 

Honorable Court, the United States 

Constitution ‘specifies’ a “TRIAL BY 

JURY” in (2) two different places: (1st) the 

(6th) Sixth Amendment which defines the 

Citizens right to a “TRIAL BY JURY” and 

(2nd) “UNDER ‘ARTICLE III, SECTION 

2, CLAUSE 3’ WHICH IS THE SUPREME 

LAW OF THE LAND”, which ‘specifies’ 

the POWER and DUTY of the JUDICIAL 

BRANCH of government and “MAN- 

DATES”, ‘The Trial of ALL CRIMES, Except 

in Cases of Impeachment, “SHALL BE 

BY JURY”.’ 

Honorable Court, that, an individual 

might waive his (6th) Sixth Amendment ‘individual’ 

right to a “STATE” Trial by Jury; 

“NO INDIVIDUAL OR ‘NO’ PLEA BAR- 

GAIN COULD WAIVE AN ‘ARTICLE III’ 

Court ‘DUTY’ to provide a ‘TRIAL BY 

JURY’ IN ALL FEDERAL CRIMINAL 

CASES.” 

Honorable Court, ‘ignorance’ of the 

Law and the United States Constitution is no 

‘excuse’ by the Court, Prosecution and MY 

Counsel. 

Honorable Court, the only ‘lawful’ way 

to ‘remove’ the ARTICLE III Duty of this 

Court, is by a Constitutional Amendment, and 

Honorable Court this has not happened. This 

Honorable Court has a problem with MY Plea 

Bargain and MY illegal Sentence. 

Honorable Court, in the ‘absence’ of a 

‘conviction by a federal criminal jury’, this 

Honorable Court is “WITHOUT JURIS- 

DICTION” (Subject Matter/ Territorial/ Judicial) 

to impose MY sentence. Honorable 

Court, when YOU act absent subject matter/ 

territorial/judicial jurisdiction you are liable 

for your actions and lose your alleged immunity 

herein. 

[Again, why threaten the judge with 

another accusation? If the judge is guilty of 

misconduct, all that can be settled later. Right 

now, the only issue should be the plea 

bargain’s constitutionality.] 

Honorable Court, the State Bar, the 

American Bar Association and West Publishers 

are all liable for the illegal sentence 

issued to ME by this Honorable Court, and 

again ignorance of the Supreme Law of the 

land is no excuse. MY sentence will be vacated 

immediately. 

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITU- 

TION OF 1787± PLUS THE AMEND- 

MENTS AND TREATIES IS THE SU- 

PREME LAW OF THE LAND 

[Here, Mr. Adams inserted the complete 

text of Article III of the Constitution, 

including the relevant Section 2, Clause 3 

which mandates: “The trial of all Crimes, 

except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by 

Jury;”. . . . To save space, I’ve deleted the 

balance of Article III.] 

HONORABLE COURT AND PROS- 

ECUTORS DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM 

WITH THE U. S. CONSTITUTION 

Honorable Court, in addition to Article 

III, Section 2, clause 3, I request you read 

Article III, Section 3, Clause 1, TREASON 

against the United States. Does this apply to 

the Court and Department of Justice (Executive 

Branch En Banc) herein.??!! 

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 

(ABA), BRITISH LAWYER GUILD 

(BLG) AND INTERNATIONAL BAR 

ASSOC. (IBA) 

YOUR ‘collusion’, ‘barratry’, ‘obstruction 

of justice’ and an ongoing racketeering 

enterprise with the “DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE” and the Judicial Branch, will/ 

shall/must come to a screaching-halt. 

NOW.??!! 

[Why open your war on another front? 


What do the ABA, BLG, IBA, DOJ and Judicial 

Branch have to do with the primary issue 

of plea bargain constitutionality? Nothing. 

This is the kind of excess baggage that 

pro se litigators routinely load into their paperwork 

in the vain hope that by demonstrating 

all this “knowledge,” they’ll intimidate 

their adversaries. In truth, the best 

litigators write the shortest paperwork. 

Great shows of legal knowledge are about 

as effective at intimidating lawyers and 

judges as comedian Richard Pryor going 

through one of his “black belt Karate” routines 

to scare off some bad guys. These 

grand displays don’t demonstrate strength; 

they show weakness. Any judge reading Mr. 

Adams’ motion knows that (just like Richard 

Pryor is about to be stuffed in a garbage can 

when he starts his “black belt” routine), the 

litigant who wrote this motion is also about 

to be trashed.] 

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITU- 

TION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE 

LAND ALL STATUTES, U. S. CODES 

AND JUDICIAL ORDERS WHICH ARE 

IN CONFLICT ARE NULL AND VOID, 

PERIOD: 

[At this point, for reasons known only 

to Mr. Adams, he inserts the complete text of 

Article IV of the Constitution including: 

“The Citizens of each State shall be 

entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities 

of Citizens of the several States.” (Section 2, 

Clause 1) and 

“The Congress shall have Power to 

dispose of an make all needful Rules and 

Regulations respecting the Territory or other 

Property belonging to the United States; . . . 

.” (Section 3, Clause 2)] 

Honorable Court, See Article VI, Section 

2, clause 1 above as this is in plain and 

clear English. Honorable Court, See Article 

VI Section 3, clause 2, above which is in 

plain English. The United States District 

Court is an Article VI court, for the District 

of Columbia and the several territories, period, 

NOT the (50) fifty States. 

[Mr. Adams needs a good proof-reader 

since the previous section of text mistakenly 

and repeatedly refers to “Article VI” of the 

Constitution rather than Article IV. Since 

Mr. Adams is “pro se” (acting for himself, 

without an attorney), the courts are mandated 

to construe his pleading “liberally” 

and overlook most grammatical and technical 

defects. Nevertheless, these kind of errors 

invite unsympathetic judges to reject this 

petition as nonsense.] 

Now, Honorable Court, Nevada has 

prostitution for sale, Alaska has marijuana 

for sale and Montana has the 2nd Amendment 

as such, when you get out of prison in 

Montana ‘you go to the closes GUN STORE 

and BUY YOURSELF A HAND-GUN, 

RIFLE or Shotgun.’ NOW, I want the same 

privileges and immunities as the ‘other’ 

States. Read the U. S. Constitution, this is 

the law of the land. 

[Mr. Adams also needs some common 

sense. Apparently, it’s not enough to challenge 

plea bargains and maybe get out of 

prison. No. He’s to got gild his lily with an 

additional “privileges and immunities” rant 

about his right to get a gun (just like the cowboys 

do in Montana) as soon as his plea bargain 

challenge frees him from prison. (Perhaps 

the warden will hand over his sidearm, 

loaded and cocked, to Mr. Adams as a goingaway 

present when he leaves the prison.) Although 

Mr. Adams didn’t directly claim his 

right to drugs and whores at this time, he will 

presumably get those himself, once the court 

releases him from prison and gives him a 

gun.] 

Honorable Court, Judge, Shelby 

Highsmith, the above (4) four pages all from 

the United States Constitution, and this is 

the Supreme Law of the Land, and as such 

MY trial was tainted and the PLEA BAR- 

GAIN with Romeo Soriano and Winston 

James was NULL and VOID, See Page 2 

and 3 above. 

[Mr. Adams (a self-described “Black 

American”) and his two codefendants 

(Romeo Soriano and Winston James) all plea 

bargained “guilty” for reduced sentences. 

Gee, I wonder what sort of offense(s) these 

three gentlemen committed that caused their 

incarceration? Parking tickets? Collective 

jaywalking? Public intoxication? No — these 

codefendants were probably convicted for a 

serious crime — certainly a felony (several?), 

possibly involving violence and/or the use of 

firearms. Armed robbery, perhaps? 

The probability that any court will grant 

a motion to release a “Black American” incarcerated 

for a violent crime is low. The 

probability that any court will grant a motion 

for release for a Black American incarcerated 

for a violent crime who also demands 

his right get a gun (and then some drugs 

and whores) as soon as he’s released, is 

zero (or less).] 

Honorable Court, the Florida Bar, the 

U. S. Attorney and this Honorable Court 

under Chief Judge, Edward B. Davis EN 

BANC, should have known the law of the 

land. Court, please read then re-read pages 

1, 2, 3, 4, and this page agaimn, then I RE- 

QUEST MY Immediate Release NOW. 

[You won’t get an immediate release. 

You might get a new trial by jury.] 

Respectfully submitted this the 5th day August, 

1999. 

s/ Michael Adams, Pro se, 

Defendant 

52854—004 Unit D—2 

FCI JESUP 

2680 Highway 301 South 

Jesup, Georgia 31599 

Commentary 

Mr. Adams’ insults, threats and bizarre 

demands are ignorant, self-destructive and 

virtually guarantee that 1) his fundamental 

challenge to plea bargains will be ignored 

and 2) he will remain in the slammer. Why? 

Because his motion demonstrates educational, 

legal and emotional incompetence. 

For example, even though Mr. Adams 

is clever enough to present a constitutional 

challenge to plea bargains, he is too poorly 

educated to spell properly. Some might say 

his spelling errors are trivial ‘cuz “you get 

the idea”. But in court precision is everything. 

Although occasional spelling mistakes 

may be tolerated by the literate judiciary, repeated 

spelling mistakes signal a lower-class 

social and economic status. Low socio-economic 

status signals an inability to communicate 

confidently or effectively in public situations 

(like a trial) and a lack of financial 

resources necessary to hire an effective representative. 

Implication? 99 times out of 100, a 

man who can’t spell properly also can’t litigate 

his way out of a paper bag – even when 

he’s right. 

It may not be fair, moral or just, but as 

a practical matter, people who can’t spell 

properly lack the clout to be effective in court. 

Thus, their rights can be safely ignored and 

violated since they are too ignorant to effectively 

enforce their rights and hold their oppressors 

accountable. 

Further, although the actual petition only 

mentions Mr. Adams’ racial background once 

(“A Black American”), the cover letter implies 

that Mr. Adams doesn’t like anyone, 

including prominent African-Americans, 

who “think White”. Although Mr. Adams 

may be a warm, wonderful person who loves 

all races equally, his cover letter and motion 


imply that he’s a Black racist who, at best, 

distrusts and possibly hates Whites. 

Such racism is debilitating and self-defeating. 

No White judge will be sympathetic 

to the petition of a Black racist who wants to 

get out and get a gun. Remember Willie 

Horton? The legal system that “freed Willie,” 

caused one presidential candidate and the 

whole Democrat party to suffer serious election 

losses. No judge, parole board or governor 

is going to risk the political heat that 

can follow freeing any one early from prison 

who resembles Willie in the least detail. 

Even an African-American judge who 

hears Mr. Adams’ motion will be similarly 

unsympathetic to the plea of an apparently 

violent Black criminal. Although Black 

judges and Black convicts may share certain 

understandings about racial discrimination, 

the Black judge has probably experienced 

more threats as a child from Black “ganstas” 

than White members of the Klu Klux Klan. 

That being so, the Black judge is unlikely to 

rule like some “homey from de ‘hood.” 

Judges, be they White, Black, or Oriental, 

“think White”. And if you want their 

sympathy (and you’ll probably need it if you 

expect to win), you’d better write “White”. 

Mr. Adams’ bigotry is also debilitating 

since he apparently doesn’t like anyone (even 

other Blacks in the prison) who “think 

White”. Result? He probably doesn’t have 

any friends in the slammer who “think White” 

enough to proofread his motion. Without 

proofreading to “Whiten” his words, any 

judge (although they’ll never admit it in public 

or in print) who reads Mr. Adams’ petition 

will narrow his eyes and conclude the 

petitioner is just another “dumb, violent 

nigger” – and nobody’s gonna take personal 

responsibility for letting another “dumb, violent 

nigger” out of the joint who admits wanting 

guns, drugs and whores. 

The fact that Mr. Adams’ motion was 

not proofread by someone else also indicates 

that he’s a roaring egotist who’s determined 

to act independently and is so unreasonably 

overconfident, that he can’t work effectively 

with other people. 

That kind of self-imposed isolation does 

not bode well for successful litigation. TV 

and movies lead us to believe that lawyers 

slug it out, toe to toe, in the courtroom arena 

as staunchly independent gladiators. But 

that’s seldom so. Good “lawyering” is a 

team effort. While there may only be one 

lawyer speaking (or even grandstanding) in 

court, he is typically only the “pitch man” for 

an unseen team of backstage lawyers, researchers, 

and paralegals. Law is simply too 

complex for almost anyone (including lawyers 

and judges) to grasp single-handedly. 

Litigants like Mr. Adams who act in law without 

some sort of counsel (even if only from 

a sensible friend) are unlikely to prevail. 

Mr. Adams’ insults against lawyers, 

judges, Blacks and Whites, are similarly ignorant. 

You can’t expect help from people 

you insult. 

In sum, Mr. Adams’ own motion exposes 

him as angry, emotionally unbalanced, 

and too out of touch with reality to be effective. 

No matter how solid his constitutional 

challenge to plea bargains may be, his motion 

is self-defeating, almost comical, and 

virtually certain to be denied or ignored. 

Incompetence is typical 

The reason I take the time to criticize 

Mr. Adams’ motion is that he’s not alone in 

his incompetence. I’d bet that 80% of the 

pro se paperwork that crosses my desk (regardless 

of whether it’s written by Blacks, 

Whites, or Browns) is similarly “full of” gratuitous 

threats, insults or irrelevant comments 

on law. All of this extraneous crap only reveals 

the pro se litigant is a punk who can be 

easily ignored and, if necessary, quickly defeated 

in court. 

The pros don’t write long-winded, 

stream-of-conscious diatribes. Instead, their 

petitions, motions and pleas are focused on 

one or two issues, concise and to the point. 

They don’t write more than they have to because 

doing so exposes their strategy and 

strengths. 

It’s like playing draw poker. When the 

dealer asks “How many cards?” you can 

answer One, Two or Three – but it’s dumb to 

say “Three aces”. Doing so shows your 

hand. Smart litigators don’t show their hands 

with long-winded “briefs”. 

Free advice . . . 

and worth every penny 

For example, instead of providing a 

four-page lecture on judicial corruption and 

the convicts’ right to get guns, Mr. Adams 

might simply have sent the court a Motion 

for Retrial something like this: 

1. Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 of the 

Constitution for the United States of America 

(ratified 1789 A.D.) mandates that “The Trial 

of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, 

shall be by jury; . . . .” 

2. On February 15, 1997, Michael 

Adams was charged with a Crime other than 

impeachment. 

3. On July 1, 1997, Michael Adams 

appeared in the 27th District Court and was 

found guilty in a non-jury trial for the Crime 

previously charged and sentenced to five 

years in prison. 

4. Michael Adams’ defense lawyer provided 

ineffective counsel by agreeing to defend 

Mr. Adams in a trial conducted in violation 

of the duty to try all crimes by jury that 

is imposed on the court by Article III, Section 

2, Clause 3 of the Constitution for the 

United States of America (1789). 

5. The 27th District Court erred in that 

it did not satisfy the duty imposed by Article 

III Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution 

for the United States of America (1789) to 

try all Crimes by jury. 

6. Mr. Michael Adams respectfully requests 

that the trial and sentence imposed on 

July 1, 1997, be rendered void and that he be 

granted a new Trial by jury for his alleged 

Crime as mandated by Article III, Section 2, 

Clause 3 of the Constitution for the United 

States of America. 

A similar motion could fit on one or 

two pages. A good lawyer could enhance 

this motion and still reduce it by a third or 

more. Item 4 may be completely unnecessary 

or even unwise since it implicitly threatens 

a defense lawyer who the Court may 

want to protect. 

Nevertheless, this is the kind of motion 

that I suspect has the highest probability of 

being granted. Short, (semi)sweet, and to the 

point. No insults, no (direct) threats, no extraneous 

rants about judicial corruption, treason 

and the Bar’s ties to England. No identification 

of the petitioner’s race, criminal tendencies 

or socio-economic background sufficient 

to trigger the judge’s prejudices. Reading 

this motion, a judge might even assume 

the author was incarcerated for a crime as 

trivial as possession. That assumption might 

generate helpful sympathy and interest. Is 

that sympathy likely? No. But it is more 

probable, and thus worth pursuing. 

If I were a judge reading a similarly 

brief motion, I’d show it some respect. Litigants 

who write volumes expose their insecurities, 

but those who write briefly and get 

to the point can be dangerous. 

Although Mr. Adams’ motion appears 

almost comical, we can learn from his mistakes. 

Focus on the primary point; eliminate 

all extraneous commentary. It is not your 

purpose to educate, but to attack. Be brief. 

In law, less is more. 


The Genocide/ 

Gun Control Connection 

by Uri Dowbenko 

Aaron Zelman, Executive Director of 

the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms 

Ownership (JPFO), says there’s absolutely 

no doubt gun control laws lead to genocide. 

Zelman believes that the case against gun 

control is self-evident. He cites historical statistics 

to prove his point. 

In the 20th Century, there have been at 

least seven major genocides in which at least 

56 million persons, including millions of children, 

have been murdered by officials of what 

he calls “governments gone bad.” 

The body count includes: 

Ottoman Turkey (1915-1917) – 1.5 

million unarmed Armenians murdered. 

Soviet Union (1929-1953) – 20 million 

unarmed people who opposed Stalin 

murdered. 

Nazi-occupied Europe (1933- 1945) 

– 13 million unarmed people, including Jews, 

Gypsies and others who opposed Hitler, murdered. 

China (1948-1952) - 20 million unarmed 

anti-communists (not including Tibetans) 

murdered. 

Guatemala (1960-1981) – 100,000 

unarmed Mayan Indians murdered. 

Uganda (1971-1979) – 300,000 unarmed 

Christians and rivals of Idi Amin murdered. 

Cambodia (1975-1979) – 1 million 

unarmed persons murdered. 

In every case, before the wholesale 

slaughter began, at least one “gun control” 

law was on the book, says Zelman. In recent 

cases of US armed intervention, in which 

citizens were murdered in their own countries, 

Haiti had a “gun control” law (December 

22, 1922, amended October 1, 1980) and 

so did Bosnia, when it was part of the former 

Yugoslavia (September 17, 1964). 

The cynical arms embargo against the 

Bosnian Muslims, by the way, prevented 

people from defending themselves and 

thereby ultimately invited Bosnian Serb socalled 

“ethnic cleansing.” 

Nazi parallels with 

American gun control laws 

In a fascinating book called Gun Control: 

Gateway To Tyranny, authors Jay 

Simkin and Aaron Zelman show that the Nazi 

Weapons Law (March 18, 1938) is the source 

of the US Gun Control Act of 1968. 

In the book, the official German text of 

the Nazi law is presented side-by-side with 

its American counterpart. A section-by-section 

comparison with the American Gun 

Control Act of 1968 shows the undeniable 

lineage. Thus America’s draconian gun control 

laws remain one of Hitler’s lasting legacies. 

According to the authors, the Nazi 

Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on 

Firearms and Ammunition (April 13, 1928). 

The 1928 law was enacted by the German 

Government to curb so-called “gang activity,” 

violent street battles between Nazi and 

Communist thugs. 

Sound familiar? In America, “gang ac- 

tivity” has also been used as a pretext by 

strident anti-gunners. 

“Gun control did not save democracy 

in Germany,” says Zelman. “It helped make 

sure that the toughest criminals – the Nazis – 

prevailed over their unarmed victims. Then, 

when the Nazis inherited the lists of firearms 

and their owners in March, 1933, they used 

these registration lists to seize privately-held 

firearms from persons who were ‘unreliable’.” 

“In 1938, five years after taking power, 

the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law with the 

Nazi Weapons Law which introduced handgun 

control. Firearms ownership was restricted 

to Nazi party members and other 

‘reliables,’ while Jews were barred altogether.” 

Conclusion? A disarmed population can 

be slaughtered much more efficiently. 

NRA maintains status quo 

Controlled opposition groups like the 

National Rifle Association (NRA) have done 

little to stop the march of totalitarian-style 

gun control. 

“We [Jews for the Preservation of Firearms 

Ownership] are very different from the 

NRA. We believe that gun control should be 

destroyed,” says Zelman in a recent taped 

interview. “We view gun control as a cancer, 

a cancer that will destroy the guardian of the 

Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. 

“The National Rifle Association poohpoohs 

the idea of destroying gun control. 


They look for ways to compromise and work 

within the system. In doing so, they keep 

gun control alive. 

“The ‘Gun Owners of America’ differs 

from JPFO in that they do a wonderful job 

of aggressively lobbying politicians, and they 

use a lot of our material. So we heartily 

endorse the GOA.” 

Those rebellious Canadians 

Although the Canadian constitution 

does not include the right to bear arms, even 

the traditionally Milquetoast Canadians have 

recently looked back in anger at gun control 

laws. On December 1, 1998, a law went 

into effect requiring three million gun owners 

to register their estimated seven million 

rifles and handguns. 

Gun owners, exempt from previous 

registration, refused and have even taken to 

the streets in protest. “Canadians should get 

upset,” contends Zelman, “because of ‘home 

invasions’ where brazen armed criminals 

barge right in during daylight. The suspected 

victims are unarmed, so they [armed robbers] 

can just march right in there. I don’t 

know how far the Canadian people are going 

to go with their disgust, but fortunately 

there is a growing number of people who are 

voicing their opposition.” 

Gun control laws did nothing to prevent 

a 14-year-old student from opening fire 

and killing a 17-year-old classmate in an 

Alberta high school, or a former Ottawa transit 

worker who went postal killing four, then 

shooting himself to death. 

Handgun control’s 

spooky history 

Rumors persist that the anti-gun lobby, 

Handgun Control Inc., headed by Sarah 

Brady, is a CIA front. “I don’t think it’s a 

CIA front,” says Zelman. 

“The facts are that Edwin Wells, who 

worked with the CIA until he retired, actually 

helped fund Gun Control Inc. He helped 

Pete Shields get Handgun Control Inc. off 

the ground and running. 

“Bill Casey, former director of the CIA, 

was also a promoter of Handgun Control. 

These people always talked about how they 

found out how dangerous handguns were in 

the hands of civilians. Civilians could kill 

those who were coming to kill them. And 

they didn’t like that. 

“The whole anti-gun movement, the 

whole anti-freedom movement has very 

murky beginnings,” suggests Zelman. “But 

it shouldn’t surprise anyone. During World 

War II, before the CIA was organized, the 

OSS [CIA’s predecessor] brought in all of 

the Nazis. This has been documented in a 

number of books, like [Christopher 

Simpson’s] Blowback.” 

Other books which deal extensively 

with the Nazi-gun control connection include 

the Belarus Secret by John Loftus (1989) 

and the Paperclip Conspiracy: The Hunt for 

Nazi Scientists by Tom Bower (1987). 

“A lot of these people moved into the 

CIA, so why shouldn’t we have Nazi gun 

control laws in America?” Zelman asks rhetorically. 

Tyrano wannabes’ agendas 

So was the Columbine massacre a guncontrol-agenda-forwarding 

event? “The timing 

of this was most curious,” says Zelman. 

“If you look at [Congressman] Charlie 

Schumer and what he’s doing, it’s as if they 

were waiting. They were totally prepared. I 

think they had the legislation waiting for an 

incident, and they were prepared to bring it 

out as soon as the incident happened. And 

that’s what they did. The timing was perfect. 

And they furthered their agenda. I think 

what’s curious [is] how we see so frequently 

that these individuals who commit these heinous 

crimes so conveniently commit suicide. 

Or they’re conveniently killed by somebody 

to make it look like it’s suicide.” 

It’s almost like watching a nonstop replay 

of the JFK “Lone Nut” Theory – year 

after year, decade after decade. 

Instead of examining the role of illicit 

mind control experiments and powerful psychoactive 

drugs like Ritalin and Prozac, the 

Big Media Cartel promotes the unilateral disarmament 

of law-abiding American people. 

Never again? 

Don’t hold your breath 

Aaron Zelman has a lot of work ahead 

- especially in the current media environment. 

“We published a booklet called Gun 

Control Is Racist,” says Zelman, “It explains 

to people the history of why we even have 

gun control in America. It all started two 

hundred years ago with racism.” 

“The racist gun control laws were designed 

to make sure that a black person would 

have to have a permit to have a firearm, would 

have to pay a tax, would have to be registered 

and licensed. And that’s the same kind 

of gun control laws they want to implement 

for everyone today. 

“JPFO is unique among pro-firearm 

ownership organizations. After all, no one 

can label JPFO as ‘anti-Semitic.’ As a result, 

JPFO confronts Jewish politicians and organizations 

who urge disarmament of lawabiding 

Americans. 

“And JPFO also exposes non-Jewish 

gun prohibitionists like Sarah Brady whose 

falsehoods erode the Constitution’s protections 

that are most vital to Jews and other 

minorities.” 

JPFO’s best selling posters and T-shirts 

make the point very clear. There’s a picture 

of Hitler with a Cheshire cat grin. His right 

hand is extended in the Sieg Heil! salute. 

The caption says, “All those in favor of gun 

control, raise your right hand.” 

Email Uri Dowbenko at 

u.dowbenko@mailcity.com or read more of 

his columns at http://www.nitronews.com/ 

dowbenko.html 

Here’s additional comment on gun control 

from the internet which I find relevant to 

Mr. Dowbenko’s article: 

The Law Enforcement Alliance of 

America (LEAA) is the nation’s largest nonprofit, 

nonpartisan coalition of law enforcement 

professionals, crime victims, and concerned 

citizens united for justice. With more 

than 65,000 members and supporters, Law 

Enforcement Alliance of America is the 

nation’s largest coalition of law enforcement, 

crime victims, and concerned citizens dedicated 

to making America safer. Together, 

they fight for legislation at every level of 

government to reduce violent crime while 

preserving the rights of all citizens, particularly 

the right of self-defense. LEAA strives 

to keep political debate focused on criminal 

behavior and criminal punishment, and to 

communicate the shared opinion of the majority 

of law enforcement that gun control is 

not effective crime control. 

In September, 1999, LEAA held a 

major news conference at the U.S. Capitol to 

coincide with an ad campaign directed at the 

White House and Members of Congress. 

The ad campaign was organized under the 

banner, “Stop Politicizing Law Enforcement, 

Start Prosecuting Criminals”. The ads included 

the signatures of more than two thou- 


sand rank-and-file law enforcement officers 

who oppose the Clinton administration’s 

crime initiatives, new gun control legislation 

in Congress and the President’s release of 

Puerto Rican FALN terrorists. 

According to LEAA Executive Director 

Jim Fotis, while “the President uses police 

chiefs for another political photo-op to 

push his anti-gun agenda, we held our own 

event to represent the rank-and-file police 

officers who are back home on the beat, protecting 

law-abiding American citizens. LEAA 

represented them before Congress to express 

their concern over the following: 

Why have prosecutions for federal gun 

law violations plummeted 44% under Janet 

Reno’s Justice Department? 

Why has the White House refused to 

support full-funding for proven crime-fighting 

programs like Project Exile? 

Why did Bill Clinton recently grant 

clemency to 16 violent terrorists involved in 

bombing attacks that killed and maimed innocent 

Americans, including three N.Y. police 

officers? 

“This President, almost on a daily basis, 

exploits the rank-and-file of the law enforcement 

community to further his anti-gun agenda, 

yet his own administration has a reprehensible 

record of prosecuting criminals who violate 

laws already on the books. It is an insult 

to the injured and maimed police officers and 

all in law enforcement who risk their lives on 

a daily basis to even consider more gun legislation 

and releasing convicted FALN terrorists 

for politically-motivated reasons. 

“We want Congress to know, despite 

the political ploy of the White House, the 

majority of law enforcement officers don’t 

support more gun laws. They support the 

2nd Amendment and want Washington to 

stop putting politics ahead of public safety. 

For more information on LEAA call 

Diana Banister or Nick Thimmesch at 

(800)536-5920 or (703) 739-5920. http:// 

www.leaa.org/ 

Here’s an Email I received: 

Walking through a nearby shopping 

mall, I saw a really fine sporting goods store 

and went in. Inside, I spotted a glass case 

filled with new revolvers. “Hmm,” I said, 

“How very interesting. Can the semi-autos 

be far away?” 

Nope. There were just as many semiautos 

for sale, in a range of variety I’d never 

seen outside of catalogs and magazines. 

I told a salesman, “I’m really surprised 

and happy to see such a large selection of 

handguns in this store.” 

He sighed and said, “You wouldn’t 

believe our sales. We’ve been 30% over our 

best projections, and we can barely keep up.” 

“Wow,” I said. “What’s that all about?” 

“Bill Clinton. I’ve sold guns for a long 

time, but that guy has done more for the gun 

business than anything else I know. All the 

gun manufacturers put together couldn’t 

match his advertising for handguns.” 

Ladies & gentlemen; we are not alone. 

Billy Beck 

Mr. Beck’s point is that Clinton’s incessant 

push for gun control has only served 

to sell more guns. Thanks to Clinton and 

the rest of the “gun control nuts,” Americans 

are better armed today than ever before. 

Clinton crows about the nation’s falling 

crime rate as a consequence of his economic 

policies. Maybe so. But I suspect the 

average criminal understands better than 

most that since Americans are better armed 

– and empowered by several states to carry 

concealed handguns – it’s increasingly foolhardy 

to break into homes or assault people 

on the streets. 

A few years ago, most people were typically 

unarmed and therefore soft targets for 

crooks. Today, thanks to Clinton, the public 

is armed and dangerous and the crime rate 

has fallen accordingly. I suspect the correlation 

between rising gun sales and decreasing 

crime is less a coincidence than a bitter 

irony for Clinton. 

Even if rising gun sales don’t cause 

falling crime rates, they prove that rising 

sales – and thus the availability of hand guns 

– do not contribute to rising crime or homicide 

rates. The fact that gun sales are rising 

at the same time crime rates are falling 

proves government’s cherished “link” between 

guns and violent crime is invalid. 

Whatever their reasons, people clearly don’t 

commit murder simply because guns are 

readily available. 

When you realize that rank and file 

police officers of the Law Enforcement Alliance 

of America, Jews for the Preservation 

of Firearm Ownership and unprecedented 

numbers of average Americans not only sup- 

port the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but 

are buying guns in unprecedented numbers, 

you have to wonder who precisely believes 

in gun control besides Bill Clinton, Sarah 

Brady and the mainstream media? Apparently, 

TV and public education have (so far) 

failed to “dumb down” Americans to the 

level government desires. (Perhaps they’ll 

have to boost the fluoride in our tap water.) 

Here’s excerpts from another email 

article entitled, “Global Gun Grab” by Thomas 

R. Eddlem. 

The United Nations is very troubled that 

the United States has retained its Second 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution . . . . 

Radical new UN proposals treat free people 

with the means to effect their own self-defense 

as a vital threat to the UN and its “peacebuilding 

process.” 

The August 19, 1999, UN “Report of 

the Group of Governmental Experts on 

Small Arms” complains that “there are wide 

differences among States [nations] as regards 

which types of arms are permitted for civilian 

possession, and as regards the circumstances 

under which they can legitimately be 

owned, carried and used. Such wide variation 

in national laws raise difficulties for effective 

regional or international coordination.” 

Among the “coordination” proposals 

enthusiastically supported by UN Secretary- 

General Kofi Annan are: 

“All States should ensure that they 

have in place adequate laws, regulations and 

administrative procedures to exercise effective 

control over the legal possession of small 

arms and light weapons and over their transfer 

. . . .” 

“States are encouraged to integrate 

measures to control ammunition . . . .” 

“States should work toward . . . the 

prohibition of unrestricted trade and private 

ownership of small arms and light weapons 

. . . .” 

To implement their gun control measures, 

UN officials plan to ignore the reservation 

of national sovereignty guaranteed in 

the UN Charter . . . which bans UN intervention 

in “matters which are essentially 

within the domestic jurisdiction of any state,” 

but the UN is no longer concerned with legal 

niceties. Instead, Annan explained to the UN 


General Assembly that “state sovereignty, in 

its most basic sense, is being redefined. . . . 

A new, broader definition of national interest 

is needed in the new century [where] the 

collective interest is the national interest.” 

[Emph. add.] 

In Annan’s view, the “collective interest” 

mandates that Americans and other 

peoples of the world should not own firearms 

and that the UN should be the key organ 

charged with collecting them. Annan 

emphasized that “controlling the easy availability 

of small arms is a prerequisite for a 

successful peace-building process,” and is 

why the “United Nations has played a leading 

role in putting the issue of small arms 

firmly on the international agenda.” 

This “peace-building process” may or 

may not help prevent wars between nations, 

but it will encourage the domestic conflicts 

in which unarmed civilians are murdered en 

masse by their own governments. This is an 

important point because – although the world 

is fascinated by the hi-tech violence of international 

war – the truth is that more people 

were killed in the 20th century by their own 

governments than were killed in wars. Statistically, 

all people are more likely to taxed 

into poverty, unjustly incarcerated or murdered 

by their own governments than they 

are to be robbed, bombed or killed by some 

foreign enemy. This is true anywhere in the 

world. 

If the world is disarmed, will the UN 

protect disarmed civilians from attacks by 

their own government? A recent Email from 

the Christian Alert Network helps answer 

that question. Excerpts follow: 

“Recently, radio talk show host Barbara 

Simpson (KSFO, San Francisco) interviewed 

Reverend Peter Hammond over 

the phone from Capetown, South Africa. Rev. 

Hammond has been a missionary for 18 

years and wrote several books including 

‘Holocaust in Rwanda’. 

“Rev. Hammond said he’s watched 

U.N. personnel over the years and noted that, 

while many of the lower- or middle-level 

UN people were well-meaning “bleeding 

hearts,” the UN’s upper echelon people were 

‘absolutely’ anti-Christian. 

“In the Rwanda holocaust, the Tutsi 

were Christians, and the Hutus were primarily 

anti-Christians. Hammond said there 

were three operative anti-Christian forces: 

1) voodooists/animists; 2) Marxists, who 

encouraged resentment against the Tutsis, 

who – as a result of their habits of cleanliving, 

saving, investment, etc. – built up 

more material and financial success than the 

Hutus; and 3) Islamists. 

“According to Hammond, the U.N. disarmed 

the Tutsi population in advance of the 

genocide. Spears, knives, machetes and all 

guns were confiscated. Hammond said that 

all genocides have been preceded by disarmaments. 

“Rev. Hammond later saw thousands 

of bodies and/or skeletons of Tutsi victims 

of Hutu murderers in Rwanda. Hammond 

said UN personnel stood by and allowed the 

slaughter by machetes to occur, and at times 

even handed Tutsis over to the Hutu secret 

police.” 

If Reverend Hammond’s observations 

are correct, the association between “gun 

control” and genocide is not merely a historical 

coincidence, but a modern reality. 

Whatever their motives, the UN is at 

least reluctant, and certainly slow to respond 

to “domestic” conflicts between governments 

and their own citizens. (How many Tutsis 

died waiting for the UN to stop the slaughter 

and save them?) 

So who, pray tell, will defend unarmed 

people (be they Tutsis, Jews or American 

patriots) against assaults by their own government? 

Not the UN. Not the domestic 

government. Not their unarmed neighbors. 

And even if any of those entities ultimately 

intrude – as in Rwanda or Nazi Germany, it 

will be months or years after the slaughter 

begins and thousands or millions of innocents 

are already dead. 

In truth, the only earthly force to protect 

individuals and nations against assault 

by their own government is the People’s right 

to keep and bear arms for self-defense against 

all enemies – foreign or domestic, criminal 

or elected. 

Foremost among all earthly rights is the 

right of self-defense. There can be no effective 

self-defense for average people without 

the right to keep and bear arms. 

According to Representative Ron Paul 

(R-TX), “The UN’s call for gun control is an 

affront to our way of life and our constitutional 

government. Mixing gun control with 

internationalism is certain to result in an assault 

on American rights and liberties.” 

Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) 

observed that the UN’s escalating gun confiscation 

campaign “fits the pattern of a UN 

that’s become a refuge and foundation for 

promoting socialism and undermining national 

sovereignty and individual freedom.” 

The eager involvement of the Clinton/ 

Albright State Department in that campaign 

illustrates the administration’s contempt for 

the Constitution, the rule of law, and our national 

independence. 

Clinton’s “Buy-back” Initiative 

On September 9th, Bill Clinton unveiled 

another prong of the UN-directed global gun 

grab: A $15 million federal gun “buy-back” 

initiative to be implemented by the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD). A 1995 UN paper by Dr. Edward J. 

Laurance, a consultant to the UN Register of 

Conventional Arms, notes that the UN has 

studied both “buy-back programs as practiced 

in many American cities” and those “conducted 

by the U.S. Army in Haiti” – the latter 

being part of a “peacekeeping” mission carried 

out on orders from the UN Security 

Council. 

Since the UN studies “gun control” 

operations in “Haiti and many American cities,” 

will it also study Rev. Hammond’s reports 

on the immediate and massively lethal 

consequences of disarming the Rwanda 

Tutsis? Did the Tutsis trust in a UN-sponsored 

disarmament? Did that disarmament 

cause thousands of Tutsis to be hacked into 

pieces? When will that UN study be released? 

And when will UN and U.S. gun 

control “experts” begin to admit the “genocide-gun 

control connection”? 

According to Dr. Laurance, government 

“buy-backs” of small arms “must be conducted 

in parallel with other efforts,” such as 

“seizure programs.” He also points out that 

“buy-backs” have a propaganda benefit, in 

that they focus “attention on the link between 

weapons availability and crime” – thereby 

preparing the public for more aggressive civilian 

disarmament measures. 

Sami Faltas of the Bonn International 

Centre for Conversion, an international “think 

tank” that advises UN officials on worldwide 

civilian disarmament programs, explained 

the program with stunning candor: 

“A subtle mix of rewards and penalties 

is needed for a weapons [confiscation] program 

to succeed. Ultimately, the ownership 

of arms should not be left to the personal 

choice of individuals. The state needs to preserve 

its monopoly of the legitimate use of 

force. So sanctions against the illegal possession 

and use of arms are necessary and 


should be imposed. However, during a weapons 

collection program, an amnesty is 

needed, and the emphasis should be on voluntary 

compliance and positive incentives.” 

[Emph. add.] 

The objective is apparent: Gun “buybacks” 

prepare the public for uniform gun 

registration, which leads to universal gun 

confiscation and a state monopoly on lethal 

force. This was the exact process that led to 

mass murder of subject populations in Soviet 

Russia, Nazi Germany, Communist 

China, and other tyrannies. With the covert 

aid of the Clinton administration, the UN is 

now implementing this process in America 

and across the globe. 

The idea that government alone should 

have a “monopoly” on the “legitimate use of 

lethal force” sounds reasonable until you 

consider that a monopoly on “legitimate” 

force is, in fact, a monopoly on all force, 

including illegitimate force. 

History proves that 20th Century gun 

control in Turkey, USSR, Nazi Germany, 

China, Guatemala, Uganda and Cambodia 

ultimately killed almost 60 million of those 

nations’ own unarmed citizens – not foreign 

adversaries. Where governments have enjoyed 

a “monopoly on legitimate force,” that 

monopoly inevitably caused the murder of 

millions of the very people the monopoly 

was supposed to protect. The evidence of 

the 20th Century makes clear that no government 

is sufficiently moral to be trusted by 

its own people with a “monopoly on force”. 

Nevertheless, could it be that the U.S. 

government is an exception that we can confidently 

trust with such a monopoly? Not 

when you stop to think about JFK, Flight 

800, Waco, Oklahoma City, Ruby Ridge, 

Agent Orange, the Gulf War Illness, the 

Clinton administration’s repeated indictments 

for criminal acts and a history of govern- 

ment corruption and arrogant violations of 

the Constitution. Our own recent history 

proves there is no reason for any sane person 

to voluntarily surrender his right to keep 

and bear arms to our government. The simple 

truth is that no government, not even ours – 

especially ours!– can be trusted with an exclusive 

monopoly on force and weapons. 

History also shows that whenever a 

warring nation was defeated, its surrender 

included its loss of arms. When errant cavalry 

officers were dishonorably discharged, 

their swords were broken over the knees of 

their commanding officers. When the Japanese 

surrendered after WWII, their military 

representative surrendered his sword to the 

victorious Americans. 

Although surrendering dress swords 

appears to be mere formalities, these surrenders 

symbolize a greater underlying truth: 

The right to own weapons – for a nation or 

an individual – has always been the principal 

symbol of sovereignty. A king could lose 

his crown and castle and still be king. But a 

king who surrendered his sword was reduced 

to the status of subject. 

Similarly, men and nations who are disarmed 

are inevitably reduced to the status of 

serfs, slaves and “untermenchen”. Once that 

secondary, non-sovereign status is reached, 

genocide is seldom far behind. As someone 

said, “Those who beat their guns into plowshares 

will plow for those who don’t.” And 

once disarmed, if they refuse to plow, they’ll 

be beaten, robbed, jailed or killed by those 

who still have guns. 

Such is the way of the world, and it has 

been so throughout recorded history. Anyone 

fool enough to voluntarily surrender his 

gun to government should first use that gun 

to blow his own brains out. Surrendering 

guns is suicidal – not only for the individual, 

but for his family, neighbors and nation. 

Similarly, government-sponsored gun control, 

registration and disarmament are political 

equivalent of mass euthanasia. 

The lessons of the 20th century are unmistakable: 

There is a “genocide/ gun control 

connection”. One follows the other as 

surely as Winter follows Fall. 

While gun control might reduce the incidence 

of random street violence, it inevitably 

increase the probability of unbridled 

genocide waged by governments against their 

own unarmed people. 


The UN & 

Property Rights 

by Henry Lamb 

As you read this article, remember that 

according to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, all 

rights flow from title. That is, your right to 

drive “your” car flows from “your” title to 

that car. Even if you’re a renter, your right 

to live in a particular home ultimately flows 

from the owner’s title to that property. 

The quality of your right to property is 

determined by the quality of your title to that 

property. Those with no title, have no rights 

whatever to that property. Those who have 

equitable title are “entitled” to use and possess 

property (much like a renter), but have 

no real right of control. Only those who have 

legal title (ownership) have real power and 

legal rights. 

Once government assumes title to property 

(as in all Communist countries and currently 

does in the U.S. with legal title to cars), 

the people are deprived of title to property 

and lose their individual rights relative to 

that property. Thus, any attempt by government 

to assume legal title to property “for 

the benefit of the people” is in fact a pretext 

to deprive people of their legal rights. 

Dividing “perfect” or “paramount” 

title to property into legal and equitable titles 

is the essence of all trusts. Once perfect title 

is divided, trustees hold legal title (and real 

control) of trust property while beneficiaries 

hold equitable title (right to possess and use) 

trust property. In trusts, beneficiaries have 

no legal rights, no standing in courts of law, 

and are totally dependant on the “good 

faith” of trustees to administer the trust for 

the common good of the beneficiaries. Although 

beneficiaries can seek “relief” from 

errant or corrupt trustees in courts of equity, 

that relief is unreliable and easily denied. 

As you read this article, note how often 

the terms “trust”, “trustee”, “benefits”, 

and “use” appear in UN documents. Repeated 

use of these terms leave little doubt 

that the UN and/or “New World Order” 

are intended to operate as trusts wherein the 

UN “trustee” owns legal title to all property 

and the world’s people are mere “beneficiaries” 

who, by definition, are without legal 

title, legal rights or legal recourse. 

The right-less status of “beneficiaries” 

is identical to that of pre-Civil War slaves. 

No matter what the color of your skin, to be 

a government “beneficiary” is the modern 

equivalent of being a “nigger”. You may 

live as well as any “house nigger” in the old 

South, but in end, without legal title to property, 

you have no legal rights and – black, 

white, or brown – in the eyes of government 

trustees, you’re nothin’ but a nigger. 

The danger in trust-based governments 

is that beneficiaries are absolutely subject to 

domination and exploitation by errant or corrupt 

trustees. When government operates as a 

trust (rather than a Republic, for example), 

and that government’s judges serve as trustees 

to administer and protect the government/ 

trust – beneficiaries have no real remedy 

against exploitation by government trustees except 

violence and civil war. 

Judging from the following excerpts, the 

UN recognizes and seeks to reduce the beneficiaries’ 

tendency to violence by promoting 

“stakeholder” councils to “advise” government. 

I suspect the term “stakeholder” is 

synonymous with “beneficiary” and the purpose 

of “stakeholder councils” is to release 

some of the political steam from irate beneficiaries, 

cause problems to be blamed on 

stakeholder councils (which have no real 

power) rather than the trustee-government, 

and create the illusion of democracy. But 

there is no democracy in a trust. The votes 

of beneficiaries are no more binding on 

trustees than the votes of children on their 

parents. 

Note also the frequent use of the term 

“collective”. No one can read the following 

excerpts from UN documents without concluding 

the UN seeks to create a communist-collectivist 

world government wherein 

all people are reduced to the right-less status 

of “beneficiaries”. One of the first steps 

in establishing this right-less society is to 

deprive the People of their right to own legal 

title to private property. 

Note also the UN’s support for values 

contrary to moral principles established by 

the Old and New Testaments. Judging by the 

following excerpts, the UN is either godless 

or serves a god other than that of the Bible. 

As usual, the [bracketed dark blue text] 

are my insertions in Henry Lamb’s illuminating 

essay. Read closely, there’s a great 

deal to be learned from this article. 


To the framers of the U.S. Constitu 

tion, property was as sacred as life 

and liberty. The inalienable right to 

own – and control the use of – private property 

is perhaps the single most important principle 

responsible for the growth and prosperity 

of America. It is a right that is being 

systematically eroded. 

Private ownership of land is not compatible 

with socialism, communism, or with 

global governance as described by the United 

Nations. Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Mao – all 

took steps to forcefully nationalize the land 

as an essential first step toward controlling 

their citizens. The UN, without the use of 

military force, is attempting to achieve the 

same result. 

The land policy of the United Nations 

was first officially articulated at the UN Conference 

on Human Settlements (Habitat I), 

held in Vancouver, May 31 - June 11, 1976. 

Agenda Item 10 of the Conference Report 

sets forth the UN’s official policy on land. 

The Preamble says: 

“Land . . . cannot be treated as an ordinary 

asset, controlled by individuals and subject 

to the pressures and inefficiencies of the 

market. Private land ownership is also a principal 

instrument of accumulation and concentration 

of wealth and therefore contributes 

to social injustice; if unchecked, it may 

become a major obstacle in the planning and 

implementation of development schemes. 

The provision of decent dwellings and 

healthy conditions for the people can only be 

achieved if land is used in the interests of 

society as a whole. Public control of land 

use is therefore indispensable . . . .” 

The Preamble is followed by nine pages 

of specific policy recommendations endorsed 

by the participating nations, including the 

United States. Here are some of those recommendations: 

Recommendation A.1 

(b) All countries should establish as a 

matter of urgency a national policy on human 

settlements, embodying the distribution 

of population . . . over the national territory. 

(c)(v) Such a policy should be devised 

to facilitate population redistribution to accord 

with the availability of resources. 

Recommendation D.1 

(a) Public ownership or effective control 

of land in the public interest is the single 

most important means of . . . achieving a 

more equitable distribution of the benefits of 

development whilst assuring that environmental 

impacts are considered. 

(b) Land is a scarce resource whose 

management should be subject to public surveillance 

or control in the interest of the nation. 

(d) Governments must maintain full 

jurisdiction and exercise complete sovereignty 

over such land with a view to freely 

planning development of human settlements 

. . . . 


(a) Agricultural land, particularly on the 

periphery of urban areas, is an important national 

resource; without public control land 

is prey to speculation and urban encroachment. 

(b) Change in the use of land . . . should 

be subject to public control and regulation. 

(c) Such control may be exercised 

through: 

(i) Zoning and land-use planning 

as a basic instrument of land policy in general 

and of control of land-use changes in 

particular; 

(ii) Direct intervention, e.g. the 

creation of land reserves and land banks, purchase, 

compensated expropriation and/or preemption, 

acquisition of development rights, 

conditioned leasing of public and communal 

land, formation of public and mixed development 

enterprises; 

(iii) Legal controls, e.g. compulsory 

registration, changes in administrative 

boundaries, development building and local 

permits, assembly and replotting. 


(a) Excessive profits resulting from the 

increase in land value due to development 

and change in use are one of the principal 

causes of the concentration of wealth in private 

hands. Taxation should not be seen only 

as a source of revenue for the community 

but also as a powerful tool to encourage development 

of desirable locations, to exercise 

a controlling effect on the land market and to 

redistribute to the public at large the benefits 

of the unearned increase in land values. 

[Apparently, the “concentration of 

wealth” is a persistent bugaboo for the UN 

– but what about the creation of wealth? 

While private property may foster the concentration 

of wealth in private hands, to what 

extent is private property responsible for creating 

that wealth in the first place? Without 

private property to inspire and reward individual 

competition, will society create any 

wealth at all – “concentrated” or otherwise?] 

(b) The unearned increment resulting 

from the rise in land values resulting from 

change in use of land, from public investment 

or decision or due to the general growth 

of the community must be subject to appropriate 

recapture by public bodies. 

[“Recapture” is virtually certain so 

long as owners are physically close to their 

property and therefore spend their profits 

where they are generated. Distant ownership 

(as by a distant UN headquarters) will 

suck the profits out of local areas and leave 

them impoverished. See “Bumble Bee Economics,” 

this issue.] 


(a) Public ownership of land cannot be 

an end in itself; it is justified in so far as it is 

exercised in favour of the common good 

rather than to protect the interests of the already 

privileged. 

[But who will define “the common 

good”? The common people or elitists of 

the UN?] 

(b) Public ownership should be used to 

secure and control areas of urban expansion 

and protection; and to implement urban and 

rural land reform processes, and supply serviced 

land at price levels which can secure 

socially acceptable patterns of development. 


(b) Past patterns of ownership rights 

should be transformed to match the changing 

needs of society and be collectively beneficial. 

[We’ll be collective “beneficiaries” 

who, by definition, have no legal rights and 

thus, no standing in a court of law.] 

(c)(v) Methods for the separation of 

land ownership rights from development 

rights, the latter to be entrusted to a public 

authority.” 

The official U.S. delegation that endorsed 

these recommendations includes familiar 

names. Carla A. Hills, then-Secretary 

of Housing and Urban Development became 

George Bush’s Chief trade negotiator. William 

K. Reilly, then head of the Conservation 

Foundation, became Bush’s Environmental 

Protection Agency administrator. Among the 

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) 

present, were: International Planned Parenthood 

Federation; World Federation of 

United Nations Associations; International 

Union for the Conservation of Nature 

(IUCN); World Association of World Federalists; 

Friends of the Earth; National 

Audubon Society; National Parks and Conservation 

Association; Natural Resources 


Defense Council; and the Sierra Club. 1 

These ideas came to America in the form 

of the Federal Land Use Planning Act which 

failed twice in Congress during the 1970s. 

Federal regions were created and the principles 

of the UN land policy were implemented 

administratively to the maximum 

extent possible. NGOs were at work even 

then, lobbying for the implementation of UN 

land policy at the state and local level. Both 

Florida and Oregon enacted state Comprehensive 

Planning Acts. Florida created state 

districts and multi-county agencies to govern 

land and water use. Most states, however, 

were slow to embrace the UN initiative 

toward centralized planning and land management. 

By 1992, the UN had learned to tone 

down its language and strengthen its arguments. 

The UN, working in collaboration 

with its incredible NGO structure – operating 

at the behest of the International Union 

for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the 

World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and 

the World Resources Institute (WRI) – made 

sure that the decade of the 1980s was awash 

with propaganda about the loss of biodiversity 

and the threat of global warming. 

The foundation for the propaganda 

campaign may be found in three publications 

published jointly by the UN and its NGO 

collaborators: World Conservation Strategy, 

(UNEP, IUCN, WWF, 1980); Caring for the 

Earth, (UNEP, IUCN, WWF, 1991); and 

Global Biodiversity Strategy, (UNEP, 

IUCN, WRI, 1992). These documents, along 

with Our Common Future, the report of the 

1987 Brundtland Commission (UN Commission 

on Environment and Development) 

set the stage for Earth Summit II, the UN 

Conference on Environment and Development 

(UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. 

This conference produced Agenda 21, 

the ultimate plan of action to save the world 

from human activity. The document echoes 

the 1976 document on land use policy, though 

in somewhat muted terms. From Section II, 

Chapter 10 (page 84): 

“Land is normally defined as a physical 

entity in terms of its topography and spatial 

nature; a broader integrative view also includes 

natural resources: the solids, minerals, 

water and biota that the land comprises. 

Expanding human requirements and economic 

activities are placing ever increasing 

pressures on land resources, creating competition 

and conflicts and resulting in suboptimal 

use of both land and land resources. It 

is now essential to resolve these conflicts 

and move towards more effective and effi- 

cient use of land and its natural resources. 

Opportunities to allocate land to different 

uses arise in the course of major settlement 

or development projects or in a sequential 

fashion as land becomes available on the market. 

This provides opportunities . . . to assign 

protected status for conservation of biological 

diversity or critical ecological services. 

Objective 10.5 

“The broad objective is to facilitate allocation 

of land to the uses that provide the 

greatest sustainable benefits and to promote 

the transition to a sustainable and integrated 

management of land resources: 

(a) To review and develop policies to 

support the best possible use of land and the 

sustainable management of land resources, 

by not later than 1996; 

(b) To improve and strengthen planning, 

management and evaluation systems for land 

and land resources, by not later than 2000; 

(d) To create mechanisms to facilitate 

the active involvement and participation of 

all concerned, particularly communities and 

people at the local level, in decision-making 

on land use and management, by not later 

than 1996. 

Activities 10.6: 

“(c) Review the regulatory framework, 

including laws, regulations and enforcement 

procedures, in order to identify improvements 

needed to support sustainable land use 

and management of land resources and restrict 

the transfer of productive arable land to 

other uses; 

(e) Encourage the principle of delegating 

policy-making to the lowest level of public 

authority consistent with effective action and 

a locally driven approach. 

Activities 10.7: 

“(a) Adopt planning and management 

systems that facilitate the integration of environmental 

components such as air, water, 

land and other natural resources using landscape 

ecological planning . . . for example, 

an ecosystem or watershed; 

(b) Adopt strategic frameworks that allow 

the integration of both developmental and 

environmental goals; examples of those frameworks 

include . . . the World Conservation 

Strategy, Caring for the Earth . . .”2 

Between 1976 and 1992 a new strat 

egy for land use control was devised. 

It is subtle, sinister, and successful. 

Reread 10.6(e) above: “Encourage the principle 

of delegating policy-making to the lowest 

level of public authority consistent with 

effective action and a locally driven ap- 

proach.” The reference to “public authority” 

here is not to elected city councils or county 

commissions. The reference is to newly constituted 

“stakeholder councils” or other bodies 

of “civil society” that consist primarily of 

professionals functioning as representatives 

of NGOs affiliated with national and international 

NGOs accredited by the United Nations. 

This strategy is becoming increasingly 

effective. [Emph. add.] 

Earth Summit produced other documents 

which directly affect private property 

rights and land use: the Convention on Biological 

Diversity, which authorized the production 

of the Global Biodiversity Assessment 

(GBA). 

The GBA is a massive, 1,140-page 

document that supposedly provides the “scientific” 

basis for implementing the Convention 

on Biological Diversity and other environmental 

treaties. It discusses land-use extensively 

(approximately 400 pages). Some 

of the more poignant revelations may be 

found in Section 11.2.3.13 (page 767): 

“Property rights are not absolute and 

unchanging, but rather a complex, dynamic 

and shifting relationship between two or more 

parties, over space and time.” 

The legal approach to this UN view of 

property rights is discussed in Section 

11.3.3.2 (pages 786-787): 

“Plants and animals are objects whose 

degree of protection depends on the value 

they represent for human beings. Although 

well-intentioned, this specifically anthropocentric 

view leads directly to the subordination 

of biological diversity, and to its sacrifice 

in spite of modern understanding of the 

advantages of conservation. 

[In Western civilization, the “anthropocentric” 

(man-centered) view is ultimately 

based on the Biblical belief that man is created 

in God’s image and thus superior to all 

other forms of life. This belief lays the moral 

foundation to prohibit murder and cannibalism. 

A non-anthropocentric view of our 

relationship to plants and animals contradicts 

our belief in Old and New Testaments 

and, if implemented, forces us to surrender 

our belief in Yahweh and Jesus. Thus, we 

can infer that the UN is either an ungodly 

organization or – if spiritual – it worships a 

god other than that of the Bible.] 

We should accept biodiversity as a legal 

subject, and supply it with adequate 

rights. 

[This implies that man (whose duties 

and consequent rights are given by God) 

should grant rights to animals. The danger 

is not precisely that man grants rights to 


animals, but that man-made animal rights 

are ultimately viewed as equal or superior 

to God-made rights for man.] 

This could clarify the principle that 

biodiversity is not available for uncontrolled 

human use. Contrary to current custom, it 

would therefore become necessary to justify 

any interference with biodiversity, and to 

provide proof that human interests justify 

the damage caused to biodiversity.”3 

[Thus, the “burden of proof” would 

fall on man while advantageous “presumptions 

of innocence” accrue to animals. This 

is an absolute reversal of Biblical principles 

and evidence of a UN tendency to worship 

nature rather than God.] 

Under the UN’s concept of land and 

resource management, the owner is 

not even considered as one who 

may have a right to determine how his land 

is to be used. 

It is a higher authority that represents 

the “community” to whom “proof” must be 

offered that a proposed use is justified. This 

process effectively separates the right of 

ownership from the right of use, an objective 

discussed in Recommendation D.5(c)(v) 

of the 1976 document. 

[The separation of legal rights of ownership 

from equitable rights of use of property 

is the fundamental feature of all trusts.] 

And who, exactly, is this “higher authority” 

to whom proof must be presented? 

The authority envisioned by the UN is not 

local elected officials, but rather local “stakeholder 

councils” dominated by NGO professionals. 

[“Comrade professionals”?] 

Most Americans are totally unaware of 

this relentless, 20-year campaign by the UN 

to gain control over land use around the 

world. Many people believe that the UN is a 

distant, benevolent do-good organization that 

is expensive, but which has no direct affect 

on America. Nothing could be further from 

the truth. 

The 1992 Earth Summit also produced 

the UN Commission on Sustainable Development 

and a new international NGO called 

Earth Council. Earth Council, located in Costa 

Rica, is headed by Maurice Strong, Secretary 

General of Earth Summit I and II, the 

first Executive Director of the United Nations 

Environment Program (UNEP), and a 

director of World Resources Institute (WRI). 

The function of Earth Council is to coordinate 

the work of national councils on sustainable 

development. Currently more than 

100 nations have created national councils 

for the purpose of implementing Agenda 21 

at the national level. 

In America, the President’s Council on 

Sustainable Development (created by Executive 

Order in 1993) presented its report, “Sustainable 

America, A New Consensus,” in 1995. 

This report is a compilation of 154 action 

items patterned after Agenda 21, to be implemented 

in America. At its November, 1995 

meeting, Council members who were also 

Cabinet members announced that at least 67 

of the 154 action items could be implemented 

“administratively,” without Congressional 

involvement. The 1995 report provides 16 

“We Believe” statements, which embrace the 

27 principles articulated in the Rio Declaration 

from Earth Summit II. Among those 

statements is this: 

“We need a new collaborative decision 

process that leads to better decisions; more 

rapid change; and more sensible use of human, 

natural, and financial resources in 

achieving our goals.” [Emph. add.] 

The report states further: 

“. . . society outside of government – 

civil society – is demanding a greater role in 

governmental decisions, while at the same 

time impatiently seeking solutions outside 

government’s power to decide. 

[If the UN/ New World Order is to be 

built on the principle of trusts, the government 

will occupy the role of trustees and the 

people will be reduced to the status of “rightless” 

beneficiaries. If “civil society” is defined 

as “outside of government,” it follows 

that “civil society” should identify the 

system’s right-less beneficiaries. This implies 

that all things “civil” (like “civil rights” 

or “civil law”) are really available to those 

condemned to the status of beneficiaries.] 

Our most important finding is the potential 

power of and growing desire for decision 

processes that promote direct and meaningful 

interaction involving people in decisions 

that affect them.” 

The election process and representative 

government created by the U.S. Constitution 

is clearly unacceptable to the PCSD, 

which wants “civil society” (read: NGO 

dominated stakeholder councils) to become 

the local authority for not only land use decisions, 

but for a variety of other policy decisions 

as well. 

The PCSD report says (page 113): 

“What has become clear is that the conflicts 

over natural resources increasingly are 

exceeding the capacity of institutions, processes, 

and mechanisms to resolve them. The 

Council endorses the concept of collaborative 

approaches to resolving conflicts.” 

Conflicts arise because: 

“Privately owned lands are most often 

delineated by boundaries that differ from the 

geographic boundaries of the natural system 

of which they are a part. Therefore, individual 

or private decisions can have negative 

ramifications. For example, private decisions 

are often driven by strong economic incentives 

that result in severe ecological or aesthetic 

consequences to both the natural system 

and to communities outside landowner 

boundaries.” 

In plain English, the PCSD has determined 

that private land owners make land 

use decisions that are inconsistent with the 

land use principles laid down in the Global 

Biodiversity Assessment, Agenda 21, and 

the 1976 report of the UN Commission on 

Human Settlements. 

[Private ownership may be contrary to 

some UN intellectual’s conception of utopia, 

but it is exactly consistent with the ancient 

instinct in virtually all living creatures 

to “own” and dominate a particular piece 

of land. This territorial instinct confers the 

survival advantages of steady food supply 

and breeding advantages to those members 

of a species who are strongest and best able 

to dominate and “own” their land. Moreover, 

this territorial instinct is arguably the 

fundamental principle underlying all social 

organizations from ant hives to New York 

real estate developers. It’s certain that no 

amount of UN sophistry can ultimately offset 

or replace the ancient instinct to “own” 

territory. Moreover, territory and private 

property are the ultimate rewards for hard 

work and personal superiority. Once that 

reward is lost, what personal incentive remains 

to work hard, create wealth, enrich 

yourself and your society, and advance civilization? 

In a society that prohibits personal 

property, the only way for an individual to 

advance and be enriched is through violence, 

extortion and corruption (by taking property 

rather than earning it). It’s no accident 

that collectivist societies which eschew private 

property rights quickly and inevitably 

sink into poverty, corruption and chaos.] 

To solve this problem, the PCSD issued 

the following recommendations (page 

115): 

“Action 1. The President should issue 

an executive order directing federal agencies 

under the Government Performance and 

Results Act to promote voluntary, multistakeholder, 

collaborative approaches toward 

managing and restoring natural resources. 

[This is ultimate democracy: no one (no matter 

how hard he works) can own anything – 


ut everyone (even the laziest and least competent) 

gets an equal vote in how property is 

distributed or used. Such system favors the 

lazy and penalizes the diligent. Tried in the 

former Soviet Union, this system caused 

“workers” to joke, “The government pretends 

to pay us, and we pretend to work.” 

Result? Poverty, national collapse, social 

chaos, organized crime and, now, civil war.] 

Action 2. Governors can issue similar 

directives to encourage state agencies to participate 

in and promote voluntary, multistakeholder, 

collaborative approaches. 

Action 3. Public and private leaders 

(within the constraints of antitrust concerns), 

community institutions, nongovernmental 

organizations, and individual citizens can take 

collective responsibility for practicing environmental 

stewardship through voluntary, 

multi-stakeholder, collaborative approaches. 

Action 4. The federal government should 

play a more active role in building consensus 

on difficult issues and identifying actions that 

would allow stakeholders to work together 

toward common goals. Both Congress and 

the executive branch should evaluate the extent 

to which the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act poses a barrier to successful multistakeholder 

processes, and they should amend 

regulations to help accomplish this.” 4 

Interestingly, a recommendation of the 

PCSD’s Population and Consumption Task 

Force, which was not included in the final 

report, said: “The President and Congress 

should authorize and appoint a national commission 

to develop a national strategy to address 

changes in national population distribution 

[i.e., the rights to travel and relocate] 

that have negative impacts on sustainable development.” 

5 Compare this recommendation 

to Recommendation A.1 from the 1976 Habitat 

document. 

Implementation of the UN’s land use 

philosophy is well under way in America, and 

is now being accelerated through the use of 

the “collaborative process” using stakeholder 

councils. The 1973 Endangered Species Act 

has been expanded administratively to now 

cover not only endangered species, but the 

habitat which a listed species may wish to use 

– even though the habitat may be privately 

owned. This policy breathes life into the GBA 

recommendation to extend legal rights to 

biodiversity. It, in fact, clarifies “the principle 

that biodiversity is not available for uncontrolled 

human use.” 

The legal status of biodiversity has 

been further elevated by Vice President Gore’s 

“Ecosystem Management Policy,” which 

places biodiversity protection at the same 

priority level as human health, and which 

further instructs officials to consider human 

beings to be a “biological resource” in all 

ecosystem management activities. 

Consistent with other PCSD recommendations, 

the federal government is actively 

funding stakeholder councils throughout 

the country to begin the process of creating 

“sustainable communities” as envisioned 

in Agenda 21. Sustainable communities are 

essential to the concept of land use and resource 

management envisioned by the Global 

Biodiversity Assessment, and required 

by the Convention on Biological Diversity. 

Ultimately, if the UN plan is realized, at 

least half of the land area of North America 

will be converted to wilderness, off limits to 

human beings. An additional 25% will be 

controlled by government in collaboration 

with “civil society” in which individuals will 

have to prove that a proposed use will not 

harm biodiversity. Humans are to be relocated 

into “sustainable communities” that are 

described as “islands of human habitat” surrounded 

by natural areas. 

It is now clear that the UN’s land use 

policies, though refined over time, have had 

a predetermined objective from the very beginning. 

That objective – as bizarre as it may 

sound – is to place all land and natural resources 

under the ultimate authority of the 

UN. The official report of the UN-funded 

Commission on Global Governance, Our 

Global Neighborhood, calls for placing “the 

global commons” under the direct authority 

of the UN Trusteeship Council, and defines 

“global commons” to be: “The atmosphere, 

outer space, the oceans beyond national jurisdiction 

and the related environment and 

life-support systems that contribute to the 

support of human life.” 6 

The Commission on Global Governance 

also calls for the creation of a new “Petitions 

Council” which would receive petitions from 

“Stakeholder Councils” in each nation for 

the purpose of directing the petitions to the 

correct UN agency for resolution and enforcement 

actions. 

The objectives are real, published in 

official documents, and the process is well 

underway. The strategy originated with the 

IUCN, WWF, and the WRI, and is being 

advanced at the policy level through UN organizations, 

international treaties and agreements, 

and on the ground through a massive 

organization of “civil society” NGOs. Here, 

only the highest peaks of UN activity have 

been identified. Virtually every activity, conference, 

and action plan devised by the UN 

since the early 1970s has been aiming to- 

ward the ultimate objective of eventual global 

governance founded upon the principles 

of collectivism, central planning, and omnipotent 

enforcement, disguised by the language 

of equity, social justice, and environmental 

protection. 

Sadly, American policy has failed to 

honor the Constitutional commitment to life, 

liberty and property. The next four years in 

America may well be the historic watershed 

that will be seen by future generations as the 

point from which the blessings of freedom 

were shared with the entire world, or the 

point from which the world began its descent 

into global tyranny. 

1 Information here cited is from 

“Report of Habitat: United Nations 

Conference on Human Settlements,” 

Vancouver, 31 May - 11 June, 1976, (A/ 

Conf.70/15), personally photocopied from 

the archives of the UN Library at Geneva, 

Switzerland, December 6, 1996. (On file) 

2 Citations from Agenda 21 are taken 

from: Agenda 21: The United Nations 

Programme of Action From Rio, ISBN 

No. 92-1-100509-4, UN Publication-Sales 

No. E.93.1.11. Address inquiries to: Room 

S-894, United Nations, New York, NY 

10017, Fax: (212) 963-4556. 

3 The Global Biodiversity Assessment 

is published by the Cambridge 

University Press, ISBN No. 564316, and 

is available for $44.95 plus S&H by 

calling (914) 937-9600. 

4 Sustainable America: A New 

Consensus is published by the U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Mail Stop 

SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328, 

ISBN No. 0-16-048529-0. 

5 “Draft Recommendations from the 

PCSD and Response Examples,” 

Eco·logic, Nov./Dec., 1995, p. 13. 

6 Our Global Neighborhood, The 

Report of the Commission on Global 

Governance, (New York: Oxford 

University Press, 1995), pp. 251-253. 

Reprinted with permission from: Ecologic, 

POB 191, Hollow Rock, TN 38342. 

(901) 986-0099 


The Multiplier Effect 


There’s an old (allegedly true) story that, 

according to technical studies by aeronautical 

engineers, bumble bees can’t fly. They’re 

too big, clumsy and aerodynamically unfit. 

The punch line, of course, is that since no 

one bothered to tell the bumble bees, they go 

right on flying. 

The humor conceals the larger truth: 

The scientific conclusion that bumble bees 

can’t fly says more about aeronautical engineers 

and their science than it does about 

bumble bees. Since bumble bees do fly, the 

engineers only proved that their science and 

understanding are incomplete or fundamentally 

flawed. 

Our economy reminds me of the 

bumble bee story. Anyone with even a superficial 

understanding of economics who 

looks at the stock market, national saving 

rates, total consumer debt, etc., has to conclude 

that this economy not only can’t fly, 

but should’ve crashed years ago. For years, 

various economists have predicted the 

“crash” would hit within sixty days, buy gold 

now, and stock up on food. Although I 

couldn’t afford to stock up, I’ve believed a 

crash was imminent for years. Nevertheless, 

our “doomed” economy seems destined 

to fly forever. Apparently nobody told the 

“bumble bee” stock market it couldn’t soar 

to 11,000, and so it did. 

However – just as the conclusion that 

bumble bees can’t fly tells us more about 

aeronautical engineering than bumble bees – 

Bumble Bee Economics 

if our stock market and economy defy conventional 

wisdom and seem to do the impossible, 

that doesn’t tell us that the economy is 

magic, it tells us that there are forces at work 

that we don’t understand. 

For example, economists recognize a 

“multiplier effect” which mysteriously increases 

the beneficial economic impact of new 

money added into a local economy. 

For example, when a Wisconsin tourist 

spends $1,000 in Miami, the local community 

receives a positive economic benefit equal 

to $5,000 to $7,000. Although the idea that 

$1,000 can somehow “multiply” into a 

$5,000 effect seems irrational, economists 

say it’s so. 

This article explores the possibility that 

the “multiplier effect” can also have negative 

economic consequences. I.e., if the tourist’s 

$1,000 caused a $5,000 benefit in Florida, 

did it somehow also cause a $5,000 loss back 

in Wisconsin? If such negative consequences 

exist, the multiplier effect might explain some 

previously unseen economic forces, the similarity 

between colonies and corporations – and 

even why our bumble bee economy defies 

conventional wisdom and continues to fly. 

In AntiShyster Volume 9 No. 2, the article 

“Concentration of Agricultural Markets” 

hinted at the fundamental changes in the social 

structure of rural American communities 

caused by corporate agriculture. According 

to three University of Missouri Phd.s (Drs. 

Heffernan, Gronski and Hendrickson): 

“Today, most rural economic development 

specialists discount agriculture as a contributor 

to rural development because of the 

food system’s emerging structure. Formerly, 

in most family businesses . . . profits were . 

. . distributed locally among labor, management 

and capital. . . . [I]t made little difference 

how the profits were distributed . . . 

since the local family spent most of their profits 

in their local community. Thus, the rural 

community retained all of the profits [derived 

from local farms] and those profits. . . 

. contributed to the economic well-being of 

the community.” [Emph. added] 

“Today, however, large non-local corporations 

instantly remove farm profits from 

farm communities. Instead of being spent 

locally, farm profits now go to the company’s 

distant headquarters and are then sent to all 

corners of the globe to be reinvested in the 

food system.” 

Note that even though local workers 

are still earning wages on these corporate 

farms, because ownership has moved outside 

the local community and taken farm profits 

with it, those farms no longer make any 

“contribution” to rural “development” 

(growth). 

Thus, by reducing family farmers from 

owners (who by definition receive profits) 

to mere managers, laborers, growers or sharecroppers, 

(who merely receive wages) the 

globalized, corporate food system sucks farm 

profits out of farms, leaves rural communi- 


ties to survive on farm wages alone, and 

thereby stunts the growth of entire rural areas. 

This observation offers a stunning insight 

into the difference between wages and 

profits. Wages alone will not foster economic 

growth; only profits can fuel a rise in 

the community’s standard of‘ living. And 

profits, of course, flow only to owners. No 

owners equals no profits equals economic 

decline. 

To illustrate, suppose the Brown family 

owned and worked an Iowa farm. Suppose 

the owner (Bob Brown) used the farm 

land as collateral for a bank loan in the 1960s 

(when agriculture was hot). Unfortunately, 

weather and markets turned against farmer 

Bob, so he failed to repay the loan in the 

1970s and thereby lost ownership of the farm 

through foreclosure. 

When the new owner (a New York corporation) 

bought the Brown’s Iowa farm, 

they “generously” allowed Bob and his family 

to continue managing and working the 

farm. Bob’s family was pleased. Even 

though they’d lost ownership, they could still 

live on, manage and work “their” farm without 

suffering the humiliation of being driven 

off the land. Besides, the corporate owners 

provided such good medical, dental and life 

insurance benefits that losing ownership 

didn’t seem so bad. 

But no matter what sort of wages or 

benefits Bob’s family received as corporate 

employees, they (and their local community) 

did not receive the farm profits (perhaps 20% 

of the gross income). Instead, those profits 

were whisked out of the Iowa community 

where they were created, sent to the corporate 

owners headquarters in New York and 

spent wherever the corporation wished. 

If all the farms in this Iowa community 

were owned by distant, corporations, none 

of the community’s farm profits would be 

spent within the community where they were 

created. For example, if twenty local farms 

each generated a $50,000 profit per year, their 

collective $1 million profit – that would normally 

be spent locally – would instead be 

transferred to corporate headquarters in New 

York. 

A $1 million loss is significant in small, 

rural communities. As a result of this corporate 

drain, $1 million worth of televisions, 

microwave ovens, new cars and similar products 

that might otherwise have been bought 

in the local community will not be bought. 

Further, because the local electronics and 

automobile dealers won’t sell as many TVs, 

microwaves and cars, they will also suffer 

reduced profits and also be less able to purchase 

additional products from their neighbors. 

Thus, the whole local community is 

economically diminished by just one 

member’s sale of his property to a new but 

distant owner. 

Invisible Multiplication 

“Concentration of Agricultural Markets” 

(AntiShyster Vol. 9 No. 2) also explained, 

“So long as family businesses were the predominant 

system in rural communities, newly 

generated dollars [profits] in the agricultural 

sector would circulate in the community, 

changing hands from one entrepreneurial 

family to another three or four times before 

leaving the rural community. This ‘multiplier 

effect’ greatly enhanced the economic viability 

of the community.” 

This “multiplier effect” is a slippery, 

counter-intuitive concept. Even economists 

disagree about the multiplication effect’s 

magnitude. Some say “three to four,” other 

guesstimate as high as “five to seven”. (I’ll 

illustrate the balance of this article with a 

multiplier effect of five.) Whatever the magnitude, 

the multiplier effect is seen regularly 

in competition between big cities for tourist 

and convention dollars. 

For example, suppose the National 

Fireman’s Association is looking for a place 

to hold their annual three-day convention. 

And suppose that convention will be attended 

by 2,000 firemen who will spend an 

average of $1,000 each on hotel, food, taxis, 

souvenirs and entertainment. That means 

the city that wins that convention will add $2 

million into its local economy. 

An extra $2 million is good for local 

business, local workers and local politicians. 

The hotel owner makes more money and 

buys a new car; the car dealer makes more 

money and buys a new TV; the TV dealer 

makes more money and takes his wife out 

for dinner. Everybody profits from the extra 

money brought into the local economy by 

the visiting firemen. 

As a result of these cascading sales, 

some economists guesstimate that every outside 

dollar brought into a community changes 

hands as much as five to seven times and 

thereby “multiplies” into the equivalent of an 

extra $5 to $7 for the local community. This 

“multiplier effect” means that the extra $2 

million spent at the convention will actually 

generate a “multiplied” gain of $10 million 

in local business activity. That’s why the 

City of Chicago will fight tooth and nail with 

the City of Miami to host the Fireman’s Ball. 

Negative multiplication? 

But what people don’t talk about is the 

negative consequence of the multiplier effect. 

If a local community enjoys a “multiplied” 

$5 million benefit for every $1 million 

in tourist or convention dollars it attracts, 

what happens to a community that loses $1 

million when it’s citizens fly south to 

Disneyworld? Doesn’t it follow that the 

multiplier effect should cause the community 

that loses $1 million to suffer a $5 million 

loss in local economic activity? 

I suspect that the multiplier effect is 

every bit as negative on communities that 

lose money as it is positive for communities 

that gain money. If so, when our hypothetical 

Iowa farm community sold 20 local farms 

to distant corporations (and the farms’ $1 

million collective profits were transferred to 

the distant corporations), a 5X “multiplied 

effect” of the measurable $1 million loss 

should cause the an “invisible” $5 million 

loss in local economic activity. 

Result? The local community will lose 

its former economic vitality and begin to 

“mysteriously” run down. (How y’ gonna 

keep ‘em down on the farm, after you’ve 

sold out to a distant corporation?) 

When farmer Bob went to work for the 

new corporate owner of his former family 

farm, Bob might’ve received better wages 

and benefits than he ever made when he 

owned the farm. Nevertheless, the $50,000 

profit that farm owner Bob used to spend in 

the local community has been vacuumed out 

and sent to New York. The “multiplier effect” 

will cause this “little” $50,000 in lost 

profits to generate an “invisible” $250,000 

loss to the local economy. 

Point: even if a local farmer never 

seemed very prosperous, he was nevertheless 

making a “multiplied” (and far greater) 

contribution to his community than he ever 

made directly to himself. As such, his neighbors 

may have inadvertently profited more 

from his farm, than the farmer himself. Such 

farm owners are a true community benefactors 

who deserves much respect. 

Man does not live by wages alone 

When the local farm economy begins 


to decline, the local TV dealer and Ford franchise 

will make some extraordinary deals just 

hoping to stay in business. And of course, 

farm manager Bob (the corporate employee) 

will thank his lucky stars he’s got the distant 

corporation to pay his wages while his local 

community slides into a mysterious depression. 

Being one of the few well-paid individuals 

left in the community, Bob might 

make some great buys at his neighbors’ “going 

out of business” sales. 

Ironically, most local residents will envy 

farmer Bob’s job with the New York corporation. 

Folks will admire the distant corporate 

owner precisely because they don’t understand 

the significance of losing locally 

generated profits to outsiders. 

However, in a year or two, the distant 

corporate owner might tell manager Bob to 

accept a pay cut (the former TV dealer is 

willing to manage the farm for just $25,000 

a year). Because local profits are exported to 

distant corporations, local competition for 

work will be increased. Increased competition 

will eventually drive wages down to a 

subsistence level and push the entire local 

community deeper into depression. 

Implication: Wages alone will not sustain 

a local community; profits are the lifeblood 

of any community’s prosperity. 

Why? Because in any business, profits 

are not what’s “left over” after you deduct 

your costs for labor, material and overhead. 

Material costs and overhead are largely fixed, 

and labor rates are generally set at just 

enough for workers to survive on a hand-tomouth 

basis. But profits are largely the wealth 

that you create. And in some mysterious 

fashion, these creations are the primary fuel 

for economic growth. 

Profits are our “savings,” they are the 

cushion we need to carry us over unexpected 

expenses like a tornadoes, crop failures or 

birth of another child. Without profits, a 

community can’t cope with emergencies or 

even afford to have more children without 

sinking deeper into poverty. 

For example, if a community of 100 

persons earns $10,000 in total wages a year, 

the average income per person (standard of 

living) is $100 per year. If that community 

has ten more children but their wages remain 

the same, the average income per person will 

drops to $91 per year. Without added profits, 

communities not only can’t grow, they 

sink into poverty, wither in size and tend to 

become ghost towns. 

Like rent (money paid to the owner of 

property) profits also flow to owners. Once 

a community loses local ownership of local 

land, industry or retail businesses, whatever 

profits that community creates and would 

otherwise enjoy, will be sucked out of that 

community. Given the “multiplier effect,” 

the resultant losses to the local community 

can be devastating. 

The devil’s in the distance 

The problems caused by “distant” ownership 

of property are fairly easy to see in the 

rural farm setting, but the same process is 

going on all over the world. For example, 

when Walmart builds a new store in Dallas, 

it inevitably bankrupts scores of “mom-andpop” 

family businesses that used to sell food, 

hardware or magazines. Nobody cares. 

Those mom-and-pop operations were “small 

time” and probably never made more than a 

$50,000 annual profit, anyway. 

But given the multiplier effect, each of 

those mom-and-pop businesses might’ve generated 

the equivalent of $250,000 a year in 

local economic activity for their community. 

So if Dallas loses 100 mom-and-pop businesses 

to install one Walmart, the Dallas community 

may be collectively (and “invisibly”) 

impoverished by $25 million a year as “multiplied” 

profits from former mom-and-pop 

stores are sucked out of Dallas and sent to 

Walmart’s distant corporate HQ. 

And does local government discourage 

Walmart from building in Dallas? Noooo! 

We offer tax breaks to entice ‘em into Dallas 

even though we bankrupt local mom-andpop 

operations. 

We think we’re getting a good deal because 

we’re promised cheaper prices and 

more jobs at the new Walmart. But we ignore 

the fact that we’ll probably lose even 

more jobs from “mom and pop” stores bankrupted 

by Walmart competition. And more 

importantly, we’ll lose the profits that mom 

and pop stores used to generate. 

Another example: Suppose the old 

mom and pop appliance store used to sell 

microwave ovens for $100 and made a $20 

profit. But when Walmart comes to town, 

you can get the same microwave for just $85. 

That $15 savings looks like a great deal, and 

any loyalty you might’ve felt for “mom and 

pop” disappears. 

But bear in mind that when mom and 

pop sold microwaves for $100, their $20 

profit was re-spent right there in your local 

community. Result? The multiplier effect 

turned that $20 profit into another $100 in 

local economic activity for your community. 

(Note that an additional 5X “multiplier” applied 

to a 20% profit margin creates an added 

“effect” roughly as great as the original $100 

sale. In effect, by buying one microwave 

from mom and pop, we “magically” empowered 

our community to buy one more. By 

spending $100, we created a $20 profit which 

multiplied into $100 collective benefit.) 

But when Walmart sends all profits 

back to the distant corporate headquarters, 

the $20 profit and the $100 “multiplied effect” 

that mom and pop used to generate simply 

disappears from the local community. 

Thus, even though each of us may save $15 

by buying microwaves at Walmart, our community 

is being collectively impoverished by 

$100 in lost economic activity for every microwave 

sold. Result? No matter how much 

we seem to save individually, we are collectively 

impoverished by an even greater sum 

every time we buy from a distant corporation’s 

local store. 

Look at the various Black “ghettos” in 

Chicago, New York, etc. How many of the 

businesses and apartment buildings located 

in Black communities are owned by local 

Black residents? Not enough. As a result, 

locally generated profits are sucked out of 

the Black communities leaving little behind 

but poverty. Until local Blacks own local 

Black businesses and thereby keep locally 

created profits in local Black communities, 

those communities will continue to slide into 

poverty. 

And Blacks shouldn’t be conned into 

believing that a business owned by a 

“brother” who lives outside the community 

is preferable to a business owned by a Korean 

who lives in the Black community. The 

issue is not race, but local ownership and 

local distribution of locally-created profits. 

Implication: We must learn to value 

whatever local business owners we still have. 

They’re the “marrow” who produce the 

“blood” (profit) that nourishes our communities. 

Global vampirism? 

If there is a negative multiplier effect, 

then every foreign corporation is essentially 

in business to suck the life (profits) out of 

local communities and nations. 

If characterizing corporations as economic 

vampires seems extreme, consider all 


of the third world nations where corporations 

have established themselves. Are those 

“corporatized” Third World nations growing 

richer or poorer? Ohh, they may point to 

some refineries and factories and other expensive 

symbols of progress, but what about 

the average native in those Third World nations? 

Will wealth (in the form of factories 

and refineries) that corporations bring into the 

third-world countries “trickle down” and 

thereby enrich the local poor? Probably not. 

True wealth is not a bunch of bricks stacked 

up into a building or a collection of pipes that 

constitutes a refinery. True wealth is ownership. 

Without ownership, the locals will become 

collectively poorer as profits from their 

labor are sucked out of their nation. As their 

nation declines, it will become increasingly 

desperate to attract additional foreign corporations 

because they promise to “create jobs” 

– even if those jobs offer only subsistencelevel 

wages. As more foreign corporations 

enter the nation, even more profits are lost, 

causing a deeper spiral of decline. 

Eventually, these third-world nations 

sense the relationship between their poverty 

to the presence of foreign corporations. 

Revolutions follow to eject the foreigners 

and seize the foreign-owned land and factories. 

Frankly, I don’t blame the natives. Every 

person’s perfect right to survive justifies 

excising by any means necessary any parasite 

that threatens that survival. 

Unfortunately, most revolutions seek to 

“nationalize” the foreign corporate properties 

and thereby convey ownership (and profits) 

from the foreign corporate headquarters 

to the Third World nation’s capitol. Admittedly, 

nationalization may be an improvement 

since the new government-owners won’t be 

as distant as the former foreign corporateowners. 

Still, these revolutions typically miss 

the fundamental point: ideally, ownership, 

profits and prosperity are only available to 

those communities where local individuals 

own the “means of production” and thereby 

retain the “multiplied” benefit of the profits 

they create. Revolutions that replace distant 

corporate owners with distant government 

owners generally result in little change or 

benefit for local people (except at the capitol 

city). 

It follows that a successful revolution 

(like the one our forefathers started in 1776) 

must enshrine the right of individual private 

property and the resultant local prosperity 

that flows from owning and keeping locally 

created profits. 

Corporate colonization 

Distant ownership (and claim to profits) 

of local communities is the dream of every 

king, tyrant, and greedy self-serving executive 

who’ve every walked the earth. In 

the past, claims to the profits of distant communities 

were made through the Huns’ plunder, 

Rome’s empire, and the European colonies. 

Today, corporations are simply the modern 

instruments for achieving “distant ownership 

of local property” (less charitably 

known as “looting”). As such, foreign corporations 

can be fairly described as modern 

instruments of colonization. 

English colonies once existed worldwide 

to extract profits (wealth created by the 

“colonials”) from foreign country and deposit 

those profits into the London coffers 

of the English monarchy. If the multiplier 

effect was operational in the 15th through 

18th century economies, every ounce of gold 

extracted from the Thirteen Colonies (or colonies 

of Africa, Asia and South America) enriched 

the European monarchies (and their 

nations generally) by the economic equivalent 

of five to seven ounces of gold. Likewise, 

every ounce of gold profits removed 

from the various colonies impoverished its 

people by an economic equivalent of five to 

seven lost ounces of gold. 

Just as our Thirteen Colonies were chartered 

by the King of England, modern corporations 

are chartered by current state and 

federal governments. Just as England chartered 

the Thirteen Colonies for the purpose 

of extracting unearned wealth (profits) to 

enrich King George, modern corporations 

are chartered by government for the primary 

purpose of extracting profits created by local 

“corporatized” communities and sending 

them to some distant corporation – who splits 

them (through corporate income taxes) with 

the government that granted its “charter” (license 

to steal). 

For all practical purposes, when a rural 

Iowa community sells its farms to Archer- 

Daniel-Midland, it’s been colonized. It’s 

voluntarily agreed to surrender ownership 

of its productive resources (farms) and the 

attached profits (community life blood) to 

some foreign corporation. 

Similarly, when the City of Dallas gives 

tax breaks to entice out-of-state corporations 

to build Walmarts in “Big D,” Dallasites 

should become increasingly “colonized” and 

impoverished as they send more and more 

of the profits of their labor to distant corporations. 

Same thing when China allows Pepsi 

to build soft-drink plants in Peking – they’re 

encouraging China’s loss of profits and slide 

into deeper poverty. 

Local ownership v. free trade 

The multiplier effect suggests that the 

key to a rising standard of living for a man, a 

community or a nation is private, local ownership 

of the means of production. Foreign 

corporations should never be allowed into a 

community without placing such a high tax or 

tariff on their earnings that local profits can 

not be sucked out of the local community. 

Local prosperity depends on local ownership 

of productive resources. Thus, to 

prosper, communities don’t need programs 

to create jobs, they need programs to create 

owners. 

Just as agriculture is being corporatized, 

colonized and impoverished, so are you and 

I. Distant ownership of local productive resources 

is the essence of the New World 

Order. 

Conversely, the genius of the Constitution 

and foundation for America’s earlier 

prosperity was the creation of a political system 

based on: 

1) Decentralized government (where 

taxes tend to be collected, retained and spent 

locally); and 

2) Private ownership of property for 

common people (which tends to assure that 

local profits will be spent locally). 

In as sense, decentralized government 

and private property are two sides of the same 

coin. You can’t have one without the other. 

Whether they knew it or not, by mandating 

both, the Founders created a society that functioned 

in accord with the “multiplier effect” 

and thereby made American prosperity not 

only possible but virtually inevitable. 

Marx was (almost) right 

Karl Marx understood the necessity for 

common people to “own the means of production,” 

but I doubt that he understood the 

“multiplier effect”. As a result, Marx missed 

the importance of local ownership. 

The Communist revolution allowed the 

central government in Moscow to own ev- 


erything “in the name of the people” rather 

than the Czar (who owned everything in the 

name of some “divine right”). But the Communist 

revolution missed the fundamental 

point: the kind of owner is not as important 

as the owner’s location. If the owners lives 

close by, he’ll spend his profit close by, too, 

and the entire community will be enriched. 

The importance of local ownership 

helps explain why all “centralized” governments 

tend to fail. By removing profits (in 

the form of taxes) from local communities 

and sending them to distant seats of government, 

communities become increasingly impoverished, 

resistant to authority and finally 

prone to revolution. Local government and 

local taxes serve the people best – not because 

they’re more efficient, but because they 

keep locally-created profits and their positive 

“multiplied effects” close to home. 

Conversely, national government and 

national taxes may be inevitably detrimental 

since they tend to impoverish most of the 

country to enrich a single, distant capitol. It 

follows that a United Nations world tax 

(which is being considered) and a single “international 

government” would be even more 

debilitating for the world’s local communities. 

(Join the New World Order and go 

broke, hmm?) 

It makes no difference whether the 

“owner” of our productive resources is a 

Czar, a dictatorship of the people or a multinational 

corporation. If the owner is not “local,” 

the profits created by local enterprise 

will be drained from the local community to 

enrich the distant owner. Given the “invisible” 

multiplier effect, that loss guarantees a 

“mysterious” local slide into poverty. 

Today, if we sell our resources (including 

our labor) to distant corporations, we 

inevitably impoverish our community and 

leave less to our children than we ourselves 

received. No nation can surrender its “inheritance” 

– legal ownership of land, labor 

and similar productive resources – and avoid 

poverty, violence and revolution. 

Thus, for any community to prosper, it 

must maintain local ownership of land, factories, 

stores and associated means of economic 

production. The institution of local 

private property must be honored. 

Free trade might 

not lead to freedom 

There’s historical evidence to support 

the importance of location relative to profit 

accumulation. America’s rise from an 18th 

century agrarian society to the 20th century’s 

dominant economic power was based largely 

on 19th century tariffs (taxes on foreign imports). 

It’s common knowledge that high 

tariffs protected growing American industries 

from foreign competition. But when 

evaluated in light of the “multiplier effect,” 

perhaps the reason the tariffs worked was 

not because they limited foreign competition, 

but because they effectively retained American 

profits within America rather than “exporting” 

those profits overseers as orders 

for foreign goods. 

In today’s era of NAFTA, WTO and 

international “Free Trade,” tariffs are dismissed 

as archaic and detrimental. But there’s 

recent evidence that tariffs protect and enrich 

modern economies. I.e., after the defeat and 

devastation of WWII, Japan built an extraordinary 

economy on high tariffs and import 

restrictions that retained Japanese profits 

within Japan. Japan’s remarkable economic 

recovery is consistent with the hypothesis 

that high tariffs provide an important “multiplied 

effect” by keeping profits within the 

community or nation where they were created. 

To illustrate, suppose Japan considered 

importing $100 billion in foreign goods. If 

they choose to allows the imports, their 5X 

“multiplied” loss of local profits might exceed 

$500 billion. That’s a lot. On the other 

hand, if they choose to prohibit the $100 

billion in imports, their 5X “multiplied” gain 

might be $500 billion in local economic activity. 

That’s also a lot. 

But note that the difference between the 

choice to allow or prohibit the $100 billion 

in imports is $1 trillion. I.e., if they allow 

the $100 billion in imports, they figuratively 

lose a “multiplied” $500 billion in local economic 

activity. If they prohibit the $100 billion 

in imports, they figuratively gain $500 

billion in “multiplied” economic activity. The 

difference between a $500 billion loss and a 

$500 billion gain is $1 trillion. This is a 

surprisingly large “effect” since it stems from 

a seemingly unimportant decision to allow 

(or prohibit) a mere $100 billion in imports. 

Obviously, this analysis is hypothetical 

and overly simplistic. Still, even if the magnitude 

of the numbers is wrong, you can see 

that the multiplier effect raises serious questions 

about the value of international “Free 

Trade”. If the multiplier effect applies equally 

to gains and losses, exporting nations (as the 

U.S. was from 1941 into the 1960s) might 

enjoy an incredible “multiplied” economic 

growth and prosperity. Conversely, importing 

nations (as the U.S. is today) might suffer 

a similar “multiplied” decline. 

Stock market 

The multiplier effect might also explain 

why America’s economy seems to soar despite 

fundamental problems that most economists 

claim are certain to cause a collapse. 

We know that foreign investment in the U.S. 

stock market is high. This investment is 

driven by foreign fears that their own nations, 

governments, economies are unstable 

or collapsing. Although the actual dollar 

amount of foreign investments may be relatively 

small, how much would it be if the 

effect of that sum were “multiplied” five 

times? Thus, to an unexpected degree, “multiplied” 

foreign investments might help fuel 

the stock market’s amazing rise. 

If foreign investments are “multiplied,” 

they are especially significant since some 

economists estimate forty-five percent of all 

of private American’s wealth is now tied up 

the stock market. So suppose overseas 

economies improve and the foreign money 

that was fearfully invested in the stock market 

begins to confidently return home. If so, 

for every billion dollars removed, the stock 

market might feel an “invisible” $5 billion 

loss. If the multiplier effect caused our stock 

market to soar, it can similarly cause it to 

crash. 

A fine-tuned economy 

If the same principle applies to taxation, 

even a small tax cut (or increase) might 

have an unexpected and “multiplied” effect 

on our economy. For example, could a 1% 

sales tax increase cause a 5% “multiplied effect” 

on you and your local economy? I 

think it could. 

The multiplier effect may explain the 

remarkable economic boom that was triggered 

in the 1960s by John F. Kennedy’s tax 

cut. Paradoxically, when JFK cut taxes, the 

economy grew so much that the government 

actually collected more tax revenue at a reduced 

tax rate than it would’ve collected at 

the higher tax rate. To this day, politicians 

seem almost embarrassed to discuss the surprising 

effect of JFK’s tax cut. Instead, that 

effect is ignored as an inexplicable “aberration”. 

But was it an aberration or profound 

evidence of the multiplier effect? 


If the multiplier effect applies to taxes, 

it raises dark suspicions about why our current 

government – even while enjoying an 

alleged tax surplus – refuses to grant a substantial 

tax reduction for Americans. (Could 

it be that they don’t want us to prosper?) 

More importantly, if every seemingly 

insignificant tax increase or reduction had a 

“multiplied effect,” it would be possible for 

government to openly manipulate and control 

the economy without the public ever 

catching on. For example, suppose Congress 

votes to raise our taxes just 2% – who 

really cares? Big deal, right? But suppose 

the public understood that every 2% tax increase 

would cause a multiplied 10% reduction 

in relevant economic activity? 

Likewise, no one really cares if Alan 

Greenspan “fine tunes” the economy with a 

0.25% adjustment of the Federal Reserve’s 

interest rate. But what would the public say 

if it understood the multiplied effect of that 

interest hike was five time greater (1.25%)? 

Thus, if the multiplier effect applies to 

taxes, government could openly control the 

entire economy (or specific industries) with 

seemingly tiny and inconsequential tax rate 

hikes or reductions. In a sense, we might 

already be living in Aldous Huxley’s “Brave 

New World”. 

Philosophers stone(d) . . ? 

All of the previous conjecture flows 

from the possibility that the multiplier effect 

(known to be “positive” relative to money 

entering a community) is also “negative” regarding 

money removed from a local 

economy. 

Mathematically, it makes sense. If I 

take money from Cleveland and deposit it in 

Miami, the one city’s loss must equal the 

other city’s gain. If the multiplier effect magnifies 

Miami’s gain, why wouldn’t it also 

magnify Cleveland’s loss? 

These “multiplied effects” seem more 

like alchemy than economics. But – if real – 

they imply that the “science” of economics 

functions according to principles that are 

largely unknown and contrary to conventional 

wisdom. 

Nah. It just can’t be. No way. 

And yet, Dallas fights Chicago to host 

the Fireman’s Annual Convention . . . San 

Francisco fights New York for the next 

AMA convention . . . and staunchly religious 

folks in Utah bribe an Olympic committee 

to insure that Salt Lake City hosts the 

next Olympics. All of this takes place to 

exploit the “multiplier effect” on new money 

injected into local economies. 

America’s economic miracle was based 

on decentralized government, private property 

and high tariffs. JFK’s tax cut seemed to 

have a “multiplied” effect. Japan’s rise to 

economic superpower was built on high tariffs 

and retention of profits. Every one of 

these events is consistent with the multiplier 

effect. 

There’s no doubt that the multiplier effect 

is real relative to financial gains. Logically, 

it follows that it should be equally real 

relative to financial losses. If so, the implications 

are substantial. 


Multiplier effect III 


Admittedly, the whole idea of a “multi 

plier effect” (discussed in the previous 

article) sounds a little nuts. If it weren’t for 

the fact that cities recognize the multiplier 

effect and therefore compete with each other 

for tourist dollars, I’d dismiss the whole 

concept as silly. 

However, since economists seem to 

agree that the multiplier effect is real, I am 

curious to discover why it works. As usual, 

I have only a hunch to follow, but it’s an 

interesting hunch. 

I suspect that the “multiplier effect” is 

an indirect recognition that profits (newly 

created wealth) are several times more valuable 

to a community than mere “existing” 

wealth. In other words, $1 in profits may be 

worth $5 to $7 in savings or investments. 

How is that possible that $1 could be 

equal to $5 or $7? Mathematically, it makes 

no sense. One equals one, but one can’t 

ever equal five, right? 

Not necessarily. 

I suspect the difference between newly 

created money (profits) and “existing” 

(saved) money is not in the money itself, but 

in the economic behavior of “creators” as 

opposed to “savers”. The multiplier effect 

is based on the difference between how the 

two “kinds” of money are used. 

In other words, $1 in profits might generate 

as much economic activity as $5 in 

savings because profits are spent differently 

than earnings, wages and savings. 

Savings are 

the Root of all 

Evil? 

For centuries, people’s survival has al 

ways been tentative. The threat of robbery, 

government confiscation and famine 

frightened most people into secretly hoarding 

every dime they could find. Thus, most 

“existing” money (gold, silver coins etc.) was 

not spent but fearfully saved and even hidden 

against the inevitable rainy day. Those 

who could not create more money (profits) 

would feel especially insecure and be doubly 

inclined to secrete their money in the 

ground, their mattresses, or the King’s treasury. 

If this “existing” wealth was saved, 

hoarded and hidden, it couldn’t serve society 

as a medium of exchange. Once the gold 

was saved out of circulation, it could not 

stimulate further economic activity and the 

creation of even more wealth (profits). 

If the multiplier effect was operational, 

every gold coin squirreled away in a mattress 

or monarch’s treasury had to impoverish 

the local community by the equivalent 

loss of five to seven coins in economic activity. 

Money “lost” to society through individual 

savings contributed to deflation, economic 

depression and may have even helped 

spawn the Dark Ages. 

However, people with profits are, by 

definition, people who have created wealth 

and therefore have more money today than 

they had yesterday, and more than they formerly 

needed to survive. These are the 

“nouveau riche” – folks who have more 

money than they need or know how to 

handle. And so, unlike “old money” (which 

is hoarded and deflationary) the “creators” 

spend “new money” freely. 

The “nouveau riche” spend like sailors 

in a foreign port. They buy gifts, fast cars, 

faster women and booze. They buy all these 

unnecessary commodities to show off and 

gratify their egos. They also spend because 

they‘re filled with pride and joy over their 

act of creating profits. And they spend because 

they are incurably optimistic since they 

believe that having created profits once, they 

can create profits again and again – and their 

future is therefore unthreatened and secure. 

They express the highest form of “consumer 

confidence” (creator confidence). 

When a man creates his first $100,000 

in profits, he has more money than he has 

previously needed to survive. Rather than 

save all of his newly created wealth, he almost 

always spends a substantial portion. 

If he buys a house, the real estate agent, 

unexpectedly enriched by the influx of profits 

into the community, also feel suddenly wealthy 

and goes out to buy a new car. The automobile 

dealer, selling more cars than usual, may 

spend his new-found profits on a 24” TV. 

The TV dealer, unexpectedly enriched with a 

an extra $200 in profits will impress his girl 

friend with an expensive dinner in the local 

restaurant. And the waiter, enriched by the 

unexpected $20 tip, will go buy that CD he’s 

been wanting for the last month. 


And so it goes – until the money 

reaches someone fearful, someone pessimistic 

who prefers to save rather than spend. 

Then, when the money is pulled out of circulation, 

no further economic activity or profits 

are possible, and the spending cycle ends. 

If this cycle is real, a community’s standard 

of living is less a function of total physical 

monetary wealth than the rate of economic 

activity. For example, the standard of 

living in a community that has a total of $1 

million in cash, zipping from hand to hand, 

making more profits – is far greater than the 

standard of living in another community 

that’s otherwise identical except that the $1 

million is hoarded in a strongbox buried in a 

dungeon by a single rich man. The first community 

could be comparatively prosperous; 

the second (including the rich man) would 

be economically depressed and almost lifeless. 

The root of all evil? 

Even the Bible hints at the adverse effect 

of savings. Remember the “parable of 

the talents”? The master gives five talents to 

one servant, two to another and one to a third. 

The servant given five used the money to 

earn five more; the servant given two earned 

two more; the servant given one buried it in 

the ground lest it be lost. 

Guess who was punished? The servant 

who buried (saved) his single talent in 

the ground. The master took his single talent 

and gave it to the servant who already had 

ten talents. And then (according to Matthew 

25:30) they threw “that worthless servant 

outside, into the darkness, where there will 

be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” 

Taken literally, that seems like a pretty 

stiff penalty for simply saving a little money. 

After all, that lowly servant didn’t steal the 

master’s money, he merely tried to protect it. 

Is the master that greedy for gain? Does he 

love money that much? If so, what would 

happen if one or more of the servants invested 

the master’s money unwisely and accidentally 

lost the money? Torture? Death? 

And more, if that master is so greedy, why is 

his unpleasant example being presented in 

the Bible (even as a parable) as something 

positive? 

However, if the multiplier effect were 

operational in Biblical times, stiff penalties 

for servants who simply save the master’s 

money is not so unreasonable. After all, the 

servant who took five talents and made five 

more for the master might have unwittingly 

generated an additional multiplied benefit of 

twenty-five talents in economic activity for 

his community. The servant given two talents 

who earned two more for his master 

might’ve also generated a “multiplied” benefit 

of ten talents for his community. However, 

the servant who extracted his single 

talent from the local economy and buried it 

in the ground, might’ve caused no loss to his 

master, but would’ve still caused a multiplied 

five talent loss to his community. The 

community was impoverished by five times 

as much money as was “saved”. That’s bad 

for everyone – even the master. 

This is an interesting interpretation since it 

suggests the master’s real motive was not merely 

to enrich himself, but rather to enrich his community. 

If so, such masters are not obsessed by 

the “love of money” and the parable makes a lot 

of sense. 

Of course, I don’t seriously believe that 

savings can be interpreted as the “root of all 

evil”. Still, when savings are motivated by 

the love of money, they are arguably an expression 

of that damnable affection. 

Banker benefactors? 

In any case, when savings are removed 

from an economy, the multiplier effect implies 

that there may also be a “multiplied” 

loss in economic activity (true wealth). Even 

if savings are deposited in a bank and simply 

invested, the net effect may still be adverse 

since the investments tend to be conservative 

and slowly “appreciate” (like government 

bonds or real estate developments), 

rather than accelerate the economy like fastmoving 

profits. 

However, the adverse effects of savings 

could be neutralized in a banking system 

that allowed fractional reserve banking. 

Under fractional reserve banking, if I deposit 

$100 in the bank, the bank can use my 

$100 as collateral to loan out an additional 

$800 that the bank “created out of thin air”. 

Thus, a bank’s ability to loan “multiples” of 

whatever dollars are deposited could compensate 

for the adverse “multiplied effect” of 

savings removed from the economy. 

It’s at least an interesting coincidence 

that the fractional reserve banking rate (eight 

or nine dollars loaned for every dollar deposited) 

is roughly equivalent to the “multiplier 

effect” rate of five to seven. I.e., if 

$100 in profits is saved in a mason jar buried 

in the back yard and removed from the 

economy, the economy might be slowed by 

the “multiplied” loss of $500 to $700 in economic 

activity. But if that same $100 is deposited 

in a bank and used to justify loaning 

another $900 into the local economy, there 

might be no net adverse effect on the community. 

I hate to say it, but the “multiplier effect” 

seems to justify fractional reserve banking 

as something beneficial – even necessary 

– rather than a sinister plot to enrich 

bankers and dominate the world. Without 

fractional reserve banking, our civilization 

might perish from our own economic prudence 

(savings). 

There is anecdotal evidence that fractional 

reserve banking might be beneficial. 

Look at India, an alleged “gold sink” where 

common people hoard masses of gold to be 

buried in their back yards or worn by their 

wives as jewelry. Compare the standard of 

living where gold is hoarded in India to that 

of the USA where our savings rate is, by 

some measures, negative. Although India’s 

hoarding may seem wiser than our reliance 

on credit (fractional reserve banking and fictitious 

money), who would trade America’s 

current standard of living (rate of economic 

activity) for India’s? 

Paper money 

For fractional reserve banking to compensate 

for the adverse “multiplied effect” of 

savings, it would be necessary to remove 

substantive money (gold and silver coin) 

from the economy. After all, a fractional reserve 

bank can’t very well loan out nine 

physical silver dollars for every real (physical) 

silver dollar deposited since there’s no 

way for the bank to “create” nine more real 

silver dollars. 

Fractional reserve banking could only 

work in an economy that relied on non-tangible 

currency (like paper money or electronic 

“1’s” and “0’s” in a computer memory) 

which – unlike gold or silver coin – could be 

inexpensively reproduced and loaned into circulation. 

And what do we have? A society based 

on an imaginary money that can be replicated 

by simply pushing a couple computer 

keys. Our gold money is gone, our silver 

money is gone, and our economy (despite all 

contrary indications) seems to soar. This 

doesn’t prove anything, but it’s at least interesting 

that our intangible money system 

seems consistent with the “multiplier effect”. 


I hate to say it, but the multiplier effect 

suggests that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New 

Deal” (especially the removal of gold from 

the economy) actually made some sense. 

(Good lord, where will all this conjecture 

end? Voting Democratic?!) 

A cross of gold? 

Although an “additive” money system 

like gold or silver coin is a fine medium of 

exchange, it is singularly unfit to deal with 

those who “love money” so much they hoard 

it or even save it in a bank. Once a gold coin 

is removed from circulation by hoarding, 

saving, wear or loss, the entire economy may 

be impoverished by the even greater “multiplied 

loss” equivalent to five gold coins. In 

other words, gold is great, so long as it keeps 

changing hands. However, when people 

save gold coins, gold becomes a drag on the 

economy. 

However, a “multipliable” money system 

– like paper or digital cash – could potentially 

give us the best of both worlds. If 

you want to spend your money and keep the 

economy humming, Great. On the other 

hand, if you’d rather save your money, that’s 

OK, too – so long as you save it in a bank. 

Of course, if you hoard your paper 

money in your mattress, that’s an antisocial 

drag on the economy since the money is removed 

from the economy causing a 5X multiplied 

decline. However, so long as your 

savings are kept in a bank that’s empowered 

to engage in fractional reserve banking, the 

negative effect of your savings can be offset 

by loaning a “multiplied sum” of money back 

into the community. 

For example, if you deposit $1,000, you 

should cause a multiplied” $5,000 loss in 

economic activity. However, if the bank uses 

your $1,000 deposit to loan out $9,000, the 

economy is not only protected from the adverse 

consequences of your savings, it’s enriched. 

Voila! Thanks to fractional reserve 

banking savings is no longer a drag on the 

economy, no longer an expression of pessimism 

sure to precipitate a depression. 

Don’t save no wooden nickels 

I’m not about to recommend that everyone 

give up on gold and silver coins. I 

still believe there’s an ancient wisdom in 

owning (and saving) that form of money. 

Nevertheless, I’ve got to admit that if 

the multiplier effect is real, the current money 

system and economic reality seems to make 

a lot of sense. And you can see seductive 

evidence of that apparent “sense” all around 

you. 

Who prospers in this world? The 

people who diligently save their money in 

bank accounts and never borrow? Or the 

folks who are so deep into the bank’s pockets 

the system can’t afford to let them go 

broke? 

I know this credit-debt- based system 

of fictional money shouldn’t last. I know it 

even seems ungodly, sinister and unjust. 

But I have to admit that those people 

who accept this system, live their lives according 

to its principles and borrow more 

money than they can hope to repay, seem to 

have newer cars, homes and spouses than 

the folks who play by the “conservative” 

rules of economics. 

The average American who hoards gold 

coins lives in modest or even humble circumstances. 

Does he take vacations to Hawaii 

or Paris? Probably not. Those little 

treats seem primarily reserved for folks with 

several credit cards and enough debt to make 

‘em dependent on blood pressure medication. 

If the multiplier effect is valid, the people 

who “conservatively” save their money and 

remove it from circulation are more like the 

servant who buried his one talent rather than 

risk using it to make more money. 

On the other hand, the folks who are 

knee-deep in debt seem to be somehow fueling 

our “impossible” economy and in an irrational 

sense, thereby serving the community. 

But if the multiplier effect is operative, 

it’s not irrational. Instead, debt makes sense! 

Of course, these anecdotes are 

unpersuasive. But there’s even some serious 

evidence to support the possibility that 

the debt-based monetary system may be benign. 

India hoards so much gold that it’s described 

as a “gold sink”. Gold simply flows 

into India but never seems to flow out. Those 

poor Indians will buy every gram of gold 

they can find, convert it into jewelry for their 

wives or bury it in the back yard. Yet, despite 

all that saved wealth, India lives in abject 

poverty. 

Our federal government, on the other 

hand, has recently revised the formula used 

to calculate the average American’s savings 

rate. Reason? The old formula indicates we 

now have a negative rate of savings. In 

other words, the average American’s debt is 

greater than his assets. We’re all in the red. 

That evidence is not politically correct, so 

our government has thoughtfully revised the 

calculation formula and thereby “cooked the 

books” to indicate we now have a 1% positive 

average savings rate. (Thank God for 

government, hmm? I was alarmed when I 

heard our savings rate was negative, but now 

that the calculation formula has been “adjusted,” 

I feel so much more secure.) 

In any case, my point is this: It is quite 

possible that the poor, impoverished people 

of India actually have a higher savings rate 

and, on average, more personal assets (gold 

buried in the back yard) than the average 

debt-ridden American. But which society is 

plagued by poverty and which is blessed with 

(apparent) prosperity? 

How can we explain this apparent contradiction? 

Are Americans simply living in a 

bubble economy that’s just about ready to 

burst and send us back to the common sense 

exemplified by the simple Indians? Or could 

it be that the Indian economy does not accommodate 

the multiplier effect and is thus 

“self-depressing”? The more they save, the 

less they have? 

Conversely, could it be that the American 

economy does accommodate the multiplier 

effect and thus prospers despite its considerable 

(almost unbearable) debt? 

Givin’ th’ devil his due 

Yes, yes, I understand that our debtbased 

monetary system may soon crash and 

we’ll experience massive social dislocation, 

a depression, political revolution and New 

World Order fascism. 

I don’t like the conclusions I’m reaching 

in this article. But the truth is this: Despite 

decades of operating this country’s financial 

system contrary to all historically established 

economic principles, we have managed 

to sustain an enviable level of prosperity. 

Yes, the standard of living for common 

people is declining. Yes, the gap between 

rich and poor is growing. Yes, the middleclass 

is disappearing. And there are a host of 

other economic problems that are individually 

scary and collectively terrifying. 

But how has this economy not only 

survived but prospered with virtually no lawful 

money (gold and silver coins) since 1933? 

More, how have we come to be the world’s 

only “superpower”? We are either extraordinarily 

lucky, or there are principles at work 

which we don’t understand and power has 


een so consolidated that a handful of individuals 

can apply those principles to run this 

economy (world?) without our even knowing. 

In my gut, I believe our monetary system 

is wrong. But in my mind, I have to 

admit it’s working. Moreover, it seems to be 

doing the impossible. 

If the multiplier effect is valid, it may 

explain this mystery. 

Of course, if the multiplier effect were 

real, why has government operated according 

to that principle but kept that secret from 

us and paid lip-service to the contrary “virtues” 

of savings? Why? Because if the public 

actually understood the system (that debt 

is more valuable than money), the economy 

might collapse. 

After all, extended to its extreme, the 

multiplier effect implies that we need not 

work, only borrow and spend. And if the 

great unwashed understood that this country 

couldn’t survive without debt, every lazy soand-so 

would demand a “platinum card” so 

they could go buy a new 24” TV. Why work, 

if the key to our prosperity is credit? Nope. 

The public is not ready for that news. This 

debt-based system of fictional money ultimately 

depends on a colossal lie and seamless 

deception to survive. And that dependence 

on deception must be the system’s 

Achilles’ Heel. 

Credit-masters of the universe? 

While I might be scared of a “random” 

economic depression triggered by too much 

debt – at least that kind of “conventional” 

collapse can be comprehended. I could study 

economics and find real confidence in my 

understanding of all those graphs and my 

ability to accurately predict how the economy 

is going to act in the near future. 

But if the multiplier effect is real, it implies 

that there won’t be a depression until 

“they” (those who control the credit spigot) 

decide to have one. The multiplier effect 

implies that the entire economy may be so 

effectively managed and controlled that study 

of traditional economics is currently almost 

meaningless. It doesn’t matter what the savings 

or employment rates are. There won’t 

be a depression until “they” (whoever really 

understands and controls the system) decide 

to tighten credit just enough to have one. 

And until we understand who “they” 

are, we certainly can’t understand their motives, 

and thus can’t predict a damn thing 

about our own economic futures. All we can 

do is “go along” and hope that we’re not 

being raised like so many domestic cows to 

be milked and later butchered whenever the 

farmer-banker wants. 

Frankly, I’m more concerned by the 

prospect of a world managed by unknown 

people working for unknown reasons to 

achieve unknown goals than I am by a world 

where random, but understood principles 

known to all can make the economy rise of 

fall. 

Unknown people with unknown motives 

might be working for our collective (but 

deceived) benefit. But (depending on their 

motives and whatever god – if any – they 

serve), they could just as easily be setting us 

up for a fall of Biblical proportions. 

Perhaps I’m just naturally pessimistic 

or cynical, but I don’t trust other people – 

especially people I don’t even know – to 

manage my life. That’s probably the essence 

of my complaint with government in general. 

But to have unknown people managing 

my life according to unknown principles (like 

the multiplier effect) – that really bothers me 

because now I’m living under a set of rules 

and rulers that I neither know or nor understand. 

If that condition is not sufficient to 

spawn either paranoia – or a return to powerful 

belief and faith in God – I don’t know 

what is. 

Is the multiplier effect real? Economists 

say Yes. Does it have a negative effect as 

well as a positive effect? Logic says Yes. 

If so, your world and your secular future 

may be operating according to principles 

virtually no one understands or even imagines. 


y Alfred Adask 

With the Dow Jones Average flying past 

10,000 and floating near 11,000, it seems 

undeniable that Bill Clinton and Alan 

Greenspan have engineered an economic 

miracle wherein everyone (except those too 

dumb to buy stocks) will get rich. Judging 

by mainstream media reports, the first half 

of 1999 was a Jubilee for most Americans – 

no significant unemployment, no inflation, 

no credible threats on the horizon and a perpetual 

money tree called Wall Street. And if 

1999 was good, 2000 should be fan-tas-tic! 

Of course, there is some unpleasant 

speculation that the Y2K computer problem 

may burst everyone’s bubble, but Wall Street, 

Washington and mainstream media seem convinced 

that if we just keep whistling in the 

dark and don’t ever lose confidence in 

the“system,” we’ll not only do fine, we’ll get 

rich. 

Government spokesmen and elected 

officials tell the public not to worry about 

Y2K. The computer repairs are “on track”. 

Don’t worry, be happy. All is well. 

I hope they’re right. 

Still, there’s much disagreement on the 

reality and magnitude of the Y2K threat. 

Opinion v. evidence 

According to Mr. Michael Land of Y2K 

Readiness Expos, Y2K awareness grew dramatically 

in 1998. However, in March and 

April of 1999, Y2K interest (as demonstrated 

by Y2K-related sales and website “hits”) fell 

by 60%. Mr. Land says American optimism 

was further demonstrated when a recent Denver 

exposition on toy trains attracted four or 

Y2K Dominoes 

or Delusions? 

five times as much attendance as an adjacent 

Y2K “expo”. 

Nevertheless, Mr. Land believes the 

Y2K problem is not being solved. He cites 

the Social Security Administration which 

spent eight years removing Y2K “bugs” from 

30 million lines of computer code and compares 

that apparent success to other businesses 

which started searching for Y2K bugs 

two years ago in 100 million lines of code. 

He concludes that it’s technically impossible 

for all businesses to eliminate their Y2K bugs 

before December 31 and serious problems 

are inevitable. 

I’m inclined to agree with Mr. Land. 

But on the other hand, nearly twenty 

states hit their fiscal year 2000 in July, 1999 

– without significant computer-related disruptions. 

The Global Positioning Satellites 

also hit their fiscal year 2000 in August without 

frying the satellites’ circuits. And on 

October 1st, 1999, the federal government 

encountered fiscal Y2K with only a handful 

of brief computer crashes. 

Thus, there’s hard evidence that computer 

programs may be more resilient than 

we’d thought and our Y2K fears may be exaggerated. 

If a slew of states, the federal 

government and the GPS system can skate 

past Y2K without noticeable harm, why not 

the rest of our computer-driven society? 

Consumer confidence 

v. technological facts 

The current “economic miracle” 

wrought by Clinton and Greenspan has rendered 

the public too cheery to view Y2K as a 

significant threat. The tide of economic success 

exemplified by Wall Street is running 

so fast and apparently steady that only a fool 

wouldn’t wonder if the optimists are right. 

On the other hand, only fools believe 

that every laughing drunk is a happy person. 

And even if he’s happily intoxicated now, 

he’s still headed for a hangover to make him 

wonder whether sobriety or suicide is preferable. 

Despite public merriment, Y2K is a 

technical problem with a tangible reality that’s 

indifferent to public opinion. Optimism, 

pessimism and the Dow Jones average are 

equally irrelevant in determining whether our 

computers will function or crash after January 

1, 2000. Although some states and the 

GPS system skated past fiscal Y2K, the threat 

remains – at least as a possibility. 

So . . . is Y2K just an over-hyped delusion 

designed to sell newspapers and dehydrated 

food – or a real threat to western civilization? 

Coast Guard 

Recommendations 

On January 15, 1999, the Ninth District 

Coast Guard Commander issued document 

- Ninth District Instruction 3010.X 

(D9INST 3010.6), Subject: Year 2000 

(Y2K) Business Continuity Contingency 

Plan (BCCP). 

On page 32 - Annex A - Personal Preparation 

for Y2K, coast guardsman and woman 

received advice differing from that given the 

general public: 

“Personal impacts may very well include: 

loss of utilities such as power, heat, 


water, or sewage; loss of communications; 

loss of transportation; shortages of food and 

basic supplies; erroneous financial transactions 

and inability to access personal funds 

from financial institutions; temporary loss 

of employment – and other significant disruptions. 

“Current predictions indicate that we 

will lose electric power for at least a day, and 

possibly for more than a week. Electric power 

plants in the United States are highly computerized 

and the Year 2000 problem is widespread 

in this industry. Experiments by some 

electric companies to test their Year 2000 repairs 

have indicated worse problems and 

longer outages than originally envisioned. . . 

. You are recommended to prepare for a total 

loss of electricity in early January 2000.” 

Point: While Washington pumped “all 

is well” rhetoric to the public, it was been 

privately alerting its own personnel that the 

Y2K threat is legitimate. 

Would a lawyer lie? 

In February, 1999 Houston attorney 

Howard L. Nations testified before the U.S. 

Senate Commerce Committee on a bill to restrict 

corporate liability in Y2K lawsuits. 

According to Nations, “responsible corporations 

have spent over $225 billion dollars 

to prepare for Y2K, but other corporations 

are still unprepared and are therefore lobbying 

Congress and state legislatures for laws 

to eliminate their corporate liabilities for Y2Krelated 

problems like breach of contract. . . . 

If you understand the technology, you understand 

there is no silver bullet. Bad things 

are going to occur . . . . including, personal 

injury and wrongful death lawsuits.” 

Attorney Nations doesn’t believe Y2K 

will end the world (or at least not the judicial 

system). Still, his testimony concerning “personal 

injury and wrongful death lawsuits” 

underscored Y2K’s lethal potential. 

Oh-oh, dom-i-no! 

A friend emailed a 12-page report entitled 

“A Circle of Dominoes” first published 

at www.y2knewswire.com. The report uses 

a statistical analysis to estimate the probability 

that Y2K might cause the complete collapse 

of civilization. 

This “Domino” study explores the vulnerability 

of any highly-specialized and 

highly integrated civilization. One weak link 

can disconnect other sectors from critical resources, 

cause a cascading disruption in services 

that takes out subsequent sectors, one 

by one, resulting in complete social collapse. 

That’s particularly scary since a collapsed 

society is not easily repaired. You 

don’t rebuild a collapsed house of cards by 

replacing one card; you have to start from 

the beginning – perhaps as far back as 1900. 

Three core sectors of our civilization’s 

infrastructure must operate properly for the 

rest of society to function: power, telecommunications 

and banking. The failure of any 

one of these core sectors will cause the failure 

of the other two within a matter of days 

or (at most) weeks, which will precipitate 

our civilization’s collapse. 

For example, the loss of power would 

render banks and phone companies useless. 

The loss of telecommunications would render 

power companies and banks useless. 

And the loss of banking would eventually 

render power companies and telecomm companies 

useless. If banking, power, and telecommunications 

all fail, the affected nation 

(or planet) will suffer famine, unprecedented 

internal turmoil, and eventually collapse. 

The fact that each of society’s core sectors 

(power, banking and telecommunications) 

is threatened by the Y2K computer 

problem is well established. What has not 

been thoroughly publicized, however, is the 

effect of the interdependencies of these infrastructure 

sectors and the overall probabilities 

of “the web of society” staying up if any 

one of the core sectors fail. 

The “Dominoes” author guesstimates 

the probability for a power grid failure is 

25%, banking failure 10%, and telecommunications 

failure 20%. After some complex 

calculations and explanations about the interdependencies 

of several “sub-sectors” like 

the coal industry, railroads and the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, the “Dominoes” 

analysis concludes that the overall chance 

for Y2K to collapse civilization is about 86% 

(nine out of ten). 

The “Dominoes” analysis even recalculated 

its “interdependent” string of technological 

dominoes by reducing the probabilities 

of each core sector failure from 10%, 

20% and 25% to just 1%. In other words, 

instead of assuming a 25% probability that 

the power grid might fail, they merely assign 

a 1% chance of failure to power. Ditto banking 

and telecommunications. They also reduced 

the probability estimate for failure of 

each underlying sub-sectors to just 1%. 

Nevertheless, because of the vast interdependence 

between the three core sectors 

and their underlying sub-sectors, the Dominoes 

analysis calculates that even a 1% chance 

of failure in each sector and subsector would 

result in a 15.7% chance (almost one chance 

in six) of a complete collapse of modern civilization. 

It’s arguable that even a 1% estimate of 

sector failure is too high. But if there’s not at 

least a 1% failure possibility, what’s all the 

fuss been about for the last two years? It 

seems unlikely American corporations and 

government spent over $225 billion to fix 

problems that have less than 1% probability 

of occurring. 

So, unless the Dominoes analysis overlooked 

or misapplied fundamental information, 

the one-in-six chance of a total social 

collapse may represent a “best case scenario”. 

Real collapse probabilities could be higher. 

Secret Government Study 

Military bases in the USA don’t usually 

supply their own energy, water or sewer 

utilities but are instead dependent on local 

civilian utilities. Therefore, the U.S. Navy 

conducted a worldwide assessment of cities 

providing utility services to Navy bases to 

determine the bases’ risk of water, gas, sewer, 

and electrical utility failures caused by Y2K. 

The June, 1999 Navy report also assessed 

125 American cities and divided them 

into three categories where: 1) partial utility 

failure is probable; 2) partial utility failure is 

likely; and 3) total utility failure is likely. 

The Navy reported that partial utility 

failure is probable in 43 American cities, including: 

Charlotte, North Carolina; Columbus, 

Ohio; Dallas and Houston, Texas; Knoxville, 

Tennessee; Mobile, Alabama; Norfolk, 

Virginia; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Tulsa, 

Oklahoma; and Washington, DC. 

Partial utility failure is likely in 28 

American cities, including: Atlanta, Georgia; 

Charleston and Columbia, South Carolina; 

Chattanooga and Nashville, Tennessee; 

Ft. Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Miami and Orlando, 

Florida; Fort Worth, Texas ; and New 

Orleans, Louisiana. 

Total utility failure is likely in 44 cities, 

including: Baltimore, Maryland; Buffalo and 

New York, New York; Erie, Pennsylvania; 

Hartford, Connecticut; San Jose, California; 

Seattle, Washington; and Trenton, New Jersey. 

No secrets 

in the Internet world 

Although the Navy briefly published 

its report on its publicly-accessible web site, 

it was quickly removed. Jim Lord (a recognized 

Y2K expert ) later received a copy of 

the then-secret Navy report and published 

his analysis of the report on the internet at 

http://www.jimlord.to. If the Navy report 

hadn’t been leaked to Mr. Lord, the public 

would never have seen it. 

Mr. Lord’s analysis was greeted with 

great scepticism. However, John Koskinen 


(President Clinton’s “Y2K Czar”) soon admitted 

the report’s authenticity. Then the 

mainstream media picked up Mr. Lord’s report 

and for about 48 hours a national furor 

erupted. A report in WorldNetDaily.com by 

David Franke (“Y2K Bombshell Hits Internet”) 

was typical: 

“The Navy report’s results are horrifying. 

They expect more than 26 million Americans 

in 125 cities to be without either electricity, 

water, gas or sewer services next January. 

. . . Total failure is likely in New York 

City, with a loss of water, gas, and sewage 

services. New York is the nation’s financial 

nerve center, where hundreds of billions of 

dollars have been spent making the financial 

infrastructure ‘Y2K-ready.’ But who will 

protect, operate, and maintain all that financial 

infrastructure if there’s widespread utility 

failure? Most people will be busy protecting 

themselves or trying to flee.” 

Y2Knewswire.com complained that 

Y2K Czar John Koskinen (and others in Washington), 

“never bothered to tell the public about 

the Navy report. . . . As a result, the American 

people have been denied access to potentiallycritical 

information while the time remaining 

for preparedness continues to slip by.” 

Plausible deniability 

On August 20, 1999, the Navy “denied 

reports it expects widespread failures in 

power, water and other utility services in the 

United States” caused by Y2K. According 

to Rear Admiral Louis M. Smith, “Although 

the Navy has not verified that all cities and 

communities near its installations are fully 

prepared for the Y2K problem, its survey of 

local utilities is showing a steady improvement.” 

Further, the Navy report only reflects 

a “worst-case scenario” in which utilities 

whose Y2K preparedness was unknown 

to the Navy were merely assumed to be likely 

problems. 

Uh-huh . . . . 

Are we to believe that, faced with the 

potential collapse of civilization, the Navy 

officer charged with studying Y2K readiness 

for Navy bases around the world, merely 

“assumed” there might be some problems? 

It seems more likely that, right or wrong, 

the Navy report truly concluded that 26 million 

Americans and 125 American cities were 

in danger of losing some of their utilities? 

Isn’t it more likely that the report was disavowed 

when it threatened to cause public 

panic? 

In its own assessment of Y2K readiness, 

the White House also concluded that 

national electrical failures are “highly unlikely” 

and disruptions in water service “in- 

creasingly unlikely.” Rear Admiral Smith 

said the Navy’s assessment is “right in sync” 

with the White House’s. 

(Yeah, the Navy better be “in sync” . . . 

if they know what’s good for ‘em.) 

But the federal government also released 

another report on September 14, 1999 

warning that many foreign nations may be 

badly destabilized by Y2K computer problems. 

Although foreign problems won’t directly 

impact America, our “global economy” 

is so interdependent that widespread foreign 

disruptions can indirectly precipitate an 

American recession. 

Continued uncertainty 

While government minimizes the Y2K 

threat in statements intended for public consumption, 

it continues to fortify itself against 

Y2K problems. This “do as I say, not as I 

do” attitude may be usual in a government 

where the right hand doesn’t know what the 

left is up to. Still, the contradictions are troubling. 

Tangible evidence and official opinions 

are mixed and contradictory. Worst case scenarios 

are possible but increasingly unlikely. 

Civilization seems certain to survive Y2K, 

but at least some Americans also seem likely 

to lose one or more basic services (electricity, 

gas, water, or food) for several days or 

weeks. And even small problems in our interdependent 

society can potentially cascade 

into major failures. 

So, with just two months before the 

Y2K bells toll, what do we know? 

First, Y2K is not a patriot joke or hypedup 

conspiracy theory. American government 

and business have spent $225 billion preparing 

for Y2K. Virtually everyone (including 

government) who’s studied Y2K agrees 

that the threat – though uncertain – is potentially 

lethal. Thus, the Y2K threat must be 

taken seriously. 

On the other hand, approximately 

twenty state governments, the Global Positioning 

Satellite system, and the federal government 

have survived their “fiscal year 

2000” without significant problem. Fears 

(some would say “hopes”) that “fiscal” Y2K 

would crash these government computers 

have proved unfounded. 

Each of these events offers tangible 

evidence that despite Y2K’s unnerving potential, 

its real effects on January 1, 2000, 

may be minor or virtually non-existent – at 

least in the USA. 

What to do, what to do? 

No one knows. 

The tangible evidence can’t be denied. 

The successful encounters with fiscal Y2K 

imply that the January 1st Y2K will be a 

relatively minor event. Worst-case scenarios 

seem increasingly unlikely. Starving hoards 

won’t fill our streets. Western civilization 

won’t collapse. 

Nevertheless, that recent Navy report 

estimated 26 million Americans and 125 cities 

may lose one of more basic utilities next 

January. The federal government warns of 

significant overseas computer failures which 

may indirectly impact the USA. 

Facing these contradictions, prudent 

people should have at least one week’s supply 

of water (one gallon per day per person) 

on hand and a month’s supply of non-perishable 

food on hand. 

As for space heaters, generators, solar 

panels, etc. – use your own judgment. If 

you’re living up North where winter can kill, 

it’s sensible to provide for your warmth. If 

you run out of natural gas or electricity in 

Minnesota, you could freeze to death. On 

the other hand, if you live in Texas – even 

though freezing weather is possible – you’re 

unlikely to even suffer frostbite if you have 

shelter and plenty of clothes or blankets. For 

those who live north of Texas and south of 

Minnesota, assess your personal situation 

and prepare accordingly. 

As I’ve written before, Y2K is like 

Russian Roulette. There may be only one 

bullet in the cylinder, so the odds are in our 

favor. We can probably play this game and 

not get hurt. 

On the other hand, the gun is pointed at 

our heads. No matter how improbable, if 

Y2K “hits,” some of us will suffer hardship. 

A few may even die. And bear in mind that 

the game of “Y2K Roulette” is not optional. 

All of us are going to play – not just the 

drunks, rowdies and macho’s. On January 

1st, 2000, young, old, rich, poor, brave, timid, 

men and women will all be straining their 

ears to hear whether the Y2K gun pointed at 

their heads goes “click” . . . or “BANG!” 

Probability increasingly favors the 

harmless “click”. Possibility continues to 

include the potentially lethal “BANG!” So, 

you might want to consider wearing a “bullet-proof 

helmet” for New Years Eve. Yes, 

you might look silly “dressed up” with gallons 

of water and dehydrated foods stored in 

your garage . . . but you might also look 

brilliant if the Y2K gun goes off and you’re 

of the few still standing. 

Prudent people should prepare. 


The Amoral Majority 


In nine years of publishing, 

I haven’t finished a single 

issue of the AntiShyster that didn’t contain 

an article, a paragraph, or on one occasion, a 

mere footnote that I “felt” the good Lord 

wanted in this magazine. I’ve often waited 

(even agonized) for weeks until I “discovered” 

whatever comment He wanted published. 

That’s part of the reason virtually 

every issue has been delayed. 

I know. It sounds nuts . . . even to me. 

Maybe I’m just delusional. But if so, that 

delusion’s persisted for nine years and, God 

knows, I believe it’s true. 

This article on morality is the one that 

slowed publication of this issue. Most of 

this article banged around in my brain for at 

least two months. I’ve known from the beginning 

that this was the “one” He wants in 

this issue. I’ve written over twenty pages 

exploring morality but I just couldn’t put it 

together – until about 4 A.M. last Thursday 

when the last “necessary” insight flashed 

through my mind. 

That insight was an antidote for writer’s 

block and provided the psychological “green 

light” I needed to write the article. It doesn’t 

mean that I’ll do a good job writing this 

article, it merely means that (finally) I can 

try. 

In fact, there’s so much to write about 

morality that this article is hugely incomplete. 

Nevertheless, this article is the real purpose 

for this issue of the AntiShyster. All the other 

articles are just “packaging”. This is the one 

that contains the information (or at least seeds 

of that information) I felt compelled to convey. 

So even if I do a poor job of writing this 

article, read it closely. I’m convinced that 

morality is our legal system’s foundation. 

Whenever we fall into a conversation 

about “morality,” most of us flash to affable 

Jerry Falwell and his “moral majority”. Nice 

folks, but a little stuffy. They probably make 

good neighbors, but you wouldn’t want to 

party with them. 

I mean morality? In the “roaring nineties” 

when “greed is good” and Bill Clinton 

enjoys widespread public approval? Who 

cares about concepts as quaint and politically 

incorrect as “morality”? 

Besides, while the word “morality” is 

routinely bandied about by politicians, what 

does it really mean? 

We don’t talk about morality because we 

don’t understand the basic terms (“moral,” “immoral” 

and “amoral”). Result? Whenever some 

pompous ass talks about morality, dialogues 

quickly degenerate into monologues. The audience 

listens respectfully, nods their heads 

wisely but don’t say much because – other 

than knowing morality is “important” (at least 

for other people) – we don’t have a clue. 

Choice 

The subject of morality is confusing 

because its basic terms (“moral,” “immoral” 

and “amoral”) convey fuzzy and seemingly 

contradictory meanings. For example, we 

habitually think of “moral” persons as those 

who do good deeds. I.e., they don’t lie, cheat, 

steal and commit adultery. Conversely, we 

view “immoral” individuals as those who 

habitually commit “immoral” acts (they do 

lie, cheat, steal, and commit adultery). 

And “amoral”? Well, that means . . . uh 

. . . that means, umm . . . well, that’s not too 

good either . . . right? 

Further, our common understanding of 

morality is flawed because we don’t understand 

that only “moral” people can commit 

“immoral” acts. Sounds nuts, doesn’t it? 

Well, it’s not. The term “immoral” is not the 

opposite of “moral,” it merely signifies a 

“kind” of moral act. 

According to Noah Webster’s 1828 

American Dictionary of the English Language, 

the adjective “immoral” means (in 

part): 

“. . . wicked; unjust; dishonest; vicious. 

Every action is immoral which 

contravenes any divine precept, or 

which is contrary to the duties which 

men owe each other.” 

The language is a little archaic, but the 

meaning is still fairly clear. “Immoral” essentially 

signifies “negative” acts of wickedness, 

injustice, dishonesty and vice. 

However, the same dictionary defines 

“moral” to mean: 

“1. Relating to the practice, manners 

of conduct of men as social beings 

in relation to each other and with 


eference to right and wrong. The word 

moral is applicable to actions that are 

good or evil, virtuous or vicious, . . .” 

[Emph. add.] 

The term “moral” includes both “right 

and wrong,” “good or evil,” virtue and vice. 

Thus, “moral” includes the negative acts previously 

defined as “immoral”. This apparent 

contradiction (that “moral” is not opposite 

from, but includes, “immoral”) lies at the heart 

of our fuzzy understanding of morality. 

Contrary to common usage, the term 

“moral” does not signify a “good” act (like 

being honest, just or virtuous). Instead, moral 

signifies the personal capacity to choose between 

committing a “good” or “bad” act. 

“Moral” does not describe a kind of act, it 

describes a kind of choice. 

Webster’s 1828 continues: 

“Morality, n. . . . the act must be performed 

as a free agent, and from motive 

or obedience to the divine will. This 

is the strict theological scriptural sense 

of morality. . . . [Emph. add.] 

Note that a moral act must be performed 

as a “free agent”. This freedom implies the 

element of choice. I can’t truly choose or 

refuse to do anything unless I am first free to 

make that choice. 

Note also the repeated use of the term 

“divine” and the phrase “strict theological 

scriptural sense of morality”. As you’ll read, 

morality is inseparable from God (which undoubtedly 

explains why schools no longer 

teach the subject). 

In fact, according to Webster’s 1828: 

“Moral law, the law of God which 

prescribes the moral or social duties, 

and prohibits the transgression of 

them.” [Emph. add.] 

“Morally, adv. . . . An action is not in 

strictness morally good, which does not 

proceed from good motives, or a principle 

of love and obedience to the divine 

law and to the lawgiver. Charity 

bestowed to gratify pride, or justice 

done by compulsion, cannot be morally 

good in the sight of God.” 

Thus, a seemingly moral act is not necessarily 

“good” (even if that act superficially conforms 

to our ideas of good) unless the motiva- 

tion for choosing to do that act was good. If 

you give to the church, your donation may be 

applauded as a “morally good”. But if the real 

reason you gave was to get an income tax deduction, 

that applause is misguided. Thus, the 

essence of morality is not the act, but the mindset 

and motivation underlying the choice that caused 

the act. 

Knowledge 

Here’s a more current definition from 

Black’s Law Dictionary (4th Rev’d): 

“Moral Actions. Those only in 

which men have knowledge to guide 

them, and a will to choose for themselves.” 

[Emph. add.] 

What was true for Noah Webster in 

1828, is still true to day. Morality is not 

determined by the act, but by the nature of 

the choice and its underlying motivations. 

Further, according to Black’s, a moral choice 

requires the actor to have: 1) relevant “knowledge”; 

and 2) the “will to choose”. 

“Will to choose” simply means “intent”. 

Accidents and normal negligence do not involve 

intent. For example, if you intentionally 

steer your car to hit a pedestrian, your 

intent will cause you to be tried as a criminal. 

If you accidentally (without intent) hit the 

same pedestrian, you may be civilly liable, 

but aren’t faced with criminal prosecution. 

A moral act always requires that the actor 

freely and intentionally choose to act one way 

rather than another. Without choice, there 

can be no intent and no moral act. 

Likewise, “immoral acts” also require 

“intent” and “choice” as a fundamental elements. 

None of this is news. Every kid quickly 

learns to whine “I didn’t mean to” whenever 

they hurt their little brother or break a window. 

Even children know that if they deny 

intent, their punishment will be reduced. The 

child’s “I didn’t mean to” is synonymous with 

the lawyer’s legal argument that, “The defendant 

lacked the requisite intent to constitute a 

criminal act”. 

But, more importantly, Black’s declares 

that persons must have “knowledge to guide 

them” in order to commit a moral action. 

What’s that mean? Ask any five-year old 

boy who’s just set the couch on fire. He 

knows that if he whines, “Gee, I didn’t know 

matches would start the couch on fire!” his 

parents just might go easy on him. For adults, 

the plea “Gee, I didn’t know the gun was 

loaded,” is the same thing. Without relevant 

knowledge there can be no moral act and thus 

no crime. 

You can begin to see why understanding 

fundamental moral elements (choice, intent 

and knowledge) is vital to understanding 

law. Moral issues lie at the foundation of 

all criminal law. If you didn’t freely choose 

to shoot someone (perhaps you were coerced; 

someone held a gun to your head), 

you aren’t criminally liable. If you chose to 

shoot but you were just joking around, and 

truly didn’t intend to hit someone, you are 

not criminally liable. If you chose to shoot, 

but didn’t know someone was hiding behind 

the target, you are not criminally liable. Without 

knowledge, there can be no moral act, 

and therefore no crime. 

Legal insanity 

But “knowledge” necessary to constitute 

a moral act goes far deeper than mere 

understanding of relevant facts. Remember 

Webster’s 1828 definition (supra), “The word 

moral is applicable to actions that are good 

or evil, virtuous or vicious, . . . right or 

wrong”? The fundamental knowledge required 

to constitute a moral act is not knowledge 

of facts, but knowledge of right and 

wrong. 

Anyone who follows sensational murder 

trials knows that the defense attorneys 

sometime uses the “insanity defense” wherein 

they allege that the defendant did not know 

the difference between right and wrong (he 

was “legally insane”) when he shot the victim 

– and thus can’t be held personally liable 

for the murder. That’s a moral defense. 

Without the requisite knowledge of good and 

evil, you can’t commit a moral act and thus 

can’t be guilty of a crime. No knowledge, 

no moral act, no crime. 

Black’s Law Dictionary (4th Rev’d) 

defines “Legal Insantity” in part as, 

“. . . A disease of the brain, rendering 

a person incapable of distinguishing 

between right and wrong with respect 

to the offense charged.” [Emph. 

add.] 

Thus, legal insanity is essentially a 

moral concept. 

As with other moral acts, crimes require 

the actor’s knowledge of facts (opportunity), 

intent (motivation), free choice (not 


under threat, duress, coercion or psychological 

disability) and knowledge of good and 

evil. Therefore only moral persons (those 

who know the difference between right and 

wrong) can be held responsible for committing 

an immoral/ criminal act. 

Interesting insight, hmm? Legal insanity 

is essentially a moral concept. That is, 

the terms “moral person” and “legally insane” 

are mutually exclusive. If you’re moral, 

you can’t be legally insane. If you’re legally 

insane, you can’t be moral. 

Amoral 

But if a legally insane person can’t be 

“moral,” and “immoral” describes the quality 

of an act rather than the actor, what is the 

proper term to designate one who doesn’t know 

the difference between right and wrong? 

In conventional pursuits, such people 

are called “amoral”. Webster’s Encyclopedic 

Unabridged Dictionary (1989) defines 

“amoral” as: 

“1. without moral quality: neither 

moral nor immoral. 2. Having no moral 

standards, restraints, or principles . . . .” 

[Emph. add.] 

Read closely, the definition indicates that 

“amoral” is the opposite of “moral” (and its 

subcategory “immoral”). The term “amoral” 

ultimately describes those persons who don’t 

know the difference between right and wrong 

and therefore can’t choose right over wrong, 

even if they’re free to do so. 

Remember the old rule of logic: “If A = 

B and B = C, then A = C”? If we apply that 

rule to “amoral” and “legally insane” we can 

infer that since both terms describe persons 

without knowledge of right and wrong (good 

and evil) – the two terms are synonymous. 

Thus, to be “amoral” (not understand 

the difference between right and wrong) 

seems virtually identical to being “legally insane”. 

Invisible majority 

The only inhibition for amoral people 

is the perceived probability of punishment in 

this life (which is exactly why “deterrence” 

is promoted by our judicial system). However, 

given our justice system’s failure to 

catch, let alone punish, most crimes, the 

amoral are statistically encouraged to engage 

in criminal acts. If you won’t be punished, 

why not? For the amoral, crime truly pays. 

As a result, the amoral aren’t uncommon. 

In fact, they’re so numerous that they’re 

not only America’s only true majority but 

they’re also almost “invisible” precisely because 

they’re so prevalent. They’re so common, 

they’re ignored and almost unnoticed. 

If you can’t imagine what an amoral 

person looks like, watch the Jerry Springer 

Show with all the transsexuals, prostitutes, 

homosexuals, lesbians, adulterers and similarly 

“morally challenged” individuals. 

What do you see? Amoral people. Men 

who just don’t understand there’s something 

wrong with sleeping with your wife’s sister. 

Homosexuals who don’t understand their 

love for children is wrong. Mothers who 

don’t understand the reason their kids are 

wild is because mom left their dad years earlier. 

Prostitutes who simply can’t understand 

there’s something wrong with selling your 

body for money. 

When Jerry Springer’s audience tells 

the show’s amoral guests that their acts were 

wrong, the guests gape or grin as if the audience 

were speaking in tongues. 

“What do mean you shouldn’t sleep with 

your brother’s wife? Y’ have a few beers, 

one thing leads to another – and it’s allll 

good!” 

“What do you mean you shouldn’t cheat 

on your husband with a lesbian lover? It’s 

not like cheating with another man. . . .” 

And (the winner!): “How can prostitution 

be wrong if you make a lot of money?” 

Springer’s guests just don’t get it. Their 

inability to understand the difference between 

right and wrong is exactly what gets them 

into trouble. Because they don’t grasp the 

difference between right and wrong and can’t 

even imagine that such differences exist, their 

lives will be an endless series of seemingly 

unanticipated problems. 

They can blame their parents, their race, 

their sexual tendencies or drug addictions – 

and all of those excuses may be valid – but 

the core of their problem is their personal 

inability to understand that it’s wrong to sleep 

with your wife’s mother. And precisely because 

they can’t even imagine that there’s a 

meaningful difference between right and 

wrong, they’re absolutely helpless to see and 

then correct their persistent problems. 

Eventually, they’ll adopt the victim’s 

mentality and whine, “Why does this always 

happen to meee?!” 

Answer? Because you dummies don’t 

know the difference between right and wrong! 

And therefore you keep trying the same stupid, 

wrongful acts, over and over, expecting 

to get a different result. I.e., after cheating on 

their first wives (which caused their divorce 

and financial ruin), the amoral will again cheat 

on their second wives – and express shock 

when they’re once again divorced and ruined. 

But no matter, there’s always a third wife – 

whose trust they’ll also betray – and again, 

divorce and ruin will “mysteriously” follow. 

They just don’t get it. They can’t see the 

moral forest for the individual trees. 

But make no mistake. While Springer’s 

amoral guests represent America’s growing 

White (and Black) trash contingent, amorality 

is not confined to the lower classes. Lawyers, 

politicians, salesmen and corporate executives 

all practice trades in which a strong understanding 

of the difference between right and 

wrong is a disability. Clearly, those persons 

who are most passionate about justice won’t 

last long in law. Likewise, can you imagine 

many politicians prospering who had real understanding 

of right and wrong? How ‘bout, 

a rising corporate executive passionately dedicated 

to ethics? For most of these high rollers 

success means, “Living La Vida Amoral”. 

Look at Bill Clinton, the quintessential 

amoral man. Thanks to his amoral nature, 

he’s achieved great power but in consequence, 

his personal life is a ruin. And do 

you suppose Clinton understands the problem? 

Even after the impeachment debacle, 

does Clinton really understand why he 

shouldn’t have sex with interns in the “Oral 

Office”? The only thing impeachment taught 

Clinton was to be more careful. He continues 

to smirk when people accuse him of 

amoral acts. Why? ‘Cuz he just doesn’t get 

it. He simply doesn’t understand the difference 

between right and wrong. 

Personal status 

Eve’s sin the Garden of Eden started 

with fruit from the “Tree of Knowledge of 

Good and Evil”. Before they ate that apple, 

Adam and Eve strolled around paradise and 

talked naked to God like a couple of hippies. 

But having tasted of the “knowledge of good 

and evil,” Adam, Eve and their descendants 

were ejected from the Eden Sunbathers Society, 

burdened with the obligations of wearing 

clothes and finding their own food, and 

shamed whenever their private parts were 

exposed to others. 


More importantly, once Adam and Eve 

ingested the knowledge of good and evil, 

their status changed – they became moral 

persons who would be held accountable for 

their sins. The knowledge of good and evil 

changed their status from amoral sunbathers 

(God’s children) into moral individuals 

(adults) responsible for their own acts. 

We’ve seen a similar transitions in status 

in primitive cultures where young men 

go through various tests of “manhood” to 

advance from the status of child to adult. 

For centuries, the Western world similarly 

educated its amoral children to become moral 

adults by teaching them knowledge of right 

and wrong. In the Jewish faith, children 

pass their Bar Mitzvah; among Christians, 

there’s “confirmation”. Each of these “rites 

of passage” reflect a more ancient time when 

children – having learned the difference between 

good and evil, right and wrong – were 

granted the status of adults in which they 

enjoyed certain privileges but also accepted 

personal liabilities unknown to children. 

Today, what “rite of passage” separates 

amoral American kids from presumably 

moral American adults? With the possible 

exception of high school graduation, there is 

none. You turn 18 or 21 and presto-chango! 

You’re supposed to be a moral person (adult) 

suddenly accountable whenever you choose 

wrong rather than right. 

But who taught you difference between 

right and wrong? Certainly not the public 

schools. Not college. Probably not your 

parents since you hardly ever saw them. TV? 

The movies? Kids on the street? 

Unless you went to a parochial school 

where morality is a core curriculum, you probably 

haven’t learned the difference between 

right and wrong, have no idea why that difference 

is important, and are thus amoral and 

headed for a lot of trouble. 

Just as knowledge of good and evil 

changed Adam and Eve’s status into responsible 

adults subject to punishment, so transition 

from amoral child to (presumably) moral 

adult changes our legal status. But what is an 

apparent adult who doesn’t know the difference 

between right and wrong? Amoral. Legally 

insane. A ward of the court. 

Implication: it may seem farfetched, 

but the fundamental determinant of your legal 

status in court is your moral capacity. 

The amoral are legally insane and thus rightfully 

wards of the court with no more rights 

than children and bound to be “represented” 

by lawyers like any other incompetent. I 

suspect that only truly moral adults can bypass 

the administrative tribunals reserved for 

the “great amoral” and go directly to courts 

of law. 

Knowledge of God 

The foundation for all morality is deeper 

than a “knowledge of right and wrong”. The 

ultimate foundation requires recognition of 

the source of that knowledge – i.e., a knowledge 

of God. Remember Webster’s 1828 

definition (supra) of “Moral law”? “The law 

of God . . . .” Criminal law is ultimately 

moral law which, in turn, is the “law of God”. 

Without the ultimate “fear” and “love 

of God,” we are all about as persuasively 

moral as Bill Clinton toting a Bible to Sunday 

church (you can’t help wondering if he’s 

hollowed out his “good book” to carry booze, 

cocaine or condoms). All notions of right 

and wrong, good and evil are ultimately plastic, 

changeable, context-driven and unconvincing 

– unless they’re based on a foundation 

knowledge of God. I don’t have space 

to expand that argument here, but it’s absolutely 

true and it raises spiritual insights and 

questions that are perplexing and substantial. 

For example, if morality ultimately depends 

on knowledge of God, then amoral 

people not only lack knowledge of good and 

evil, they don’t know God. If so, why not? 

Some folks suppose the amoral don’t 

know God because they’re not His children. 

I don’t believe that’s true, at least not in all 

cases, because although I knew of God, I 

didn’t “know God” until I was forty-five 

years old and He knocked me flat on my 

back. 

Looking back, I now realize I was 

amoral and legally insane until 1) I first knew 

God; and 2) over the nine ensuing years, 

began to recognize the difference between 

right and wrong. It sound nuts, but looking 

back I see I’ve only begun to be “moral” and 

“legally sane” for the past two years. 

In any case, if an amoral man like me 

can be introduced to God after 45 amoral 

years, it follows that other amoral persons 

can also be “saved” or at least “called” (given 

knowledge of God) and given opportunity 

(life) to learn (gain knowledge of) the difference 

between right and wrong. 

But one thing for sure, I can’t teach the 

knowledge of God to others. I can talk about 

Him, I can teach “of” Him, but I can’t make 

anyone “see” (directly experience) and therefore 

“know” God. I don’t think anyone else 

can, either. 

So far as I know, direct knowledge of God 

is only distributed by God Himself. Thus, for 

whatever reason, God has not yet chosen to directly 

reveal himself to the amoral. 

Does this mean the amoral are spiritually 

condemned? Not necessarily. The New 

Testament offers indirect knowledge of God 

– knowledge based on faith rather than direct 

experience. Through faith, the amoral 

can believe in God and indirectly achieve the 

necessary knowledge of good and evil, right 

and wrong. 

My reading of the Bible suggests that 

God’s fundamental purpose is to make man 

“know” (or acknowledge) Him. For example, 

when the prophet Elijah called on God 

to send fire from the sky to ignite a pile of 

water-soaked wood and a dismembered bull, 

Elijah prayed that God would do so to “show 

that He was God.” Without that divine purpose, 

I doubt that God would’ve answered 

Elijah’s prayer. 

Similarly, I find passage after passage in 

the Bible where God explains the reason he 

blessed, cursed or otherwise affected a particular 

person or nation was “so they will know 

that I am God.” (There’s nothing like a giant 

hand “writing on the wall” to make you realize 

your education’s incomplete.) Why? I suspect 

the knowledge of God is necessary to know 

the difference between right and wrong and 

thereby obey God’s (moral) law. 

Excerpts from Hosea 4:1-14 offer a bit 

of support: 

“Hear the word of the Lord, you Israelites, 

because the Lord has a charge to bring 

against you who live in the land: There is no 

faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of 

God in the land. There is only cursing, lying 

and murder, stealing and adultery; they break 

all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed. 

. . . my people are destroyed from lack of 

knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, 

I also reject you as my priests; because 

you have ignored the law of your God, I also 

will ignore your children. . . . They will eat but 

not have enough; they will engage in prostitution 

but not increase, because they have deserted 

the Lord to give themselves to prostitution, 

to old wine and new, which take away 

the understanding of my people. . . . a people 

without understanding will come to ruin!” 

I believe the “knowledge” and “understanding” 

referred to by Hosea is knowledge of 


God – and, thus, right and wrong – which lays 

the foundation for morality. My people perish 

for lack of knowledge of God. Without that 

knowledge we can expect to live lives that come 

to ruin. 

Look around. Say it isn’t so. 

Education 

‘Twasn’t the guns that killed the kids in 

Columbine, ‘twas amorality. The shooters 

didn’t know God and therefore couldn’t know 

the difference between right and wrong. Although 

the shooters seemed normal prior to 

the tragedy, they were disabled because they 

were amoral, unable to tell the difference 

between right and wrong and therefore legally 

insane. Because of their invisible affliction, 

a bunch of students died. 

Solution? 

Government says ban handguns. 

I say restore morality as a core curriculum 

in public schools. But if moral law is 

truly “God’s law,” how can you teach morality 

if you can’t teach about God? How can 

you raise moral children in schools that prohibit 

prayer? How can there be a moral majority 

in a society whose government restricts 

the mention of God to children? 

Today, we educate our kids to live as 

amoral technocrats in an amoral corporate 

world. That being so, why should kids 

study? Since they were born perfectly amoral 

and public schools won’t improve that condition, 

why bother going to school? 

To learn amoral technology? 

Unless we teach morality as a core curriculum, 

formal education makes no more 

sense than teaching kids how to masturbate 

– they already know! Without giving kids 

some sense of morality (the “limits” our psychologists 

routinely espouse) to inhibit their 

youthful sex drives and tendencies to violence, 

should we be surprised if teenagers 

are promiscuous, pregnant, diseased or dead? 

No. 

My people don’t merely perish for lack 

of knowledge, they also kill each other with 

bullets and sexually-transmitted disease. 

Education, legal status, 

spiritual implications, “good 

faith” immunity (ignorance of right and 

wrong), vice laws, equity courts, psychiatric 

disciplines – even international politics and 

holy wars are ultimately determined by moral 

issues – the knowledge of right and wrong, 

the freedom to choose between them, and 

ultimately the knowledge of God. 

Morality touches every aspect of our 

lives in ways that are profound. And virtually 

none of us understand a bit of it. I 

believe it’s time to find God, learn the difference 

between right and wrong and become 

moral persons. 

We’ll revisit moral issues regularly in 

future editions of the AntiShyster. 


Etc. 

Letters to and from J.O. 

J. O. Haney and his wife, Trish, are fine 

Christians who come from a family of fine 

Christians – including his Aunt Martha, who 

has a gift for stirring folk’s “spirit”: 

Hello Al, I recently received a letter 

from my Aunt. She writes . . . . 

“The other day I went up to a local Christian 

bookstore and saw a “Honk if you love 

Jesus” bumper sticker. I was feeling particularly 

sassy that day because I had just come 

from a thrilling choir performance, followed 

by a thunderous prayer meeting, so I bought 

the sticker and put it on my bumper. 

Boy, I’m glad I did! What an uplifting 

experience that followed! 

I was stopped at a red light at a busy 

intersection, just lost in thought about the Lord 

and how good He is, and I didn’t notice that 

the light had changed. It is a good thing someone 

else loves Jesus because if he hadn’t 

honked, I’d never have noticed! 

“I found that LOTS of people love 

Jesus! Why, while I was sitting there, the 

guy behind started honking like crazy, and 

then he leaned out of his window and 

screamed, “For the love of God! GO! GO! 

Jesus Christ, GO!” What an exuberant 

cheerleader he was for Jesus! 

“Everyone started honking! I just 

leaned out of my window and started 

waving and smiling at all those loving people. 

I even honked my horn a few times to share 

in the love! There must have been a man 

from Florida back there because I heard him 

yelling something about a “sunny beach”. I 

saw another guy waving in a funny way 

with only his middle finger stuck up in the 

air. Then I asked my teenage grandson in the 

back seat what that meant, he said that it was 

probably a Hawaiian good luck sign or something. 

Well, I’ve never met anyone from 

Hawaii, so I leaned out the window and gave 

him the good luck sign back. My grandson 

burst out laughing . . . why, even he was 

enjoying this religious experience! 

“A couple of the people were so caught 

up in the joy of the moment that they got out 

of their cars and started walking towards 

me. I bet they wanted to pray or ask what 

church I attended, but this is when I noticed 

the light had changed. 

“So I waved to all my sisters and brothers 

grinning, and drove on through the intersection. 

I noticed I was the only car that got 

through the intersection before the light 

changed again, and I felt kind of sad that I 

had to leave them after all the love we had 

shared, so I slowed the car down, leaned out 

of the window and gave them all the Hawaiian 

good luck sign one last time as I drove 

away. 

“Praise the Lord for such wonderful 

folks. 

“Love Aunt Martha” 

Here’s another letter from J.O.: 

Dear Al, 

Forrest Gump died and went to Heaven. 

When he got to the pearly gates, Saint Peter 

told him that new rules were in effect due to 

the advances in earthly education. In order 

to gain admittance, a prospective heavenly 

soul must answer three questions: 

1. Name two days of the week that begin 

with “T” 

2. How many seconds are in a year? 

3. What is God’s first name? 

Forrest thought for a few minutes and 

answered, “The two days of the Week that 

begin with “T” are ‘Today and ‘Tomorrow. 

There are twelve seconds in a year. And 

God has two first names; they are ‘Andy’ 

and ‘Howard’.” 

Saint Peter paused and then said, “Okay, 

I’ll buy Today and Tomorrow . . . even 

though it’s not the answer I expected, your 

answer is correct. But, how did you get 

twelve seconds in a year, and why did you 

ever think that God’s first name is either Andy 

or Howard?” 

Forrest explained; “Well, January 2nd, 

February 2nd, March 2nd, etc. . .” 

“OK, I’ll give you that one too,” said 

St. Peter, “but what about the God’s first 

name stuff?” 

Forrest said, “Well, from the song, 

‘Andy walks with me, Andy talks with me, 

Andy tells me I am his own . . .’ and the 

prayer, ‘ Our Father, who art in Heaven, 

Howard be thy name...’” 

St. Peter smiled, ended the discussion 

and welcomed Forrest into Heaven . . . .

Volume 9 No. 2 - Adask's law

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?