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!


Freemen update
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998

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

A Call to Prayer!

Public Notice

    The FIGJA Special Reports on the Montana Freemen Trials are news reports within the scope of the protections for freedom of speech and freedom of the press declared by the First Article in Amendment of the Constitution of the united States: of America. The reports are posted on this website for the purposes of documenting information for the public that has become common knowledge. The reports are the opinions of those providing the information and not the opinions or policies of the administrator of the FIGJA website except where explicitly stated being the opinions and policies of the FIGJA National Administrator. The FIGJA National Administrator realizes that very sensational information is being presented in these reports, however, it should be emphasized that all who read these reports conduct themselves in a lawful manner in redressing the issues raised. You are encouraged to do your lawful duties as upright, competent and knowledgeable Americans in Good Faith. You are encouraged to obtain and study the educational information endorsed by FIGJA on the Study Materials webpage.

    For the record, the affidavits and reports posted on the FIGJA website are posted at the request of family and friends of the "Freemen" prisoners, and with their explicit authorization to avoid dis-information.

    Furthermore, it is my personal opinion that the "Freemen" have been unjustly treated to cruel and unusual punishment due the testimonials and affidavits we have received. It is sincerely requested that precatory prayers are said on behalf of these men and everyone involved. It is further suggested that we all put this matter in the hands of Our Heavenly Father, for it is His Will that things are as they are and it is His Will that will change them. We all sincerely pray for Blessings that will result in better circumstances for all concerned.

Things to consider:

"No suit can be sustained against a state; but an unconstitutional law affords no justification to a state officer for an act injurious to an individual. The officer is not the state, and can set up no exemption under it, unless he act within the authority of law." Astrom v Hammond (1842), 2 Fed.Cas, 71, Fed.Cas.No. 596, 3 Mclean 107.

"Invito beneficium non datur- No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), "Maxim," p, 2140). [No officer can compel any Good and Lawful Christian Man to get a license, benefit, or privilege in commerce.]

"No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether judicial or ministerial, decides at his own peril." Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608.

"Non dat qui non habet---He gives nothing who has nothing." Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914),"Maxim,"p.2149, [No legislative body or man can convey any authority or jurisdiction he does not possess over common Rights vested by God to another. Because legislative powers are limited, all powers derived from legislative acts are limited.]

" ...If one individual does not possess such a right over the conduct of another [Good and Lawful Christian Man], no number of individuals [in a deliberative body] can possess such a right. All combinations, therefore, to effect such an object, are injurious, not only to the individuals particularly oppressed, but to the public at large." People v. Fisher, 14 Wend.(N.Y.) 9, 28 Am.Dec. 501. [Individual Christians who are oppressed are not the only Persons affected by such oppression. All Christians are oppressed.]

    It should be also noted that the "Freemen" were promised a Common Law grand jury as a stipulation of their surrender to federal officials at the end of the "Montana Standoff." FIGJA supporters would like to see the evidence of the U.S. government's Good Faith by complying with their promises. If we are to put trust in their government, then they should comply with their promises and oaths of office. In Good Faith, we pray that these officials will stand up and support the Law of the Land that they have sworn to uphold, and give the "Freemen" the justice that is due them.

    Remember, FIGJA is a peaceful alliance endeavoring to provide educational information that makes us all responsible Americans actively involved in maintaining good government. The grand jury is a body specifically instituted to avoid trial by combat. FIGJA does not encourage violence and lawlessness from the public or the public servants. We encourage using the grand jury to address all offenses where lawful, de jure grand juries exist, and FIGJA also encourages Lawfully established jural societies where civil government has been abandoned. It is up to you and your neighbors to maintain Lawful government. If We the People fail in our duties in this regard, we are then left with the consequences of our omission and we have no standing to complain about those consequences. Therefore, let us act responsibly and Lawfully in our governmental endeavors and duties as Americans. For a better understanding of your liberties see Facts You Should Be Aware OF.

Burk Elder, Third
FIGJA National Administrator

FIGJA Special Reports To June 8, 1998 A.D.

FIGJA Special Reports To July 1, 1998 A.D

Celtic Button FIGJA Special Reports Up To The "Retrial"

Celtic Button FIGJA Conclusion To First "Freemen Trials"

"Freemen" Affidavits

Photos Of A Tortured "Freeman"

Ralph Kermits' "Freemen" Documents Archive

The Hidden Truth Revealed

Billings Or Beijing? - A FIGJA Exclusive Introduction

"Freemen" Call In On Radio Talk Show - 1996

Expert Witness Reveals Banking Fraud

Liberty Forum / Truth Radio Network

Birmingham Show (FM) / Chattanooga, Tennessee

Grass Roots Journal / Courtroom Coverage

Contact Information For The "Freemen"

The Billings Gazette

The “Montana Freemen” in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; Justice at long last??

by Kristin., Richard with Rodney Owen’s words in quotes

During the course of the last year the travesty of the “Montana Freemen” trials have been laid at the feet of the Freemen themselves. The courts, jails, prisons, etc. have not been held accountable for their behavior. And in fact, these co-conspirators continually make statements in support of each others lawful or legal behavior. It is as I was told, when asking if I could file Amicus Curiae, by a Clerk of the Court “He (LeRoy) must file for himself. . . . It is illegal for the prisons to stop him from filing with the court.” This is not new to those who work with prisoners. The reality is that when the jails take it upon themselves to punish a prisoner mail fraud/tampering/mishandling is one of the quickest and easiest methods of getting to the prisoner. As Richard Emmett wrote “And they accused us of mail fraud.”

Rodney Owen has finally brought these matters before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

After distinguishing the separate duties and obligations of federal and state officers, agents and employees in regards to the private copyrighted laws of the United States Codes (Title 8 Section 1481, footnotes “R.S. Section 1999”). Rodney has placed eloquently in the body of this document statements and arguments concerning the responsibilities of all under the Constitution for the united States of America; “‘Ignorance of the law is no excuse’; . . .‘This is a Nation of laws and not of men’; . . . ‘Due process of law,’ a.k.a. ‘Notice’ duly published in Federal register and Code of federal Regulations . . . Without lawful subject matter jurisdiction, venue, legislative authorities, nor lawful delegation of authority, your U.S.D.C. must ‘ dismiss the case and the convictions stemming therefrom’”. He next addresses the issue of documents filed with the court, not docketed by the Clerk of the U.S. District Court and remaining unanswered/ignored by the court for whatever reasons stating this practice to be unlawful in nature. The court must when asked concerning “venue and jurisdiction” answer first precisely and positively or dismiss totally all action.

Rodney has taken the time and space to include a list of crimes/allegations against the federal corporation and its agents, officers, and employees; libel, slander, unlawful detainer, forcible entry, arm(ed) assault, arm(ed) trespass, arm(ed) kidnap, arm(ed) robbery, acts of war by force of arms by foreign agents, breach of the peace, theft of private securities, false statements, torture, genocide, obstruction of justice, religious persecution, alienation of affection, mental and physical torture, character assassination, extortion, destruction and theft of private property, theft of office records, irregular process, attempt to murder, misprison of a felony; forced to worship a false god/artificial person/corporation, fraud, threats, physical injuries, duress, coercion, terrorism, treason, sedition, theft of private communication, denial of faith and conviction to worship Yahweh,; and the list goes on for another page.

Rodney has entered a mandate upon the court to call for an answer from the United States District Court, District of Montana, Billings Division to answer the allegations of an Amicus Curiae Bill of Particulars/Declaratory Judgment filed on August 17, 1998 and left unanswered to date. Rodney states, “Keep in mind that your charter/constitution for the United States of America, is very limited and granted only certain powers, nothing more, nothing less! If the power was not lawfully stated, then none exists!! . . . (the nations constitution) is not a ‘living Constitution’, but a Mandated restriction on your actions, duties and obligations, and does not evolve to new standards by one’s opinions and private beliefs! No more than a recipe for a cookie, once it’s changed then its no longer that specific cookie anymore but some(thing) new and totally different!”

Rodney points out three times a Bill of Particulars has been filed in this case and that none have been answered by the U.S. Attorney Sherry Scheel-Matteucci, James E. Seykora and that they have indeed been shelved, i.e. undocketed, denied, sealed, etc., in some manner by Judges James M. Burns and John C. Coughenour “to allegedly help out the U.S. Attorney, for private reasons I can only assume. . . . “Without waiving ‘speedy trial,’ I have been jailed without bond for over two and a half years, still not knowing the nature and cause of the accusations and it now appears to be an open conspiracy between not only the judges and US Attorneys by even the Fired court appointed attorney to hide these simple facts, . . . where I nor the other freemen have never been answered lawfully yet, and would show that to date access to court has been inadequate, ineffective and meaningless. . . .

“Therefore, being that these judges and attorneys are of ‘your’ brotherhood i.e. ‘Bar’, then it is your duty to correct their mistakes without delay, in the interest of justice! Or is it that you all are in on this conspiracy? Surely not, . . .” Therefore, by this Writ of Supervisory Control, by this de jure per curiam, you are hereby commanded to order the/your United States District Court, District of Montana, Billings Division, in relation to the above cited cases to answer the Amicus Curiae in full, within three days of this ‘good faith’ presentment, or dismiss all charges with prejudice, release all Justices’ and other good and lawful People of Justus township, and return all property within three days. Non-negotiable!

“If they do answer, you will also fully review their answer, per your duty to honor and obey the Constitution first, then only those laws past pursuant to it!! As well as to review all other presentments, in the interest of justice, at our Original and Exclusive Jurisdiction and Venue.”

When there are results from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the American’s Bulletin will be notified ASAP. Thank you Robert for your support in all of this.

Nov. 18, 1998 A.D. - The anti-American newspapers in Montana, the Bozeman Chronicle and Billings Gazette, driven by hatred of American traditional values in common law customs and usages as well as lust for money, recently reported that a juror in the "retrial" of the "Freemen" had sent a note to the judge regarding fears of reprisals from the "Freemen" if he voted to convict them. This suggests his disqualification as a juror and is in violation of the jurors oath not to render verdicts for fear or favor.

This was a also a problem with the jury during the previous sham-trial against the "Freemen" in which the jury had rendered verdicts for fear of reprisals from the anti-American foreign corporate government employees in Billings, judge Coughenour in particular. This has been documented on the FIGJA website and remains un-reported by the controlled- media.

However, the testimony from the previous jury foreman, James Coates clearly demonstrates this judicial crises in America that has been exposed by FIGJA and other justice advocates nation-wide though ignored by the anti-American controlled-media puppets like the Bozeman Chronicle and the Billings Gazette who continue to report the anti-American foreign corporate government side of the "Freemen" story.

The jurors who had indicated fearful positions in both "trials" should have been removed or should have indicated that they could not serve as jurors due to fear or tampering. This remains evidence for mistrial and judicial partiality considering this and all the other open and notorious prejudicial courtroom activities in Billings.

The judge should have removed this juror in the recent deliberation, but failed to do so, indicating his partiality in allowing an incompetent juror to continue deliberating. The judge had also allowed a juror to remain in deliberations during the first sham-trial who had been tampered with by a relative who claimed threats had been made by "Freemen" supporters.

But this and other prejudicial acts continues to build evidence that supports the contention the the anti-American foreign corporate agents in Billings are there to cover up their crimes and keep the "Freemen" and their story locked away at all costs, even by committing more crimes if necessary.

Meanwhile, the anti-American controlled-media puppets still continue their defamatory media-trial scam on the public by constantly repeating catch-phrases attributed to the "Freemen" such as "driven by hatred of the government". They never seem to clarify just who "the government" is, but they give the false impression that it is the government of, by and for The People, such as that created under the system of American common law customs and usages by the "Freemen" called Justus Township, customs and usages hated by the anti-American foreign corporate government and routinely defamed by their controlled-media puppets. -Elder

At this time, it has been reported that expert witness Hartford VanDyke was allowed to take the stand, but the jury was removed from the courtroom and Hartford was told what he may say in front of the jury. So much for his oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. When the jury returned, Hartford was asked a question and replied that he couldn't answer the question, that the judge had threatened him. Hartford was removed from the courtroom by marshalls...right in front of the jury. It may be that the judge has really blown this "trial" due to this blatant judicial prejudice, as it has been reported that the judge has toned down considerably. Maybe he got a call from the corporate bosses that he has botched this case for U.S., Inc., et al. On a side note, the Billings Gazette has reportedly referred to Hartford in a defamatory manner in reference to his comment in court, and Hartford has filed a mechanics lien on Billings Gazette. And now Hartford has been reported to be publishing reports using the Billings Gazette name. Maybe we may publish some of those here soon. -Elder

FEDERAL PRISONERS INJECTED WITH AIDS BY BUREAU OF PRISONS MEDICAL STAFF

From: Williams Institute

Greetings from Swiss exile!

Tonight, Halloween Night, 31 October 1998, I decided to resend letter I wrote on 13 April 1996, because someone told me they didn't recall reading it on my political web site and suggested that the US government probably removed it, like so many other items, again. Here is is, for your education and enlightenment:

Date: Sat, Apr 13, 1996, 1:49 PM

Greetings from Swiss exile.

I'm writing to tell you something I think you need to know.

When I was a political prisoner incarcerated in the Metropolitan Correctional Center (appropriately nicknamed the "Warehouse of Death") on Van Buren Street in Chicago, they were bribing the most ignorant prisoners to allow themselves to be injected with an "experimental AIDS vaccine", which I was informed by certain guards and others was actually the AIDS virus. The bribes? An extra portion of rice on their tray. And extra few minutes in the visiting room. Yes, that's the kind of "bribes" they received.

SEVERAL times, they called me down to the "medical" department, which consisted of a bunch of little filipino quacks. The TOLD me (as opposed to "asked" me) that they were going to inject me with the experimental AIDS vaccine. At that point, I would kick their little asses all over the room, they would call the good squad, who would kick MY ass all over the room and then remove me from the "medical" department. I suppose they were just too stupid to think about having the guards hold me down while they injected their poison.

They did this so many times that I finally worked out a system. Whenever they would call my name for the medical department, my inmate friend, Sam Paiz, would call my friend, Michael Cross, at this home in Indianapolis, and Michael Cross would call my court-appointed attorney, William J. Stevens, to tell him to contact the prison to demand that they not inject me with anything.

Then, Sam would call my wife, who would also call Stevens.

Then Sam would call Peter Sayer, who was with the Hare Krishna community in Chicago, and he would also call Stevens, or go to his office with a band of Hare Krishna devotees, if necessary. As funny as this may sound, I must say that the Hare Krishnas were the ONLY religious organisation that helped me at all during my imprisonment. Peter Sayer even got on my official visiting list, and visited me when no one else would.

Sam would call a whole list of people, who would instantly call Stevens and put extreme pressure on him. That, combined with the boxing abilities I learnt from my prizefighter grandfather, Bernard Boren, and perhaps some help from above, prevented me from ever being injected with their so-called "AIDS vaccine" or the AIDS virus, of whatever else it might have been.

You have probably heard about the Indian guru, Sri Rajneesh, who died of AIDS soon after being released from his very brief stay in a U.S. federal prison. Upon arriving in his native India, he very loudly and publically announced that he had been injected with the AIDS virus while in federal prison.

I have just read some very disturbing reports about the treatment Freeman LeRoy Schweitzer is receiving in prison, which bring this all to mind. I do not wish to upset the Schweitzer family; I only want to tell the truth, which can be verified with the people I have mentioned here. I will leave it up to your discretion whether or not to inform the Schweitzer family about this. If they haven't already done this to Mr. Schweizter, he should really be on his guard, in case they try. I'm very, very sorry to have to tell you about this, but I feel it is my duty.

We must expose these things to the whole world.

Sadly,
Michael Boren Williams

Celtic Button The Michael Williams Story

Reports from Dave

Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 16:30:11 -0700

Prosecution began it's case yesterday against 10 of the Montana Freemen. The Federal government is attempting to prove that some of the Freemen robbed television news crews on a Freemen ranch and that all the 'defendants' participated in a "bogus check scheme".

Judge Coughenhour warned defendant J.P. McGuire that McGuire's bail might be revoked for sending written material to witnesses. McGuire, Cherlyn Petersen and Agnes Stanton are the only defendants attending the trial, as the remaining 7 are incarcerated in Seattle.

Today (Thursday) Ebert Stanton testified to the details of what the prosecution is calling "a robbery" of the television news crew. Defendant McGuire carried firearms during a time when McGuire was a fugitive from Federal authorities, said Stanton. Ebert Stanton also testified that LeRoy Schweitzer gave law classes to those who would attend.

It will be remembered that Ebert Stanton was released last year from custody after a deal was struck in which he would testify against his fellow Freemen. He is the son of Agnes and William Stanton. William Stanton is serving a 10-year sentence in Montana for 'Criminal Syndicalism' in connection with the Freemen.

William David, Junior., Sullivan
Bozeman, Montana state

+ + + + + + +

Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 20:49:47 -0700

The second trial for 10 Montana Freemen began Monday, October 26th . Only 3 of the 'defendants' are present in the Billings courtroom. The other 7 are being held in Seattle and refused to give the court jurisdiction. Local media is reporting that Judge Coughenhour has said he won't "force them into court if they won't go". William David, Junior., Sullivan
Bozeman, Montana state

 

[Author unknown. -Elder]

THEY TRUSTED THE COURTS TO BE UNCORRUPTED

You won’t see the following article in any newspaper belonging to the national media; and even sadder than that is that no one has mentioned it at all in the alternative media. As we fight a world court that would have the power to violate our “constitutional” rights, we do not take notice of those same violations in our own courts. In the case of the “Montana Freemen” the extremes of the violations are beyond belief. For the “Montana Freemen” a lot of you put your efforts into insuring a safe end to the stand off. Once the arrests were made, you slept well “knowing” that they were going to get a day in court. Then after two years of sitting in jail these men “refused” that day in court, and your anger rose to a fever pitch. Your sentiments echoed through the land. Then in a conversation an admirable young man made this statement, to wit:

“The Militia’s stated their goal of a ‘day in court’ for the Freemen and then after the arrests did nothing to insure that it happened.”

In defense of no one:

1. In the Fall of 1993, Justus township government was formed.

2. In 1993, access to the United States Federal District Courts was denied the Freemen via court order under Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11, “sanctions” requiring judicial approval before documents are filed. 3. In December of 1994, Federal Grand Jury Indictments were issued with warrants against the Freemen, based on NO criminal complaint.

4. The FBI then opened an investigation, after the fact, which continued for fifteen months culminating into a stand off for the creation of which the “Montana Freemen” were blamed.

5. The media have reported well the issue of courtroom antics, leaving out the fact that these men could not have access to the court due to the issued “sanctions”.

6. A look at the court docket of over 300 pages, a cost over $150.00, would give you the opportunity to notice that of the over 200 documents written for the court, not all are recorded as filed, of those that are filed they are sealed or summarily denied as “sanctionable” documents.

7. If you have prepared documents on behalf of those who are in jail, regardless of your background, i.e. lawyer, paralegal, concerned citizen, you documents are treated with the same RCP Rule 11 parameters. And now in our own country, on our own soil, “We the People” are looking at the “Montana Freemen” and saying, “You should have gone into court to tell your side of the story.” My voice will never be among those voices. It has been my distinct displeasure to learn of these things in the harshest of circumstances. For those of you who showed up at the stand off, my hat was off. For those of you, who supported with letters, prayers, and other efforts during the interim my hat was off. But know this, you are the ones who did not find out for yourselves what was wrong. You are those who called and said “So if this is the Freedom Center, why are they still in jail.” But you did nothing to learn this on you own.

You did; however, have an effect on me. The answers that I found scared the “H _ _ _” out of me. As patriots talked of the coming World Court and its effect on the people of the United States of America, I was watching Judges Anderson, Burns, Coughenour, and Shanstrom do exactly those things to the “Montana Freemen”.

Media coverage was curtailed early in the series of trials, because the “Montana Freemen” did not bring their “antics” to the courtroom for the world to see. Instead they were behind closed steel doors, encased in concrete walls, being dragged to a TV viewing room. They were not visible to the jury as it appeared could be the case by the placement of TV’s in the courtroom. Those who could see the “Montana Freemen” were the witnesses, Judge, and lawyers at the podium. Remote justice is alive and successful in the United States of America, NOW!!

After the major media left, Judge Coughenour stated that he did not have the jurisdiction to require the presence of the “Montana Freemen” in his courtroom. The “Montana Freemen” had stated that his court lacked jurisdiction every time they entered the courtroom. After so stating, each time they were ejected from the courtroom, bound and gagged, or otherwise restrained. These things happened in pretrial hearings, so how could the actual trial be different. Their story was not allowed in filings, in court hearings, in the media. No books were written without offering the government side of the story equal space. The government record was not a part of any written story. After much regret for not having stood forward earlier during the exciting and seemingly effective stage of the opposition to the governments over zealous actions, I now share no remorse for not having been there. The long term effects of those short-term efforts will affect for generations my children and yours. The “Feudal Lords” of England have found their way to America.

The time is now and the time is short, very short. “I regret that I have but One Life to give in the defense of Freedom, Justice for all, and the furthering of the Kingdom of Yahweh on earth. I would that I could move mountains of people to understand that they are in a prison of their own making, locking the doors on themselves, trusting the educated to be humble, charitable, and understanding. But alas, no so. I am alone. My fellows are in jails across this land. Their families are confused and lost. The unthinkable has happened. The people of America have given the enemy the bonds with which their bondage is complete. If you would be free, fight. If you would have free children, die teaching them to fight. If you would have a free nation, find fighters to fight with. Trust in Yahshua’s glory and power and might to assist you in this battle. My life is blessed by those whose steps have been directed. Yahshua be praised, His voice is still heard in this world by more than a few. May the sons and daughters of the Revolutionary War Veterans join together in the battle of their forefathers to restore to us the things they gave us and those between us lost.” And those who swore an oath to the Constitution have not read it with understanding, nor have they cared to do so.

There but for the grace of God, Yahweh, go I.

Mail Tampering Letter Response To Len

The following letter was recevied in response to a letter I had sent to Warden Perrill in SeaTac a few weeks ago. My letter expressed concerns with mail handling (tampering), phone calls, visits, the inability to getting non-prescription reading glasses to LeRoy, as well as the Schweitzer family concerns should an untimely death occur.

Along with the Warden's letter were fifty or more pages of prison regulations containing confusion and ambiquity of confusing intent. Without going into detail the category of death is designated "Escape/death." This peculiar heading could well allow death to occur under the pretense of an alleged escape.

Just this evening I received word that LeRoy's son Graig was allowed to visit his father. I have no details of the visit. I understand it took two days to arrange the visit. LeRoy remains in solitary. I am not sure the Warden's letter is correct concerning recreation.

The following is the Warden's letter:

U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons

Federal Detention Center P.O. Box 68955 Seattle, Washington 9816-0955

September 30, 1998

Leonard Joseph Schweitzer
c/o 3272 Susileen Drive
Reno
Nevada republic

Re: Schweitzer, LeRoy Register No.02144-046

Dear Mr. Schweitzer:

I received your letter which expressed concern regarding treatment of your brother LeRoy Schweitzer, while he is incarcerated at the Federal Detention Center in SeaTac, Washington (FDC SeaTac). I am writing to respond to the issues raised in your letter.

Mr. Schweitzer receives the basic necessities afforded to all inmates at FDC SeaTac, such as food, clothing, showers, recreation, and necessary medical care. Mr. Schweitzer receives regular examinations from Health Services staff. Unfortunately, he has refused to sign the required forms that would afford him additional privileges, such as social telephone calls, social visits, and placement in general population.

Attached are the Bureau of Prisons Program Statements which correspond to the issues raised in your letter. Briefly stated, any inmate, including a pretrial detainee, who refuses to sign the necessary intake screening forms will not be placed in general population. Mr. Schweitzer also refuses to complete the required paperwork needed to receive visiting and telephone privileges (attorney calls and visits are permitted) Furthermore, inmates cannot receive non-prescription eyeglasses from outside sources, such as family members. Inmate Schweitzer can request prescription glasses from the Health Services Department.

Leonard Joseph Schweitzer
September 30, 1998
Page Two

Bureau of Prisons policy permits inmates to send and receive legal and general correspondence regardless of whether or not they sign the correspondence form. It came to my attention that your brother's mail was being returned by Mail Room staff. This inadvertent mistake should not have occurred, and has been corrected. I apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused.

I trust this letter is responsive to your concerns.

Sincerely,
A. Perrill Warden

Attachments:

Program Statement 5264.06, Telephone Regulations for Inmates
Program Statement 5265.10, Correspondence
Program Statement 5267.05, Visiting Regulations
Program Statement 5553.05, Escape/Death Notifications
Program Statement 6080.01, Autopsies

Letters From LeRoy

The Communications Story
and supporting affidavits

I know that this sounds Oh, so far-fetched!!!! But it is happening to all of you in one form or another. Letters have been returned to the maker marked “RETURN TO SENDER X INMATE REFUSED” and a sticker on the back that says, “THIS INMATE HAS OPTED NOT TO RECEIVE ANY GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE BY NOT PROPERLY SIGNING HIS/HER NAME ON THE APPROPRIATE FORM. THE CORRESPONDENCE IS BEING RETURNED TO THE SENDER FOR DISPOSITION.”. Your loved ones are so frustrated by these events. Some have given, abandoned all hope of communications, and others write all the time hoping that just one letter will get through. It is a two way street and when the middle of the road is a chasm - faith is the only course of action for both. Your loved ones have asked me to express their love for you, and to let you know that they are writing and trying to communicate in these difficult times. Be prayerful that Yahweh will bring both sides the peace of mind and necessary communications of the heart that will carry everyone through to the end of this tortuous part of the journey. Remember also, “Where much is given, much is required.” and no one is strong alone, only in Yahweh are we strong enough for the ‘road least traveled’ and this is that road. Telephone complaint lodge the week of August 24th, 1998 On the twentieth day of the eighth month nineteen hundred ninety eight, a letter sent by me, Kristin Richard, on August 11th, was returned stamped X INMATE REFUSED, this piece of mail had been opened at some point before being returned to me, Mail Tampering/Fraud I think. I noted, it had been opened and taped shut again. Further, evidence suggests that the personnel at the institution opened the mail. Said evidence is a postal mark dated 14 Aug 1998 on the tape itself not the envelope. The post mark on the envelope having been covered by the tape, further suggests that it did not happen before being posted from Billings.

teste meipso this seventeenth day of the ninth month, nineteen hundred ninety-eight,
anno Domini
Kristin T. Richard
secretary, clerk pro tem
Justus Township, Montana state
our peculiar jurisdiction

+ + + + + + +

UNITED STATES POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE
SEATTLE DIVISION
September 15, 1998

(to the misnomer unknown corporate entity, inmate of an unknown corporate facility. Read on!!)

[CHRISTINE RICHARD]
[944 LORRAINE]
[BILLINGS, MT 59105-5323]

Dear Postal Customer:

The U.S. Postal Inspection Service is in receipt of your complaint concerning correspondence addressed to inmates at correctional institutions. The appropriate mail security regulations per the Administrative Support Manual, Section 274.96, are as follows:

“Authorized personnel of prisons, jails, or other correctional institutions, under lawful rules and regulations, may open, examine, and censor mail addressed to an inmate of the institution, if the inmate-addressee consents to receive his or her mail at the institution through the institutional authorities. If the inmate does not consent, the personnel may either deliver the inmate’s mail to the inmate unopened, or return it to the post office unopened, marked “refused”. An inmate may designate in writing an agent outside the institution to receive his or her mail, either through an authorized address of the agent if the mail is so addressed, or at the delivery post office serving the institution, if the mail is addressed to the inmate at the institution.” Correspondence from the inmates does not become U.S. mail until it comes into the actual custody and control of the Postal Service, either when given to a postal employee of when deposited into a receptacle authorized by the Postmaster General for the receipt of mail; (i.e. a street collection box, lobby drop in a U.S. post office, etc.). Therefore, unless items are considered actual mail matter as referenced above, the federal laws pertaining to the protection of mail matter do not apply.

You may wish to bring this problem to the attention of the authorities having administrative jurisdiction over the institution where you are confined.

Sincerely,
P. Sowers/for
Mark E Morse
Postal Inspector
P.O. Box 1029
Great Falls, MT 59403-1029
(406) 791-2581
Re: ISO622/147/8953190

+ + + + + + +

Received and Docketed
Date: September 24, 1998 Time: 9:00 am
Kristin T. Richard
Kristin T. Richard
Secretary Justices’ Court Clerk, pro tem... Billings

+ + + + + + +

Affiant LeRoy Michael
Justices’ Court
concurrent jurisdiction
district court in and for
Garfield County
country of Montana

+ + + + + + +

Justices’ Court
a peculiar jurisdiction

Affidavit of chief Justice LeRoy Michael:

As amanuensis, I, LeRoy Michael testify ex parte accusing the federal United States executive officers of willful, knowing obstruction of justice, mail tampering, mail fraud, mail theft, at their non-ceded sites, and further a purported Order was presented to me by a purported United States Marshal which is a fraud since its content said I must answer in fourteen days, yet the purported Order was presented nearly two months after that date had expired. This is fraud and the presentment was refused for fraud the same day of presentment. The purported Order was originated in a federal contract court in San Francisco, located in California Republic.

As chief Justice of our supreme Court in Common Law jus soli, jus sanguinis I cannot participate in a foederal treason plot fomented by executive officers in the executive branch of government in America. As elisor of our grand jure this Affidavit is a Presentment to be prosecuted in our exclusive jurisdiction beyond the scope of titles of nobility. Other Affidavits signed by me are a fortiori to this Affidavit. I write this Affidavit as kidnap victim in Federal Detention Center, SeaTac in Seattle, Washington state, on non-ceded property.

Since the sixteenth day of the sixth month until today, about the tenth day of the ninth month, in the year nineteen hundred ninety-eight, of eighteen letters mailed out by me only four arrived that I can account for today. Yet at all times I did warn the purported jailers about the felony crime concerning my private mail. As a direct result I am in “the hole”. My access to our Justices’ Court is blocked. My access to redress of grievance is blocked. I am damaged as a direct result. Damages now exceed one billion in Dollars of Gold minted Coin.

This Affidavit is true, correct, certain, served by elisor LeRoy Michael upon Justices’ Court via Kristin: Please send verification of receipt noting minute, hour, day, month, year and location. Yahshua is the Way. teste meipso this about tenth day of the ninth month, nineteen hundred ninety-eight, anno Domini.

Seal: per curiam

LeRoy Michael.
chief Justice
a peculiar treasure

Sioux Bead Belt GIF text divider

Letter From LeRoy To Len

This is the most recent letter I have received from LeRoy post marked Sept. 28,1998 and arrived here 10-2-98. The following is a transcription of his letter. (there were two illegible words in his letter) -Len

in answer to letter #145

Dear Brother Leonard Joseph:

Your letter arrived with re-print of Walter Schweitzer's wife and a copy of T.A.B. came in the same day with Roy Grisacker nine page presentment of no jurisdiction by USDC using title 18 crimes. All of this information has been served upon the traitors but they continue in the federal treason plot. It appears they have dismissed charges on Ralph Edwin without prejudice. If so, their fraud is over since any dismissal on one is good for all or it admits unequal access to justice, a no-no under their own fourteenth amendment.

R.D. said John Hallen from Sioux Falls South Dakota state can see the path to use Our Common Law Supreme Court for the district of Columbia a/k/a The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as Our Forum for Trial with Justices in matters of habeas corpus. Even an Amicus curiae presentment will do in that court by any private interventionist. That court was created under Our Constitution directly, not by acts of Congress. We must be given Our exclusive right of self-governing in that court. This is why I keep referring to My Order where the Justices' did Petition seven pages using the Common Law rules called District of Columbia Court Rules Annotated, 1999 ed. by Mitchie. That court must tax the costs proving it is Our judicial branch of government rather than the executive branch of government. I told K.R. to get word out to all Our Justices' to file for record in that court. The sessions can be held in any county court house in America. Our clerk merely verifies Our record to the district of Columbia to complete Our circuit. It is the same as verifying a county commission meeting. It is Our Court of first and last resort, the highest court of a State. It is not a federal circuit. Our national court must recognize State Sovereignty. We are not United States citizens using this court.

In T.A.B. an ad appeared by someone using the district court of the United States for habeas corpus rather than United States District Court. If they could get a three Justice panel set who do not receive a State or federal salary, they would have a pure Common Law court. We would also do it that way but our Common Law rules are hidden in the several States. Since the D.C. court is defined as the highest court of a State we opted to use these rules. The Common Law effect is the same. I don't think anyone on the outside sees clearly our path. Yet the system is terrified in district of Columbia about these truths having been discovered and not put into use. We have exercised our exclusive jurisdiction. Our writ of general supervisory control will compel all inferior tribunals to obey Our Justices' Courts. Our Justices' Courts are similar to a district court in and for the county and superior if We take the jurisdiction first. Our Common Law then becomes the rule of decision. The probate court judge is bound to recognize our peculiar jurisdiction. T.T.C. is partially on track in this area.

Robert Kelly of T.A.B. sent enclosure letter from Ron Grisacker in Kansas state which explains the fraud where title 18, U.S.C. does not apply except in the ten square miles of the district of Columbia and its possessions. It cannot be used against Our People at large in each of the several (sovereign) States. By cross referencing the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations it is proven no jurisdiction exists against us. A massive federal treason plot. This is why they are going back to the proper abbreviations for the several (sovereign) States such as Nev. for Nevada rather than NV.

T.A.B. September issue had an article about the "Buck Act" states which reveals the fraud about federal regions such as MT, AZ, TX, WY, etc. This is all being changed from the inside and no-one is being told about it in the news-media. But it does confirm We are correct in Our Lawful stand in Justice township as Our tything. The law of Moses never went away, it merely was left lying dormant in America the past one hundred years or so.

K.R. sent a letter with enclosure of newspaper article but the jailers stole the article. It is common here at SeaTac. They believe the liens don't work. If so, why did Gallatin county acknowledge the recent recording on My liens? Even after a so-called anti-lien law was passed. There is much to be learned here.

D.E. said he put in ten "cojeouts" (not legible) as a request for his reading glasses and so far all were ignored. The primary intent here is to deny all right to redress and aid and abet the federal defenders to gain a conviction in their C.E.O. meeting.

Question: When did public policy become law in the several States? Or, is the Uniform Commercial Code a Law? If so, who enacted it?

The federal corporation cannot answer these truths as we exposed their fraud nation-wide. Their fraud contract tribunals are on sinking sand. Venue is the key. And Yahshya is Our Venue. The narrow path is full of truth and hardly crowded at all.

Did you receive my answer to the "Light" article? It could have gone into many more pages but still the blind cannot see. Remedy is not in the corporation courts. All paths lead to Venue which is exclusive to our Justices' of peace who are not paid a State nor federal salary. The appellate court justices do not have exclusion jurisdiction. Only the principle (People) exercise exclusive jurisdiction. Chapter 38 of Magna Charta proves this point in Law. Our habeas corpus must come from Our State. The corporation title 8 U.S.C. on aliens proves it if our voluntary deportation Order is denied in any district court of the United States. Venue is the key. So the Eleventh amendment is Our bar against aliens.

As your know from reading court transcripts the federal judge is called "The Court" whenever he speaks in that forum. He is also paid a salary by the executive branch of government. This means it is an executive court. If the federal judge would be called "The Court" in our juridical branch of government he would be the accuser since he represent the United States of America and they are listed as the Plaintiff against us. This would be treason. Further, if he was the Court why did he not appear before the so-called grand-jury? Or they did not appear before the "Court"? Do you see the bastardization here? Both forums are repugnant to Our Constitution. This is why we do not grant Venue to a federal forum. And Our Eleventh amendment guarantees this separation. In the fraudulent federal court trial today, the plaintiff never speaks since there is none. That is why they say ---"anything you say can and will be used against you." If you answer their pleadings it is a presumptive joinder. So our remedy is by "independent action" in our court of first and last resort -- the highest court of a State. The national circuit must honor a habeas corpus proceeding verified at a county commissioner's meeting! It becomes real evidence in our exclusive jurisdiction under Seal by our judicial branch of government. It is a State habeas corpus, causing the national circuit to honor it. A writ of general supervisory control would then be the document to aid the appellate jurisdiction. It controls all inferior tribunals. Only our exclusive jurisdiction can issue this writ. An old Montana justice verified this to me.

In 1993, the Montana Code Annotated at 3-1-1501 had "Courts of Limited Jurisdiction" also called Supreme Court Rule 1. It explained our supreme Court in each respective county where the clerk and recorder is the Supreme Court clerk. After We exposed this truth, that Supreme Court Rule 1 was pulled out of the corporation copy-righted codes. Treason.

These are some of the reasons your blood brother cannot testify in the corporation tribunals. Have you ever wondered where the "reserved chapters" are hidden?

Why don't fifty of you You go to a county commissions' meeting and subpoena these "reserved chapters"? Would the codes then become retracted? Do publish this letter. Edit out irrelevant parts. What did you do with the samples?

The aliens wanted me to willingly participate in their drug testing but I declined. So they hold their federal fraud jail court and you are found guilty. I suppose the punishment would be to throw you in jail. The mental quotient doesn't register on any human scale.

You missed a few letters where I explained We need Trial with Justices" in matters of habeas corpus filed for record in Superior Court for the district of Columbia. This "chose in action" supersedes all other inferior tribunals. It can come from any seat of government in any of the several States expressly not meaning the State capital. Any trespass whatsoever becomes a willful act of treason. Our highest court in America cannot be suspended by legislative assembly created tribunals. Our Justices' (jurors) then become the prosecutor. It would be a preliminary examination by Code words. Our Justices' are the State. Samples went to K.R. ph air (illegible) samples to others. per request.

We are receiving very little word from the sham proceedings in Billings. It was reported in T.B.A. some of the court appointed liaryers have not been paid and were entering motions to the sham court to be paid. So this proves our quo warranto for conflict of interest (a felony) since they accept pay. As the people of Posterity wake up it will soon be dangerous to be a liaryer. A general cleansing will be on the land.

Stephen Ames, Jr. was kidnapped in Pennsylvania and is receiving similar treatment as was done to us. He was at the cabin to study a few years ago. It seems the liaryers did not like his exposť of their oath to Great Britain. Treason at all levels. Some of these truths just won't stay hidden any longer.

A report via K.R. said certain habeas corpus pleadings were entered but no news where or what was said in the cause. The current message in bill of particulars contains enough proof of fraud to last forever. You will notice it has never been answered. At what point in time does fraud become law? The willful part of treason is now on front burner. None will escape their own dragnet. The federal judge scam is too blatant. It doesn't wash.

The researchers have proven Our side of the court for American National character. Now we must prove Our initial right to Our three justice panel even in matters of habeas corpus. It means researching the rules even before the Civil War.

May Yahshua provide the Spirit where We realize Our Liberty in the commonweal.
The slumbering giant has stirred.

All praise the Name Yahweh as We regain our Justices' Courts on Our Nation, A Man!

in truth, Liberty and Justice,
your brother,
LeRoy Michael

This is the first posting during the coverage of the second "trial". -Elder

Speedy Trial Commentary

Montana Reports Annotated- Blakely and Hedges- August T- 1880

United States v. Fox
[ a case concerning the 'right of speedy trial']

Page 514 vol III 65 in part:

Whereupon the court of it's own motion made and caused to be entered of record the following order:

"By reason of the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that all United States cases should be continued for this March term of court, and United States grand and trial jurors summoned for the term are hereby notified that their services will not be required."

Thereupon the defendant, after the adjournment of the said March term of court, made application to the judge of said court for his discharge from imprisonment upon habeas corpus, which was denied and he appeals to this court.

The ground upon which the petitioner bases his right to discharge from imprisonment is that at the said March term of court he was ready for and demanded a trial upon said several indictments, and that the United States being a plaintiff in the cases, and charged with the duty of providing the necessary money therefore, and speedily prosecuting the same, failed, neglected and refused so to do at said March term, whereby the defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

1. Among the principles that adorn the common law, making it the pride of all English speaking people, and a lasting monument to the noble achievements of liberty over the encroachments of arbitrary power, are the following: No man can be rightfully imprisoned except on a charge of crime properly made in pursuance of the law of the land. No man, when so imprisoned upon a lawful charge presented in a lawful manner specifying the crime, can be arbitrarily held without a trial.

These principles are in accord with the enlightened spirit of the common law, and form a part of the framework of the English Constitution. They are guaranteed and secured by the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the Bill of rights, and by a long course of judicial decision, and they belong to us as part of our inheritance from the mother country. These rights were claimed by our ancestors in Colonial times, and they have been engrafted into and secured by our Constitution, the supreme law of the land, which, in article six of the amendments, provides:

Art.VI. " In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted by witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have assistance of counsel for his defense."

Within the meaning of this article of the Constitution what is a speedy trial?

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution the common law was in force in this country so far as applicable, and the terms used in that instrument ought to be construed with reference to their common law meaning.

Some idea of the term "speedy trial" at common law may be gathered from the fact that by that law, trial of all prisoners within a certain time, a patent in the nature of a letter is issued from the king to certain persons appointing them his justices, and authorizing them to deliver his jails. Bouv. Law Dic., title Gaol Delivery.

The jails are thus cleared and all offenders tried, punished or delivered twice in every year, 2 Blackst. Com., Book IV, 270, Shars. Ed. And so it is but a reasonable inference that, at common law, if the prosecution, by it's neglect and laches, fails to prosecute, and thereby detains a prisoner in jail, who ought but for such neglect to have been tried, such detention would be the denial of a speedy trail. By the common law the jails are cleared twice in each year in order to secure the prisoners therein confined on a speedy trial, and if by neglect of the prosecution to prepare for trial they are imprisoned for a longer period than the law contemplates, this would be the denial of a speedy trial.

Neither the Constitution nor any laws of congress, so far as I have been able to ascertain, fixes the time within which a person accused of a crime and imprisoned shall be tried. But both the constitution and the law contemplate that a trial shall be had, after the lapse of such time as, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, may be required to prepare for trial. The adjudications upon this subject are not numerous, but a resort to general principles and the spirit of the law renders the problem easy of solution.

The law guards with jealous care the rights of a person charged with crime, and with equal care the right of the people, as a matter of security and safety, to have crime punished. Every step in a criminal prosecution must be according to law. there must be an indictment found and presented by a lawful grand jury specifying the precise charge to be tried. The accused shall be provided with counsel either by himself or the government, and he shall have the process of the court to compel the attendance of his witnesses. He is to be afforded an opportunity to prepare for his trial before an impartial jury, and when thus provided with all the means to secure a fair trial, if he, by his neglect, fails or refuses to do so, he cannot have the same postponed or put over because he is not ready for trial.

And so on the other hand the law will not tolerate any neglect or laches on the part of the prosecution in bringing in a defendant to trial. Especially is this the case, and the principle applies with stronger force, if the person charged with a crime is in prison demanding a trail, and sufficient time has elapsed since the finding of the indictment, to enable the prosecution, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, to be ready for trial. A person charged with a crime, whether in prison or on bail, has the right to demand diligence on the part of the prosecution, to the end that he may speedily know whether he is to be convicted or acquitted.

A criminal case, like a civil case, may be continued from one term to another when it satisfactorily appears that the party asking for a continuance has used reasonable diligence to be prepared for trial, and has failed, but in the absence of reasonable diligence on the part of the party asking for a continuance, the opposite party may insist on a trial, even though such trial must necessarily result in the acquittal of the person charged with the crime. If the prosecution or the defendant are not ready for trial after the lapse of a reasonable amount of time in which to get ready, they must first relieve themselves from any neglect or laches before they can ask for a postponement of the trial.

The speedy trial, to which a person charged with crime is entitled under the Constitution, then is, a trial at such a time, after the finding of indictment, regard being had to the terms of the court, as shall afford the prosecution a reasonable opportunity, by a fair an honest exercise of reasonable diligence to prepare for trial; and if the trial is delayed or postponed beyond such period, when there is a term of court at which the trial might be had, by reason of neglect or laches of the prosecution in preparing for trial, such delay is denial to the defendant of his right to a speedy trial.

In Ex parte Stanley, 4 Nev. 116, the court,[.......etc]
In the case of Klock v The People, 2 Park. 676, [.....etc]
The prayer of petition is granted and the petitioner discharged from imprisonment.

[end quotation]

+ + + + + + +

The foregoing was written by Chief Justice: Hon. Decius S. Wade, appointed March 17, 1871.

Although this case law is not our Common Law, it is refreshing to see so much Common Law interwoven through this case. The length of time required to violate the speedy trial concept is not written down, proving that true

Common Law is unwritten law. The Montana Constitution 1972 states in Article II section 24 that 'Speedy trial' is codified in 46-14-214. But 46-14-214 is concerning proceeding of the mentally incompetent and has nothing to do with 'speedy trial.

I say that six months in jail without a trial is a violation of the spirit of the Law. the creeps have removed the power of the jury in all matters, so the fact that no statute defines what would violate the 'speedy trial' concept is a very, very bad thing. The answer is to restore the 'full power' jury.

Therefore, I dedicate this research to the incarcerated Montana Freemen, all of whom were jailed for two years without arraignment, bail bond or trial. The U.S. 'Grand Jury' that supposedly indicted them was bogus and no charges were filed against these men at the time of their arrest in March of 1996 (I went to the U.S. Atty and looked for myself).

The Freemen are well versed in Law and code, this fact is not disputed by anyone. Yet the U.S./State government violated every principle of Law and most principles of their own codes in an effort to squelch the Common Law movement. The effort put forth by the government was nothing short of war. The Freemen had to be smashed before they got the word out.

But you all know this, right? So what can we do before the creeps get to us?

Dave- Bozeman

 

Range Guide Email GIF image