IaHUShUA!
"To Seek out that which was Lost..."

We present this Information and its Links as a Service to our readers... Its inclusion should not be construed as the Authors'
or the Relays' endorsement of our Beliefs
... or as our endorsement of theirs.. the Truth will stand on its own Merit!

This is a Mirror Site of  FIGJA "Freemen" Reports same material.. different format.

A Call to Prayer!

FIGJA Interview Questions
James (Jim) C. Coates Jr.

(submitted to FIGJA 9/15/98)- This is a response by jury forman Jim Coates touching on a few simple questions about the "Freemen Trials" in Billings, Montana where Jim Coates served as the jury forman. Thank you Jim for this interview response. Your openess and willingness to state your opinon is greatly appreciated and we all pray that you and your family and friends do not suffer any reprocussions from this interview. This interview concludes the coverage of the earlier "Freemen Trials" and a conclusion will be posted to summarize this long event, as we look forward to covering the next "trial" in October. Thanks to everyone who has participated in the FIGJA "Freemen Trial" Special Reports. Let us not forget to mention everyone in our prayers and continue to see justice is served as competent, upright and knowledgeable Americans. Bless us all. -Elder

What is your background?

I own and operate a small human interest magazine, Montana Free Press, in south central Montana. The magazine has no affiliation with nor connection to the Montana Freemen; its name is indicative of our original desire to create a vehicle for anyone's expression of views and opinions to their neighbors within our circulation area.

My business is a direct offshoot of my interest in people and their connection to one another and the place in which they live. I enjoy visiting with a wide variety of individuals, attempting to understand their perspectives on life, and chronicling them for others. I suspect that this natural curiosity led me into the study of Anthropology, in which a I received a degree 26 years ago, and kept me from alighting on any particular career path until I started the magazine almost nine years ago.

Political labels don't capture the essence of my own personal views of governance. Some would tend to think I am "liberal" because of my stance on human and civil rights (I thoroughly believe that all people are created equal, that each of us have the right to choose our lifestyle, place of residence and type of work, whom we love, and our own spiritual path) and my concern for the well being of others, now and in the future (I think that two proper functions of government can be: to assure that those who can not care for themselves or for whom there is no one else to help them are cared for; and to protect, from exploitation by special interests, the earth's resources that sustain life for us and all living beings). Some may call me "conservative" because of my belief that we are each responsible for our actions, and that the exercise of our personal rights and liberties must not interfere with others, and that interference from a large government, or bureaucracy, is not the most efficacious nor appropriate way to accomplish this. I think that the political parties of today are hardly distinguishable from one to the other, less different than they are alike. "Right wing" and "left wing" are just points on a spectrum of ways of thinking about how the individual and society can or should interface with one another. That political continuum actually comes full circle; many of the positions of various factions tend to meet when taken to their extremes (i.e. the distrust of governmental institutions by both the far right and far left).

I am neither a globalist nor a nationalist. Government, and large institutions in general, have a way of encroaching on the basic humanity of individuals, seeking to mold them, their activities and beliefs, to fit the purported needs of a larger community. Usually, though, when more closely scrutinized, those needs are rooted in creating benefit, either psychologically or materially, for a smaller group of individuals who have made the rules and/or have the power to enforce them.

My experiences with people reinforce my view that we are all seeking community and direction in some form, but actively rebel against them being forced upon us. A consensual form of local community, small fragments allied with others with similar interests, would be my ideal, somewhat similar to the clan/tribe relationships of some aboriginal peoples, or the town meeting concept of New England.

Prior to the Freeman trial, I had very little knowledge of the Freemen's beliefs or of the U. S. government's case against them. I do not follow local news, and had only heard short snippets on NPR, and was not interested in them. I was out of state visiting relatives when the situation at the Clark ranch outside of Brusett, MT, began, and heard then second hand only bits and pieces of news and comments.

I had heard enough media accounts by early 1995 (a full year before the "standoff") to sense that many Montanans were unhappy with much of the Freemen activities. I used the label "Freeman" in April, 1995, in a loose parody within my magazine of anti-community behavior without attempting to understand the beliefs upon which the Freemen based their actions. It was an attempt at humor which I have since realized was a poor journalistic decision.

What are your feelings about the present government's job performances and how has the recent trial affected your feelings about them?

The "present government" means something different to me than what is probably being asked. If you mean the "present administration," I would have to say that I see very little difference between it and most previous ones within my lifetime. The governing institutions as a whole, including Congress and the Executive and Judicial branches, appear to be working in consort, but not necessarily conspiratorially, with the corporate structure towards the elimination of as many individual choices and personal freedoms as possible in order to "protect us from ourselves." The result appears to be the creation of a society, through effective media persuasion, of consuming automatons who can't, or won't, think for themselves. I don't believe that the "current government" is any more to blame for this tragedy that we as citizens are for allowing it to happen over the course of the last half century.

The Freeman Trial did not cause me to believe any differently, but did reinforce some of those feelings. It reminded me of our proclivity as a culture to see each other only in terms of black and white, creating a "me vs. them" attitude about one another, while being unwilling to examine and conduct an open discourse about the tremendous diversity in our belief systems, the legitimacy of each, and how they might interrelate with one another.

Did the fact that the grand jury indicted these people give you or the other jurors the impression that they had committed crimes and did it also affect the verdict? In other words, did any jurors feel that the defendants were guilty simply because the grand jury had indicted them?

One juror made the comment during the jury's deliberations to the effect that, "The government wouldn't have indicted them if they weren't guilty." This is about the only direct mention, to my recollection, of the grand jury indictment. It came during a discussion of the general pervasiveness of a feeling that the defendants were "guilty until proven innocent," a concept antithetical to basic American justice, and the court's instructions to the jury, but which seemed prevalent among several members of the jury. Whether or not this upside down point of view was due to the grand jury indictment or other factors is difficult to determine.

Were you or the other jurors feeling threatened or intimidated?

I never felt threatened or intimidated by the defendants, but others expressed a fear that they might be retaliated against after the trial.

I must admit that, due to the many stories by witnesses of IRS harassment, coming about the same time as the Congressional investigation of IRS tactics, I did have some concern about speaking out about my perceptions of the trial.

I do believe that most of the jury was intimidated to some extent by the judicial process and the court protocol, and were somewhat unwilling to speak up or ask questions of the court. There was also a sense among several of the jurors that we would be "letting the judge down" if we didn't arrive at a full verdict on all the charges, or reached the "wrong" one.

Did you or the other jurors note any bias or prejudice by the officials and was any critical information that could significantly affect the verdict being withheld from the jury? Can you give details on this matter if so?

Speaking only for myself, I felt like several of the witnesses were cut short by the judge, either responding to an objection or on his own, when they were giving some background material on the beliefs of the defendants or how they came to their beliefs. It appeared that, in an effort to not put the beliefs of the defendants on trial, the court did not allow enough information for the jury to determine what those beliefs were and how they figured into the intent of the defendants, a core element necessary to determine a verdict on a number of the charges. (i.e. fraud requires that "the defendants acted with the intent to defraud, which means with an intent to deceive or cheat.")

One witness who was called for the defense was turned away just before being allowed to testify. We received enough information about him and his relationship to the defendants through the questioning of another witness to make several of the jurors wonder why he did not appear and what he might have said that made the government so oppose his potential testimony.

What would you expect to be handled differently in the up-coming trial to see justice done that was not done during this trial?

I actually don't "expect" anything to be handled any differently in the up-coming trial, but I can only hope that they would be.

First of all, I, and most of the jurors would probably agree, that the scope of the trial - the number of charges, the variety of the charges, and the number of defendants - was not conducive to meaningful discussions. We remarked a number of times that it would have been much easier to keep it all in perspective had it not been such an enormous task to separate each of the myriad factors of the trial.

More information should be provided to the jury about the Freemen's beliefs to better determine their state of mind during the time period of the activities for which they are charged. If "intent" is an element of the charge, then let the jury know more about their intent.

The defendants hurt their own cases by not appearing in court, not working with their attorneys, and not testifying on their own behalf. Though I have since learned that they do not accept the jurisdiction of the federal court, they might have done more good in the long run for their cause/beliefs had they allowed the jury to hear them tell their own stories about how they came to their beliefs and to put a personal face on them. Possibly then could a real dialog begin about their perception of the Federal Reserve, official misconduct, etc. Otherwise, much of their basic arguments will be considered hearsay and not admitted.

I believe that justice requires that anyone called to appear in a defendant's behalf should be allowed to testify. Period.

All contents of the Ryder Truck - the Freeman's evidence cache, loaded by them at the conclusion of the standoff as part of its peaceful resolution - should be made available to the Freemen as purportedly promised by the FBI.

The procedure for wiretapping should be reconsidered. As it stands now, only those parts of conversations relating to alleged criminal activity can be taped, with all other portions "minimized." This minimization tends to make it seem like all discussions were criminal in nature; yet portions could actually be taken out of context of the conversation, with no record maintained of the parts which could add legitimacy to the conversation and take it out of the criminal mode. I understand that this rule is probably an effort to preserve the privacy of individuals under surveillance, but it is left to the listener to contextualize what is recorded. There were enough gaps in key conversations on the tapes presented as evidence in the Freeman Trial that one wondered what was being said in the spaces and how those spaces might have actually fit into the broader scope of the conversation.

Don't make a federal case out of it. It seemed to me and several other jurors that justice might have been better served had the charges against the defendants been brought in state court rather than federal. The ingredients that must be present for some federal charges end up confusing the issues and standing in the way of basic questions. (i.e. robbery in a federal case must affect interstate commerce.)

Do you feel that people can get a fair trial in Montana based on the "Freemen trial" in Billings?

I can not make a blanket statement about the fairness of all trials in Montana based on my experience in one trial. I am sure, though, that it would depend on the advance publicity about the case, whether or not it deals with a deviation from the mainstream of thought, and what kind or amount of money is involved and who might stand to lose some of it.

What would you like to see FIGJA do to help Americans deal with the present judicial crises in America?

I do not know enough about the goals or resources of FIGJA, nor the judicial crises in America, to speak to that question.

A response to Southern Law Poverty Law Center
by Leonard Schweitzer

This is the best response I've ever seen to the SPLC. I had engaged one of their new spokesmen on WGOW in Chattanooga, Tennessee who was a guest on Stephanie Birmingham's show. The callers ate him alive (including me) as he continued the usual baiting and friction that many Southerners had heard time and time again. The SPLC is the epitome of hypocrisy, but again, I've never seen it handled so tastefully as here in Len's response. Thanks, Len for sending this to us...well done. -Elder

(I wrote and sent off this response to SPLC, for what it is worth, and have yet to receive and answer. I am sending it along for other's critique - Len)

A Response to the Intelligence Report Spring 1998

Published by the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. President

[sent copy of this 8-1-98]

Recently good friends gave me your Spring Issue 90 Intelligence Report. I am the brother of LeRoy Michael; Schweitzer whose watermark caricature appears on the front cover. That it caught my attention goes without saying. I was immediately drawn to reading the articles with great interest.

Each of the articles submitted contain extensive evidence that should be of utmost concern to all good and decent people who call this land our country, our home. None of these mounting problems can be passed off lightly nor relegated to an incidental historical anomaly which will simply play itself out and disappear on its own accord.

These are prodigious trends and movements demanding the utmost diligence to understand, assess and bring to creative resolution. No responsible person can understand and appreciate the magnitude of what is at stake without some display of trepidation. I dare say that from an array of diverse perspectives, there would likely be a general concurrence that we face enormous problems. Perhaps also, there would be agreement that simplistic corrective measures will not bring solutions, but may very likely exacerbate these pending threats. There can be little doubt left that many of these, our fellow Americans, who find themselves, in various degrees involved in these movements, have taken great personal risks and deployed some extreme measures to express their strong commitments and feelings of what they believe is right for themselves and for our country. What is involved here is serious business.

I therefore believe it will demand extraordinary courage and listening powers to move from the surface appearances of these multifarious movements to what are the core issues, to what are the premiere forces which have given rise to and are sustaining the powers of these movements.

It is at this juncture that I offer a general critique of the information I derived from the several articles. In fact, what I consider of extreme importance may well be what was left unsaid rather than what was said.

But first, in the articles there seemed to be a hasty use of labels assigned to the various groups. But more than that, these names/labels readily convey pejorative connotations. While ordinarily this should not be an issue, it does precondition perceptions for the type of person easily swayed by clever label usage. Regrettably, that type of person clearly makes up the majority. Then, from this, a consensus is being created based on labels which, for most people, allows them to conformably deal with only surface matters and thereby seldom, if ever, come to the understanding of the deeper intrinsic motivations essential for reaching a correct and more complete understanding of the forces operative in our society.

Next, the polemical paradigm is used extensively by the writers, thereby permitting the reader to fall into the trap of selecting one of two options, i.e., if the "left" is right, the "right" is wrong, if one is good the other is bad, if one is evil the other is good, if we are right, then they are wrong.

True research and scholarship cannot operate and move forward under the constrictions of two choices. The handy label of "anti-government" is a classic example. Since what the government does is good; therefore anyone who disagrees is bad! But more than that is another critical distinction which is being allowed to pass by the public's perception unnoticed. It is the distinction between anti-government and anti-government agent. This vital distinction helps move the reader away from the notion of government, as an abstraction, and to a government agent, a real living person, who is capable of being either creative or destructive; and moreover, who, operating under the government shield gives no guarantee to the general public that good will follow from that person's actions. In fact, not doing the right thing under governmental aegis contains less immediate sanctions than do the same acts outside that protective shield. For example, when questioned by a judge why the individual didn't like cops, the response was "They lie in the courtroom." The judge's rejoinder: "They do that all the time." For those of us on the outside (of government) that "right" is not permitted!

While out-right lying is a serious and wrongful deceptive practice, revealing only selected portions of a story can also be deemed as willful deception, especially when done by professional reporters. For example, on page 14 of your publication, reference is made to: "Five of the six (Freemen) were convicted." This was the result of a March trial (not April as the reporter writes) in which Edwin Clark was acquitted on April 1, 1998, with the Billings Gazette headline reading thus, "Mr. Clark you are a Free Man." Understand, this was not an April fool's joke as some may contend!

But what is conspicuously absent from the journalist's report is that the Billing Gazette, for a number of days running, continued to report the various charges brought against the six men on trial. The charge Edwin Clark faced was tendering a $1,000,000.00 warrant to the Garfield County Bank. By most standards this would be considered an important aspect of that trial. The reader's perception is thereby overtly conditioned by virtue of the writer's withholding of vital information. The reader, unless he/she obtained other sources, is deprived of essential facts with which to make an informed judgment.

Moreover, if freed of an apparent bias, the reporter might also have included that this same man, Edwin Clark, had been held in twenty-three hour lock-down for two years. In the entire time, he was allowed two visits with his wife. This man was innocent throughout this ordeal and in the trial was found not guilty. What remedies would you recommend for the violations of this man's rights?

Finally, and of greatest importance, it is essential to address the matter of what has been left unsaid by the reporter's attempts to bring the whole truth to the public.

These people who, being either leaders or followers, find themselves involved in the many "threatening" groups and movements which your journalists describe, are our fellow citizens—we must never forget—with few exceptions. And to some of us they are family. Clipping out a few frames from any single person's film-strip of life, passing judgment and bringing condemnation upon that person based on that small segment while the rest of the film drops to the cutting room floor will guarantee that the tap root, the essential cause(s) which have brought first life to these movements will continue to elude us. And, so long as reports such as yours continue to leave out—skip—the complete and quintessential parts of the story, your works can easily be understood as contributing more to the problem than the solution.

Henry David Thoreau' s observation is fitting, "there are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil for every one who is striking at the root." This statement applies well to our modern society brought up on the sound bite and addicted to a rapid pace of life that discourages searching for the root cause of problems. By constantly hacking at branches rather than roots, we often develop cures that are worse than the disease. Don Adolphson, The Seven Blunders of the World.

In the case of my brother LeRoy, any reporter who proffers enlightenment to the world about the full story and the truth of LeRoy's involvement in Justus Township, the labeling, the demonizing and more, without first understanding—and reporting completely—that part of his story and his life which foreshadowed the recent events will do a disservice to every reader seriously seeking the truth behind the mainstream media's portrayal of the Montana Freemen. Will it every happen? What might be the consequences? Would it expose crime within government ranks? And if exposed, who would be least able to handle the truth, the government personnel, or the people outside of the government who have been the source of the authority and the funding of the government?

If what I have attempted to communicate makes not a single positive contribution to the aforesaid problems, I will not be surprised—disappointed, yes.

However, is it possible that the spirit of trust, which ordinarily binds us together as good and decent people, has become so damaged and violated that the spirit of distrust has become the reigning force in our midst? Is it true that most Americas distrust the government? Were the polls taken before the last general election flawed when the results indicated 73% of Americas distrust the government? From where does this distrust originate? Is it correct that courts spend as much effort defending themselves as they do defending the people? How often do the courts make victims of the innocent? Why do many judges and lawyers fear the Common Law? Is not the Common Law the foundation of the Constitution for the united States? What is wrong and unlawful about a Common Law court? Has the seventh Article of the Bill of Rights been abolished? Have the very mechanisms we have set up to assure that justice will be meted out—free of human manipulation—met the standards honest people have the right to expect? Does not the first page begin thus, We the People of the Untied States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice.....?

Have we forgotten or have we never learned that (the spirit of) trust transcends the bounds of courtroom law? Without trust can courtrooms function at all? Does not abuse of law and of authority create distrust? What is true, does trust depend upon law or is law dependent on trust? While trust can stand on its own, can the same be said of man made law?

How could those threatening groups and movements originate and gain life without the spirit of distrust? Distrust of what? Whose power and whose acts can bring the greater violence to the spirit of trust, the government or the people.......We the People?

In summary, I offer the following quote by Paul Dumouchel. page 92 of Gil Bailie's seminal work, Violence Unveiled Humanity at the Crossroads. "Once violence has reached a certain threshold, social and cultural institutions themselves are of no avail to limit its diffusion. Every attempt to diffuse the conflict is seen as a further provocation and usual mechanisms of arbitration lose their transcendence. They are seen by all as a party in the quarrel rather than as a judge....Just as violence reduces the individual opponents to mirror-images of each other, so it destroys the difference that normally distinguish justice from revenge, arbitrator from opponent, and finally friend from foe."

I pray that we all can step up to the level of courage demanded to move beyond the effects that disturb us and discover the causes, the tap roots we conveniently disguise and fear to approach. To do so will it require a new-found courage whereby we see and we understand the insidious powers of collective sin (evil) too often operating in the systems we have created or allowed to be created? Does our haste to condemn our neighbor or our enemy of their private sin(s), blind us so we are unable to see the collective destruction that our collective sin brings upon each of us without exception? Are we willing to first ask the question, to what extent does sin/evil express its destructive powers in our educational, our banking, our judicial, our penal, our police systems, our media, to name a few and secondly, to obtain the courage and the necessary determination to take actions to purge these deadly forces from our midst?

News From Len About LeRoy

Many have been concerned about LeRoy's well-being since nobody has heard a word for so long and rumors of poisoning and death were circulating about. Thanks, Len for sharing this news with us...we're glad to hear that LeRoy is still alive. -Elder

We received a six page letter from LeRoy 8-20-98. In his letter he indicated he had written three from Springfield and two or three from SeaTac, none of which reached here. He, Casey and Dale are being held on the 7th floor, the others on the fourth. The reason for this "distinction", i.e., lockdown is for the failure to sign on some government forms. He says the lawlessness is at the lowest level of any of the places he has been jailed because, he believes, it is under coughenhour's rule. (I am not sure this means in food and physical treatment, but rather total disregard of any external rules, laws).

He has been getting my letters (eight at the two jails combined) and has responded to each. This was the first I had received in appox. two and a half months. Possibly some pressure had been building to stop the tampering. The last staff person I spoke with by phone stated unequivocally, that he was allowed to write and to phone. To my rejoined that this has simply not happened, he responded, "Try it again and see what happens."

Efforts to obtain detailed answers results in referrals to his counselor. Being put on hold endlessly waiting for the counselor to answer suggested that they had no intention to follow this procedure.

In his letter, his spirit and determination comes across undaunted. He wrote of a view of the south end of the SeaTac Airport with lots of traffic and much ship activity in the harbor. I thought of mentioning his view of the outside world as a moderate progression of accommodations, but thought this might be taken away if prereading of his in-coming letters give this hint.

His letter contained considerable information on lawful matters, much of which I fail to fully understand. If it would be considered helpful I would send off copies to others who could better understand and act on them. Let me know. Grateful for all the help and support, with Hope, Len

Contact has been made with "Freemen Trial" Jury Foreman James Coates, Junior. He has indicated an interest in an interview with FIGJA. He has also expressed regret about verdicts rendered in this case, and that substantial amounts of information was kept from the jurors which resulted in the verdicts. It has already been mentioned that expert witness Hartford VanDyke was denied the opportunity to testify about the monetary instruments used by the "Freemen", and a multi-million dollar lien has been placed against the conspirators within the government for this injustice against the People. Please contact FIGJA by email for more information on Hartford's study manual, and we also hope to post some information on this as well. We hope to interview James for more on the "trial" in the near future and post this on the FIGJA webpages. More on these things later. ~Elder

Awards in Montana

July 22nd, 1998 A.D.-Bozeman, Montana:

Tom Lutey of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle reports that the FBI is giving an award to state Rep. Karl Ohs for his part in the 1996 Freemen Standoff.

" The standoff ended June 13th, 1996, a day that began with Ohs delivering a yellow Ryder truck full of documents coveted by the Freemen to their compound."

Ohs made this statement: "...There was nothing I could see as far as the issues were concerned that was monumental enough to get someone hurt."

+ + + + + + +

The Chronicle article differs widely from the position of all Montana Freemen, both inside the ranch and out.

The Freemen had many documents, computers, computer disks, mail, books, and so on that they said would prove their case. Part of the deal that Ohs made with the Freemen was that Ohs would secure the documents in a Ryder truck in a secret location until the trial. The Freemen kept up their end of the deal and surrendered, CBS TV showed video tape of the Ryder truck being driven into what looked like Billings. Over the next few days the media reported that the FBI was going through the truck and that the FBI had full control of it. The media reported that the FBI said the truck was evidence, so the FBI confiscated it. As we now know, the first trial for these Men is over and no truck load of evidence for the Freemen ever appeared. So much for Karl Ohs' deal.

How could Ohs possibly accept any awards from the FBI?

We are reminded of Nick Murnion, who was accused of being a corrupt official- by the Freemen. Part of the evidence against Murnion was supposed to be in that Ryder truck. Viet Nam vet Bo Gritz claimed that the FBI told Gritz that Murnion should be arrested for his part in the Freemen saga. The main thrust of the Freemen story is a claim that the bankers are also crooks. Nick Murnion is the Garfield County Attorney and an officer of the local bank.

Murnion was never arrested. In fact, the newspapers widely reported that Murnion was to receive an award from the State Bar of Montana and some Kennedy foundation in Massachusetts. This award announcement came out during the Freemen trial.

This Affidavit is true, correct, certain and relevant; the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Furthermore, I sayeth naught.

William David, Junior., Sullivan
near Bozeman, Montana

Springfield Prison Stalls On Phone Calls & Mail

Dear Elder,

I have written four letters and have yet to get one in return since he and the others were sent to springfield. Nor phone calls. Bob Harris, the case manager for all the Freemen gives the same stuff back each time I call, namely, that LeRoy has not given they (the staff) a list of persons he wishes to receive phone calls and letters from. We have exchanged 137 letters over the course of the last two years. Something is occuring which has stopped this exchange. My conjecture is that LeRoy refuses to place his signature on any document submitted to him, on the bases that he will not consent to any aspect of the de facto government. Getting in touch with the Warden, Pat Koehane, has been difficult. He is on vacation, he has a meeting on the East coast etc.

We will continure to make every effort. We pray that he and the others are protected from the ravages of dark powers which use the weaker staff to bring deathly damages. May the grace and powers of The Almightly protect them.

Thank you for your care and concern,
Len

Default US Grand Juror Comments
On Montana Grand Jury

Federal grand juries can supposedly be convened by the federal district court acting on your motion under 18 USC Rule 6(a)(1) once you file and docket your complaint, and the court has power to refer any matter to the grand jury - e-mail me if you need the exact citation of that common law power reiterated by 10th Circuit in the 1960's but still cited by recent works on federal grand jury law and practice.

You can complain against any federal officer or state or local officer whose vioilated your rights, except prosecutorial personnel, under 42 USC 1983 (the civil rights codes from the 1870's), by federal civil suit and seek compensation for damages but not for pain and suffering.

If you want to press criminal charges instead it's a little more tricky. If your federal or state rights were violated under color of law or custom by anyone sworn to uphold the Constitution, it was a violation of 18 USC 242 of the federal criminal code, but that code carries misdemeanor penalties as well as felony and even capital penalty, and grand juries generally only have interest in felony matters, so you'd better read the 242 code. Then you have to write a federal criminal complaint and swear it in before a federal judge magistrate, pursuant to 18 USC Rule 3, who will probably try to ignore it unless its pre-approved and sponsored by the U.S. atty. and you have to explain in the complaint that you or anyone else is entitled to swear in the complaint and have the judge-magistrate issue and enter it, due to your rights under 18 USC 1512(c)(4) of the 1982 Witness Protection Act which also means that if a felony offense is involved then the judge-magistrate must forward the complaint to a federal grand jury foreperson, not just the U.S. Atty. office because it's the grand jury itself, not the U.S. Atty., which technically has sole power to decide whether to prosecute or not although almost all grand juries are really only frightened rubber stamps of the U.S. Atty. appointed political police prosecutors. The complaint you write and swear in should contain enough affidavital evidential appendices to establish probable cause that a federal crime was committed and that the accused committed it.

You'll probably wind up having to write and swear-in another federal criminal complaint accusing the judge-magistrate and U.S. Atty etc etc of obstructing federal grand juror services in violation of 18 USC 242, 1503, 1512. Cf. the House Bill H.R. 3396 which proposes a 5 person board to police the $10 billion/yr. U.S. Dept Justice which is what happens to be the prime job of 20.68 thousand federal grand jurors, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, 647 federal trial judges, all the federal magistrates and appellate judges, and the Judicial Councils of all 12 circuits, but is a job none of them had the guts and brains to do. It's a pretty sad situation. Read 18 USC Rule 6(e) and you'll see it's been that way since 1946 when I was only 3 yrs old - the political police prosecutors have been "guarding" the grand juror services chickencoop.

Your query originated in Montana. In '97 Montana had only 5 federal grand jury panels and they met for a grand total of only 162 hours. Do you really think they could protect the federal and state rights of everyone in Montana with only 162 hours of work? Good luck.

Yours,
J.M. Ballard
Default U.S. Grand Jury
Quality Control Engrng.
Limerick PA

Freemen trial 7-7-98

CBS Television is reporting that U.S. Judge John Coughenhour ordered the jury back to deliberate today. A question from one of the jurors caused some confusion about fundamentals of American law. Minutes after the jury convened a male juror sent two questions to Judge Coughenhour. He asked if the jury must follow the Judge's instructions to the letter and if they must decide counts solely on the evidence and testimony rather than on feelings, common sense or fear. Coughenhour told the jurors they must rely on instructions he gave them before the deliberations began. Jurors will continue deliberations tomorrow morning.

This Affidavit is true, correct, certain and relevant;
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Furthermore, I sayeth naught.

William David, Junior., Sullivan
near Bozeman, Montana

Freemen trial near conclusion

Bozeman Daily Chronicle June 30th, 1998 had an article about the jurors on the Freemen trial. Apparently the jurors asked Judge Coughenhour to explain the terms 'trespass' and 'interstate commerce'. Judge Coughenhour declined.

Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed. Pages 1502, 1503 and 1504 define 'trespass'. The basic definition is in the first line: An unlawful interference with one's person, property or rights.

Same dictionary page 819 defines 'interstate commerce': Traffic, intercourse, commercial trading, or the transportation of persons or property between or among the several states of the Union, or from or between points in one state and points in another state; commerce between two states, or between places lying in different states. Gibbons v. Ogden 22 U.S. (9Wheat) 1, 6 L.Ed. 23; etc.

On July 2nd, 1998 at 4 pm local radio station KBOZ announced that the Freemen were found guilty. At 10 pm local time CBS TV announcer Tricia Uhlir read the individual findings of the various Freemen. Only 6 Freemen were found guilty of some charges:

LeRoy- guilty of 20 counts; Dan- guilty of 5 counts ; Russ- guilty of 3 counts; Rod- guilty of 2 counts; Dale- guilty of 2 counts ; Richard - guilty of 1 count

No verdict was reached on 5 of the Freemen:

Ralph Clark, Agnes Stanton, William Stanton, Casey, and J.P.

The 12th defendant-Cherlyn Petersen, according to CBS reporter Uhlir, was found guilty of two counts. A quick check of the math here and a check of today's Bozeman Chronicle will confirm that Cherlyn was found not guilty of the two counts.

Which one of these newspuppets is lying to us now?

The July 3rd, 1998 Bozeman Chronicle claims that Judge Coughenhour refused to declare a mistrial on the deadlocked counts and release the jury.

The jurors will return after the long holiday weekend to continue their deliberations on the five(?) remaining Freemen.

This affidavit is true correct, certain and relevant;
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Furthermore, I sayeth naught!

William David, Junior., Sullivan
near Bozeman, Montana

July 2, 1998 A.D.- According to the latest news reports, Judge Coughenour has refused to declare a mistrial although the jury could not reach a verdict on 11 of the 40 counts, and the jury has been ordered back on Tuesday. Thusfar, the acquittals have not been confirmed, but LeRoy has been convicted on 21 counts, Dan on 5, Russell on 3, Dale on 2, Rod on 2, and Richard on 1. More on this as it comes in. ~Elder

The following is part of a criminal complaint against the infamous Judge Coughenour, U.S. Attorney Sherri S. Matteucci, et al filed June 26, 1998 A.D. The civil value of the complaint is $79,800,000.00 with a 90% rebate to the public. Again this document is in part, send a self-addressed/stamped manila envelope to [Elder Hale]. 310 N. Montana. Bozeman, Montana. 59715 and a 3 "dollar" International Postal Money Order for copy expense. You may also reach Hartford at THE FREEDOM GROUP - Spirit of 76 Publishing, P.O.Box 650, Vancouver, Washington 98666.~Elder

COMMITTED AS FOLLOWS
PLAIN STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. Lyle Hartford VanDyke, Jr., commonly known as Hartford VanDyke. am the Plaintiff in this Complaint acting as the proxy for the Defendants in U.S. vs. Schweitzer.

Plaintiffs: Defenfants in U.S.A. vs. LeRoy Schweitzer; et al.

LeRoy Michael; Schweitzer
Richard Emmett; Clark
Dale Martin; Jacobi
Rodney Owen; Skurdal
Russell Dean; Landers
Cherlyn Marie; Petersen
Cornelius John; Veldhuizen
Agnes Stanton
William Stanton
Ralph Edwin; Clark
John Patrick; McGuire
Daniel E. Petersen

Vs.

Defendants: Judge, Prosecuters, and Defense Attorneys in U.S.A vs. LeRoy Schweitzer; et al.

John C. Coughenour
Sherri S. Matteucci
James E. Seykora
George Z. Toscas
Robertson T. Park
Tony Gallagher
Robert Kelleher
Palmer A. Hoovestal
Greg Jackson
Jim Obie
Ryan Willett
Bryan Norcross
Mark D. Parker
J. Cort Harrington
John Keith
Peter Robinson
Scott Bowman

COMMITTED AS FOLLOWS:

I, Lyle Hartford VanDyke, Jr., commonly known as Hartford VanDyke, depose and say as follows:

PLAIN STATEMENT OF FACT

1. I am the Plaintiff in this Complaint acting as the proxy for the Defendants in U.S. vs. Schweitzer.

2. The Defendants in U.S. vs. Schweitzer requested my appearance in their Trial by Jury as a witness in their favor in their criminal case because:
(1) I have a thorough/expert knowledge of the fundamentals of commercial law.
(2) I know how to produce lawful demand note currency and have done so.
(3) I was one of LeRoy Schweitzer's teachers.
(4) Mt teachings encouraged Schweitzer's production of a value transfer demand note currency in competition with the Federal Reserve Note.
(5) I have reduced the content of commercial law and its instruments to a seven point full disclosure system of explicit ledgering, thereby making Government Officials commercially accountable to the tax paying public.
(6) The grounds for the request form my appearance was genuine.
(7) My appearance was necessary.

3. Therefore, I was subpoenaed by the defense in the case of U.S. vs. Schweitzer.

4. I was told that there was a problem with getting travel fees and witness fees for me from the Government, but I traveled hundreds of miles form Seattle, Washington, to Billings, Montana, to appear anyway, paying my expenses out of my own pocket.

5. I appeared on time for the trial and waited outside of the courtroom with the other witnesses until I was called to testify.

6. The defense called me into the courtroom..

7. I then entered the courtroom and patiently and quietly stood outside the gate of the Bar waiting for the judge to permit me to enter the Bar and give testimony.

8. The Judge in this case was Judge Coughenour.

9. Judge Coughenopur held a side bar and threatened the Defense, and by this act of chilling their actions, would not allow me to testify as a witness.

10. The woman, Cathy Clark, in charge of arranging the travel and witness fee's made certain that I was paid for my appearance, even though the Judge would not let me testify for the Defendants.

11. Judge Coughenpur has a reputation and is notorious:
(1) For barring the giving of testimony which is unfavorable to the U.S. Government.
(2) For removing the Jury from the courteoom to prevent them from hearing testimony which would be unfavorable to the U.S. Government.
(3) For preventing issues and arguments from being raised by the Defense which would be unfavorable to the U.S. Government. (Case # CR96-500C Seattle, Washington)
(4) For making threats of retaliation against the witnesses and against the defending lawyers, thereby intimidating them and chilling their effectiveness.

12. I have observed Judge John C. Coughenour's behaviour in three court cases (CR96-500C at Seattle, Washington; CR97-51C at Seattle, Washington; and CR95-117-BLG-JCC at Billings, Montana) and affirm that his behaviour confirmed his reputation.

13. This is the second time Judge Coughenour hs prevented my testimony in court..

14. I have filed criminal complaints about Judge Coughenour's behaviour. (For example, see State of Washington King County Recording # 970211-0859).

15. I have issued over three billion dollars worth of valid tax rebate currency on the streets of this nation against Judge Coughenour, et al, and the U.S. Treasury, to relevant counties, citizens, and charities, to act as a corrective measure to compensate the public for the damage which Judge Coughenour is causing to this nation's justice system, peace and dignity.

16. Judge Coughenour's damage to the U.S. system of justice far outweighs everything that the Defendants in U.S. vs. Schweitzer are charged with.

17. The Defendants in U.S. vs. Schweitzer are essentially charged with political and economic rebellion. But Judge Coughenour is committing anarchy and treason against the U.S. Constitution, this Nation and its People by putting down that purported rebellion by causing a misrepresentation of the Defendants, and by the suppression of political and economic truth which is unfavorable to the government.

18. Judge Coughenour's behaviour explains the necessity for having the metal detectors at the door at the courthouse and the necessity for the concrete barricades on the street around the courthouse building. A nation must always oppose a judicial subornation of perjury.

19. The U.S. Government would never be able to judge Schweitzer's currency to be counterfeit because the only standard the U.S. Government has to measure Schweitzer's Note against is the Federal Reserve Note which is the commercial paper of a limited liability corporation which has usurped the powers of the U.S. Legislature since 1914. The U.S. currency is supposed to be under the control of the U.S. Legislature.

20. The U.S. Government will never be able to judge Schweitzer's commercial debt collection process to be unlawful because the only standard against which the U.S. Government has to measure Schweitzer's process is the debt collection process of the Internal Revenue Service, hereinafter refered to as the IRS.

21. The IRS is the debt collection department of the private limited-liability Federal Reserve Corporation. The IRS also known as the "Deparetment of the Treasury", not the United States Department of the Treasury. See the IRS letterhead for proof.

22. The assessment process of the IRS is incomplete, and not "sworn true, correct, and complete", hence cannot be used as a basis for filing of Tax Liens. The IRS debt collection process could be valid if it were not for its invalid assessment process. To overcome the limitation of the IRS assessment process at the County Recorder Offices, the IRS has installed a fraudulent filing instruction in the codes of every State, called the Uniform Federal Tax Lien Registration Act, which instructs the County Recorder to receive a Notice of Federal Tax Lien from the IRS and enter it on a Tax Lien Index thereby converting a non-negotiable Notice into a negotiable Lien. The IRS can then get a certified photocopy of the Tax Lien Index to "prove" that a Lien, not a Notice, was "filed", and then proceed to use this "proof" as an excuse to seize everything from social security benefits to real estate. For example, see the Revised Code of Washington RCW 60.68.045 which instructs the County Recorder to place the Notice of Federal Tax Lien on an Index of Tax Liens. This conversion of title from "Notices" to "Liens" constitutes the counterfeiting of securities.

23. The IRS is currently under investigation for its syndicated organized crime use of the County Recorder Offices in the various States to convert the non-negotiable "Notice of Federal Tax Lien" into false county records of the filing of the negotiable "Federal Tax Lien", and thence to seize and auction property.

24. Since the U.S. government is unable to reasonably argue aganst and convict Schweitzer and his students and followers, the Government's only defense is to destroy them by false statements, character assassination, destructive medial coverage, limitations of the rights of Due Process in criminal trials, threats to end the professional careers of the defense Attorneys, threats of injury to witnesses and jurors, tampering with testimony, tampering with the jury and the jury process, etc.

25. It is clear that Judge Coughenour works for the Federal Reserve Corporation, its debt collection arm, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and its public relations department, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which publicly came to the Government's defense in the U.S. vs. LeRoy Schweitzer, et al, case.

26. The Judge is herein charged as the Principal, the Prosecutors are herein charged as direct criminal accomplices, and the Public Defenders are herein charged with criminal negligence for failure to object, all of said contributions being equally necessary to the success of depriving the Defendants in U.S. vs. Schweitzer, et al, of their right "to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his [their] favor."

Be sure to check the affidavits webpage for recent affidavits from the "Freemen". A recent report stated that the jury requested to see a video of the news crew incident but was refused and told by the judge they would have to rely on their memory. An expert witness was at the "trial" last week but was refused an opportunity to testify...threats against the witness are suspected as well. He was LeRoy's instructor on the commerce process similarly used by LeRoy. More details later.~Elder