|0.00|> and that we should file actions to set aside that copyright.<|4.00|><|4.00|> But the first problem we had was to face the contempt charge,<|8.00|><|8.00|> because the Eckers had signed a contempt charge.<|12.00|><|12.00|> Now there's been discussion about common law, amnesty courts, other courts, and the validity of that contract,<|17.00|><|17.00|> but there is one overriding thing that I mentioned to Eustace the other day,<|21.00|><|21.00|> and first of all I believe that Eustace and myself and Bob and I are going to get along super, super well.<|26.00|><|26.00|> But I said, Eustace, don't forget one fact.<|30.00|><|30.00|> Whether it's common law or abnormal law or whatever, the Eckers did sign a contract with USMP. That contract is given the highest right under the Constitution.

The Eckers are bound by that contract. We can file actions afterwards to attack the validity of the contract because USMP made certain statements in their settlement agreement that were not true. They claimed that they had a valid copyright. They do not have a valid copyright. Based upon that, and you can ignore the provision to say that the Eckers cannot attack this agreement by any way whatsoever. If it is found that any part of their representations that you relied upon to sign that contract are not valid, then you can attack that and you can get stay orders and other orders. That would be fraud. Pardon? Is that fraud?

Essentially. It's, that is fraud in the inducement as opposed to fraud and effectum. Fraud and inducement means that there's representations made fraudulently to induce them to enter into the contract. All right. That will be done in a separate action. First of all, we have to get you out of the contempt action, get you out where you do not spend any time in jail. And I'm very, very worried that something has to be followed up, some more information has to be given to the judge to rebut this latest thing by Buchanan. That should be responded to. We don't want Doris or the commander in jail. We need them both right here. Yes, Bob, it is. Stipulation for entry of permanent injunction, yes. Nobody's talking out of turn. We're studying ways and approaches.

I envision that in the next several months, that this organization is going to know more about David Miller's work, David Miller's potential, and the viability of it, more than David Miller knows. And we will be able to perfect it beyond anything David Miller has ever dreamed. But it's going to take some time to do that. You want to say something, Bob? Yeah, he does want to say something. The fact is that the front of this document is a fraud. And once a fraud, always a fraud, and can't be continued in court. And that's what should be challenged. Just the front of the document, regardless of the rest of the document.

Now, yes, it does reach. That's the David Miller stuff that you're talking about. Now, yes, it means that there has to be a crash course in understanding David Miller and his procedure. But I am fully in favor of David Miller to correct this situation. I don't mean to disagree. There is a common law thing that I can submit to Bob James right now. There is a thing in common law that if one person has to go to jail, another person can take that person's place and serve the time. Do I recognize that Bob James is advancing the position that if we pursue the common person's approach, and Doris is ordered to jail for a week, that Bob James will volunteer and will serve her time under the common law?

That is viable, Bob. It's viable, but we're not going to do that unless we acknowledge it in the law. So let's not pursue the action until we know what we're doing. Let me ask a question. If that document is fraudulent. If the document, which is titled what, the injunction? Well, yes. Now, this is, what Bob is giving is merely the stipulation to enter the judgment. It is not, it may have the judgment attached to it. Now the stipulation agreement has attached to it the stipulation for the entry of the judgment.

Okay, if that document is fraudulent on its face. Fraudulent under mail fraud. On its face. What is the legal recourse we have? Absolutely none with this action. OK, Bob shaking his head. No. So obviously that has to be that discrepancy has to be cleared up. Well, the reason I'm shaking my head now is because I've been through the case five times or one set and two times on the other. And the guy is what he's saying is true. Now, true, we're not up to speed what he's doing. But the checking further, as I say, the E.J. and Doris with Wayne, the guy who turned me on to this information. He has been with David Miller. He has verified what he's done. He has verified what he's done in the courts. And the case numbers are on those documents. All we have to do is check out those documents to show the validity of what the man is doing. Until we educate ourselves. OK. OK.

Oh, I don't have any disagreement with Bob on that. That's that's that's what I'm suggesting, too. But the most immediate cause, you're saying, is proceeding with the standard. Get a lawyer, get him restrained. No, no, no. The actors have done a good job. I guess I was on the NCA part of it. Oh, you switch things on me. He switched back. We switched and he switched back. Yes. And still holding the mail fraud and the uppercase non-vegear and all of that stuff for another thing. But immediately, because it looks like you can get a satisfactory judgment within the system just because of the evidence and the documentation and the deposition. And the fact that we jumped on top of everything very quickly and got everything all wrapped up.

The office is secure, it's not threatened anymore, and we want to bring these guys into a judicial court and squash them. Do they have attorneys yet? No, and from everything I can see, they can't afford an attorney. It occurred to me, wouldn't it be funny if they connected with Green and Brigade? Funny isn't it? And they already know that. They already have that connection. They already do? Sure.

When you go after Cort, you're going to have to go where you know you can hurt him. Question commander. Question for Gene. Question for Gene. Yes, go ahead. Yeah, a letter from Buchanan Company responding to this matter that we went to in Fresno a week or so ago. Should that be responded to? Do you have a strategy? Have you already talked about it and I missed it or something?

Yes, I've suggested that. I've talked with my, with our attorneys about it, and we have put together a response yet. Could we hear about that? I don't have that response with me. I gave it to E.J. the other day. But basically it responds to what we anticipated to be the response that's going to be filed by Buchanan. It's basically, Judge, we don't we don't think you understood our position in court the other day. So it clarifies that a little bit more. And it goes in to explain more of the work of the monitors. But more the blame on the monitors. The fact that the actors never had any of the material. OK. And the commander has a real thing about being monitored or censored? No, I don't have anything.

I have no objection to be monitored or censored. I do have an objection for these people who are not in any way connected to the monitoring system to go into court and try to testify to what appears in all essence to be untrue. And I don't like exaggerations. Claudia was going to have to go in there and say she'd removed some 50 things. I have never written anything that I would mind having in that paper because I don't mind an honest confrontation. And when things are taken out, then I can't have that public information to pull from. You don't seem to understand that I very often do things deliberately to get you into trouble so that you have to confront these things.

And it's a little bit like Dorma censoring what I have to say. Is she going to be my secretary? I will always protect her. And the only way that I could protect her, quite frankly, from you guys is to not let her practice up on any kind of, oh well, it's all monitored. She doesn't know. And right here in the agreement requires that all information be destroyed, taken away from her. All she has to do is say, I did not copy, I have nothing from which to copy. You made me give it all away. I don't know what they do over there. So I could send her, you know, to 13 years of rehearsals. We don't have to deal with, I'm sorry I'm going to say it, because immediately Seymour got up and he said, and this monitoring system, this is silly, you know, or words to that effect, this is a cover, this is a sham. And the judge threw it out as a sham. He was not going to let anyone further talk about it. He said this is a case that states contempt of myself, the judge, God. And I don't care about your monitoring systems. I don't care about any of this stuff. And I mean it was out. It was out and by golly it was not going to come up again.

And every time you tried to bring it up, it was squashed right there. And then when it came time to have witnesses, he wasn't going to have any witnesses. We're going to talk about a monitoring system. None. Absolutely none. And as Mr. Eckers said, well, sir, I have four witnesses here. Dr. Young is here. And what is he going to tell me? Is he going to give me this bullshit about monitoring systems? Or is he going to tell me that he is a scientist? We're talking about contempt of my injunction.

Well, boy, this is overwhelming. And I quite personally think they did pretty well under the circumstances because, boy, the whole case was thrown out in that first five minutes. I'll make a suggestion. In the injunction, Gene, can you find number two on page two? I think I'm probably looking at that right now, E.J. I was preparing to respond to the commander and that's the page I turn right to. Okay. Everybody listening, this is very important and if it's okay with you I'll read number three right after that. Sir. Two, the Eckers agree not to copy, paraphrase, excerpt or otherwise duplicate the University of Science and Philosophy. That's number two. All set up all by itself.

Yes. No relationship to number one, number two, or number three. No. Totally incorrect. Came right out of the injunction. When you're looking at contempt, D.J., you look at substantial performance of all the conditions imposed upon you by the judge. Substantial performance of all of the conditions, not just one condition. And you had a great number of conditions imposed upon you. Endorse. See, that's where we have a big conflict. Number three, the Eckers agreed to refrain from any aspect of the commercial distribution in our commercial use of any copies and it goes on names the copy.

But those are our books. And so are the books of number one. Those are our books. How many of you do have their books? Commercial applies to their books. Copy applies to us copying their stuff. It's a clear distinction. No, I don't. I don't agree with you, E.J. As you read this entire thing, it is a complete package. All the judges' conditions are in here. Your defense is that you substantially complied with the permanent injunction. You more than substantially complied. That's why you had excerpts from the contact showing that you published the article that had to be published, the so-called disclaimer. had your declarations where you did the things you notified the agents of of contact not to do all these things. So you had to be there and explain to the judge. Wait a minute, your honor.

I think I think you've forgotten what the total permanent injunction was. And then you go through and you enlighten him. Now. So that just leaves this literally mean item. And that's when you you bring in the work of Bruce Tracy and other people like that. But the only thing we don't care what he wanted to talk about. E.J. It was up to you. He's he's. Sure. Sure. You have to be able to turn the judge into your strong field. It's not what the hell he wants to talk about. We know what he wants to talk about. He wants to find you in contempt about it. You're in a contempt proceeding. You have a great deal of latitude in a contempt proceeding. Tremendous latitude. You can damn near call him anything you want when you're about to be sentenced for contempt. You're allowed to get any...

You're sentenced for contempt anyway. Yeah. You might as well tell some contempt. Big deal. I want... Exactly right. Dorva is telling me that she wants Gene to substitute in because he's already been there. And it doesn't seem to bother him as much as it does her. Commander, see, it's not going to get any different when we go in common law because you've got to be willing to... The judge isn't going to...

Every judge is not going to willingly let you walk in and take over and be there under common law without trying to throw some flack in the way. And if you think that you just have to listen to what he says, you're going to have to take your ground because you've already taken it. And that's the uncomfortable part, is to get proficient enough at play-acting this game that we can play-act it even though we're shaking in our boots, which is the reason for rehearsal, the reason to get together and rehearse it over and over and over again. And even in admiralty law where they know everybody's lying, they spend a lot of time rehearsing the witnesses. Well, that's better said than I can say it, but that's exactly what it is. My heart actually went out to both of you guys.

I knew exactly what you guys read. For years you had been waiting the opportunity to get in there and confront a judge and be able to tell your stories, but I knew attorneys can't do that. That's why we have trial attorneys. People like myself, experienced trial attorneys who can confront the judge and can force the judge down. And I had to be able to train you people to do that, and you're almost veterans now. Everybody needs a vacation too. We all need vacations. Just remember, if they're in jail, they're not on paychecks either. Since we're looking for answers, I presume that several of you know that there is a very parallel action at this time with the spotlight, who is the mother of the IHR, as being motivated by the adversaries.

And I mention this because it's so parallel that it's ominous, and maybe you could profit from their experience if you question them. Well, they might be able to profit from the experience, but let's hope it didn't work out like this one did. Rick Weber is a primary, well, I don't know who was defending our original plaintiff, but Rick Weber is basically an ADL employee of a major, major scale. He is a typical Stephen Horn type of person. And Liberty Lobby is actually the mother of both Spotlight and that National Heritage Institute. So you are right in that it is exactly the same as far as it went. These people got themselves into positions where they could just take over. I wouldn't have been surprised if they're using Nevada corporate headquarters information that they couldn't have at some time just taken it over. I don't think they're smart enough to do that, but they certainly could have.

That's what happened with the National Heritage Institute, and I believe that Carto himself was charged with three million dollars or something. Was it for use of his own product? Yeah, charged with misappropriating six million dollars of his own money. Commander, let me get back on something. Let me make one further statement. And I hope to see it come to reality that in the event that we are proceed to continue a further action before Judge Coyle, and I hope we do, I hope that second action is to set aside the copyright, I think that that would be an ideal action for the common law methods that we learned from Chuck and Al Miller.

That's where we should step in with the common law approach right there. I don't think Eustace or Bob, and certainly not myself, is going to tell you at this time, in what I see as a perilous position before Judge Coyle, that we should all of a sudden substitute this common law procedures in there and hit him in the face with that. Judge Coyle is an outgoing judge who doesn't give a damn about anything. He has nobody looking over his shoulders.

He reacts just how his mood happens to hit him. And this is not the time to attack Judge Coyle with some new flag-waving common law procedure. Well, I think you missed my dissertation too. In Buchanan's law firm, see he's not even listed in the top. You've got an ex-judge in there who is one of Coyle's closest friends. So, you have a lot of strikes against you here. And I think that the judge foresees that it would be very disadvantageous to him to do too much because it pulls in the prosecution. He's got to supply an attorney because you know you can't represent yourself once it's criminal and this is terror time. Well, that's okay.

We don't mind a little terror now and then. We've had a little of that. On the other hand, we want to use every opportunity that we have to get this one resolved and properly resolved. So they have opened this can of worms. And you can turn right around then and go back in there and because of the indiscretions of the court, whatever you want to go back in and fight on, you should do it. You really should do it. And you should do it on a monetary basis and as you were saying, maybe that is when you come in and you bring down charges against each one of these prisons against your nation and your citizenship. These are the reasons we're in here. Let's find out what we have to work with and how far we're willing to go. When is it appropriate to do it? You certainly don't want to just go in there and whip out your little flag and hold it up there and say, I'm going to take yours, now you take yours down. This should bring laughter, you know, I mean even from the bench.

Only it wouldn't bring laughter from the bench. But you can begin to insert the procedural direction that you want to go. You don't flower up the statements. You don't have confusing ambiguities. even arguing on the basis of trying to make do all this other stuff when the charge is did she copy? And if she copied, did she willfully, intentionally, as they have claimed, do it to spite the judge? And nobody really addresses that. That's what the case is. He kept coming back.

This is why he was so irritated with Rick. He was going to have to go read all that material because Rick wasn't able to tell him what he wanted to hear. He wants it succinctly set down here where he doesn't have to think. And he needs an excuse to not Now, quantity of verbatim material. Who ever heard? You have the most absolutely absurd, the judge himself sat on the bench the first time you were in court and he said, who is Walter Russell? Never heard of him, never heard of USMP, and Methvin had never heard of him, never heard of USMP, and worse than that is representing someone and he had never even looked at the books. So you come in there with totally absurd and foolish case law to fight something you don't even know what your case is.

It's crazy. It's crazy. So you start not by irritating the court, but coming in and addressing succinctly, this, you say, your Honor, is the point. Did she copy? No, she didn't. Mr. Ecker, did you aid and abet her? No, I didn't. Well, how come Contact published it? I don't know. I don't have anything to do with Contact.

Doris and Hatton are not the same entities, and I don't even pretend to run Contact. That is foolish for you to consider this and to keep perpetrating this. Right off the bat, the judge was wrong. Well, I don't think you go in there and you insult the judge. And so your first injunction, if you remember, your honor was against George Green, but he wasn't there. So you nailed her. And it was the day Waco was burned out. And Doris did remind him of that. And he says, oh, I hadn't put that together, you know. Are you kidding? Who?

But he certainly did consider it now that it might look pretty bad for him. Well, they are calling you a cult. And a cult in Waco, Texas is burned out. So you're going to have to confront the facts. And the game can go on forever. I want to cause this one to subside so we can go back in there and really do a job on them and within their system. I don't want anybody going to jail either and don't even want to have to be burdened with the possibility of judgments that can't even be paid. We've done that. We've been there. And the whole thing is over money, they were going to have to lose it on December 1st.

And they were going to charge George Green and make him pay because they hadn't been able to get it from us. So George supplies them with all this documentation and information. There is not one mention of Russell. Mark Williams, Rick Weber, whatever you want to call him, already had months before that George Green had mailed this stuff all around. Well now how do you turn it around to the guilty parties? That's what we're about. So Commander, you're saying what you want to do, or what you want, you want to subdue it. Do you have a suggestion as to how it should be subdued?

Well we did this morning. We talked about it pretty carefully, I thought, and it appeared to be that if we just handled it, let's take it in the order that things are wrong with it. Well, okay, so you're talking about filing a countersuit. I would hope that if we can't subdue this one, that you're back in there with the counter suit where you have control as a plaintiff. So E.J. when you are shaking your head no, how are you talking about doing it this morning? Basically taking all of the points that they have used and answer them in perfect common law language. Put the prepositions in the right place. Withdraw what is superfluous, keep it to focus, and just list them right down the line. Bob? I'm not suggesting that you're facing a judge's decree on your violation of a court order.

Now, in retrospect, I have to say that the court order.