|0.00|> An overly broad court order which the judge can go ahead and render a decision on if he does.<|7.00|><|7.00|> Now I understand it's under advisement, his decision, and you have no idea when that will come down.<|14.00|><|14.00|> Is that correct?<|15.00|><|15.00|> Yes.<|16.00|><|16.00|> Well, so, actually I guess there's nothing you can do at this point but wait for his decision.<|28.00|><|28.00|> Yes.<|29.00|><|29.00|> Yes? Well, Gene had different input and did follow through with it. Gene helped or did construct a letter asking that if they were given time to rebut that or to further present evidence? So that's where it laid. There was no answer.

There was an objection entered, however, from the opposition attorneys to not allow that. The policy of the Federal Courts Commander is that if there is no response by the Federal Court and you respond within the five days you requested that they will accept that as a response. So that's where it is. And you persons are in pro per pros, so believe me they're going to give you every opportunity and not shut you out at all. So that's where we are. It's status report. I want to thank everybody for the full opportunity that I've had to discuss my position with everybody.

This doesn't always happen. I've represented doctors, dentists, physicians in the Blue Tick Hound Association. A lot of blue tick hound association. I never had the benefit of such a full and fair discussion and I much appreciate that. The overriding thing that I want to get across is my concern for the position of Doris and EJ as two persons that I love very much and I see in a very perilous situation. And it is true that if the judge goes ahead and issues some order, shall cause an in-rate criminal contempt, that he must appoint attorneys to represent you. However, I have found in the last few weeks a few civil cases where if the judge feels of his own that, well, maybe a few days in jail could bring about a turnaround in this person's thinking that he can put that person in jail for a few days without having to appoint an attorney to represent them as part of his regular contempt proceedings. And that does concern me. And that's where I want to get in every lick that I think that you can get in. We can work out with our attorneys to improve and get in there to support your position.

And if he does make an order that's adverse to your interest, we have increased our chances of an appeal, of a success of an appeal, and of getting a stay. And then at the same time, we can proceed with the common law approach to set aside the agreement itself to attack the fact that Mr. Russell should never... Mr. Ruchell was not the original author. And just by chance I ran into a patent attorney in Las Vegas on my second or third day over there, sat down with him, ran by the situation, and his immediate response was, Mr. Russell doesn't have a copyright. He was not the original author. Mr. Russell states he wasn't the original author. And if you read the St. Augustine case closely, that case was filed by a man who received from the spirit, but he didn't betray the spirit. He alleged in the copyright that he obtained a copyright.

Mr. Russell does not have a proper and valid copyright. And we can attack that in the next proceedings, but not in this contempt action. Eustace wants to say something. received a communication from a leading copyright lawyer in Alexandria, Virginia, who says, another very important thing to remember is that the same information can be put into tangible form by more than one person, and each of those people can independently own copyright in his own expression of the information, and can independently register the work. In In fact, the point that you have made that Walter Russell is not the original author somewhat invalidates the judge's contempt order, I think. It's a separate issue.

It's a separate issue, yes. We may be able to attack it on the next thing we file, when we file the appeal. Yeah, on the appeal, that's right. But at this particular moment it is not it is not part of the issue and he's not going to consider it as well I agree there but it is wants to deal with you have basis for an appeal that's what I'd say and don't forget a lot of this a lot of this can be integrated into Rick Martin's case so let's not forget the value of these two cases that are now before Judge Coyle. Commander? Yes. You've raised a very, very good point there. Can I just inject a brief note here, Gene? Go ahead, you've got the mic. Okay, I have the mic. Yeah, just a... I'm not tied over the mic. Just a brief update on the copyright situation.

The way the law reads is that you cannot copyright an idea. You only copyright the expression of the idea. So that's consistent with that letter that Eustace just mentioned, but it does not speak to the particular set of exhibits that were presented in this latest suit. Forgot what I was going to say now. I knew you would. Yeah. Two cases. Oh, two cases.

Rick Martin. Rick Martin is a key word. Let's put him to jail. Here's how they affect each other. If we are successful and win this contempt thing, that is a big plus for the integrity and credibility of Rick Martin has suffered a loss. So we don't dare let that happen. I don't think Gene understands what value you've got. We've got a kilo. Oh, I understand the Akela case.

We have a kilo on tape, knowing it's recorded in, well, several tapes. There's also one in South Africa and they were going to transcribe it. I don't know. I believe that many of you heard it, several of you anyway, because Magnus Penny had talked with Okilo from Johannesburg and he recorded it, asked Okilo if it was all right and it was fine with him. He didn't want to make any further comment, particularly on this case. It pained him very much, what was taking place here. So they kept their conversations, mostly to when he gets to Nigeria, and then he will get in touch with them and so forth. But it does establish a pleasant relationship. And this was within the last two weeks so um...

well as a matter of fact it was at that time that okielo said in fact uh... he would be leaving the states he was being let's just face it he was being sent out of the states and he was to leave very very early the morning of the eighteenth now isn't that interesting they wanted him completely away. They had written an affidavit for him to sign, and because they were so out of time, he had to fax it back. We did receive a copy of that, and it did have his signature, but they told him that it was not going to be valid unless he could get hard copy to that court.

And of course, they were now pleading with the judge to allow them to bring that hard copy original signature in on Tuesday morning. And that didn't happen. This was, I think, Chief Okilo's last effort at thwarting them. He just didn't get it there in time. It doesn't mean that maybe it isn't there and bluing now. But the point is, is that Mr. Martin not only has taped literally every conversation, and I think, I don't know, Gene, did you ever talk with him also? I believe I did, yes. He's one of the most gracious gentlemen you'll ever, ever meet.

meet and this is very very painful to him and the whole thing was painful to him and Rick did indeed transcribe the last tape so it's there and they're trying to say oh that's that's just a red herring you know the alleged in other words Rick Martin is a liar and you know it judge he's been in here before you so it's it's typical. Well, Mr. Buchanan gets paid for saying things like that, Commander. Oh, yes. And judges overlook that. One thing I'm sure that Eustace doesn't know, maybe Bob James doesn't know, but in this agreement that was signed between the Eckers and USMP, the judge never stopped Dahmer from receiving from the commander.

That was, you were given total permission to receive. And as far as I can tell, you were given total permission to write. It was only when it went to copy or commercial distribution, and used, I think the declarations were adequate in stating that you never had access to any documents to copy from. So that took care of that. The other side has the burden of proof to a clear and convincing burden of proof in a contempt action. Well, that's right. I accept it. Bigger men than Coyle have tried. That's where the judge started. That's exactly where he started.

I have before me clearly and convincing evidence that you copied this stuff. That's where he started. Yeah, and given what I've got in front of me, I'm going to cite you for contempt. Mm-hmm. And that's what you've got to speak up and say, Your Honor, I'm sorry, but you don't have that very convincing evidence in front of you. That's when you object, yes. That's right. Well, let's get back to the 50 words. And that's where rehearsal comes in.

Well, in the 50 words, Rick is right. Speaking of this, if there are 50 words changed in a book, it needs new copyright and it becomes a new book. But I don't think the judge wants to be informed on copyright law. Well, he needs to be. Yes, he certainly does. And he's terrified that you're going to do it. So I don't think he really wants to go through with this. We only have to give him an excuse not to. And he knows you're going to come back.

That's why he needs to be informed about these things. But he also... That will be his excuse. He announced his retirement over a year ago, so he is really getting annoyed with this being an ex janitor. I'd like to get some things cleaned up. And one of the things I'd like to get cleaned up is Ron and and court situation. So they know where they're going, what they're going to do. Equipped. Just talking with Bob James and he says the use of all caps for the person's name for the affiance name presents a challenge from a common law perspective. Is there a reason, Gene? Why? When this was typed up, it was typed up in all caps. All caps? Oh, certainly.

No, no, that's statutory. If you, the book on Nevada rules, Nevada Statute of Revised Procedures, sets forth how, the type of paper you must use, where you start your wordings, what words are capitalized, what words are not capitalized, it's all part of their procedures. And California has the same thing, every state has the same procedure. How has Abbott gotten away with what he's done? We brought that to the attention of the Attorney General. It's even worse how Horton has gotten away with what he's done. Well that's true. Yeah, Horton versus Sergeant Deputy Mountland and all those corporations as plaintiff. Horton has, just with contempt of court, substituted and changed the facings of the original filed pleadings and refiled under his own caption, replaced himself as a plaintiff for those corporations, and that's contempt of court.

And we've asked our attorney, Brad Elliott, to file contempt of court actions against him for doing that. So far he hasn't done it. More to the point on this all capitalization, to leave the door open for possible common law jurisdiction down the road, would it be possible to write these names conventionally or would that just get kicked out? Right. Well, let me interject here because since I raised this problem, Dave Miller has proved conclusively that all upper-calf leather is not proper terminology for common law names. Now if the statutes say that, the statutes are wrong. And I don't wish to entertain the statutes if they're wrong. If it's a fraud, it's a fraud always. So now let's investigate to see if that's true. If that's true, then we should not use uppercase, uppercase letters in that name. Well, wait a minute, wait a minute. Bob, weren't you saying before that they should proceed because it was already in the works?

Yes, but I just read this document. I understand. But didn't you also tell them that you thought they should proceed given that you could still go in common law later. See, in other words, they're going in and... No, what I'm saying is, if in fact the statutes are wrong in the sense that you use non-nagyri uppercase letters, why do you defraud the court? Because that's a fraud in front of the court. Okay, so let me ask Gene.

Now, unless corrected, if that's wrong, let's correct it and let them challenge it based on statute law. Yeah, so what happens, Gene, if you go in and you say, well, I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go in and I'm going to go if that's wrong, let's correct it and let them challenge it based on statute of law.

Yeah, so what happens, Gene, if we use common law, David Miller type presentation on the paper and not say a word about it and just present it as not as is, but changing it so it upholds under common law? The court won't accept it. Well, if I hand write a letter, Gene, which is acceptable, irregardless of what they want to accept, and I use upper and lower case letters in my signature. What, are they going to tell me I have to go back and capitalize it? Absolutely. Well, then they're wrong, damn it. Up until 10 or 12 years ago, we could do things like that, Bob, especially in criminal cases where the incarcerated person was maybe facing the gas chamber in two weeks, the attorneys, if they didn't have secretaries or something like that available, we could print out their habeas corpus petition form and get it filed. But that was stopped about 10 years ago. We have to submit about everything in printing, conforming with the gaps, punctuation, everything else. It's all laid out.

Okay, so it comes right down to the filing of this paper. Is the filing of the paper done under admiralty or is the filing of the paper done under common law? It's being done under admiralty right now. And I don't think you should compound the problem by just doing the name if that's a fraud itself. It seems that you should the first time try to run it by the way, common law way. If they say, we won't accept this, we demand you do it under admiralty, then that's another thing that can be repealable or appealable or after the fact. In the federal, all my federal papers are up there in all the case.

And they haven't kicked them out because of that? No, they just take them. And tell the judge that's the same Rick Martin now just cause the journey got a hold of this made it up her case doesn't make it real I think they're compounding the fraud. Bob, affidavits and declarations can be hand-drawn or anything you want. They don't have to conform to the requirements of the proper pleading and filing. That's the answer I wanted. We'll change it. That's the affidavit, doesn't it?

Or a declaration. But not the filing itself. Not the filing itself. Because a lot of times you're out in the field and you can get a declaration from some farmer or something picking tomatoes. He can hand write his declaration and then that will be attached as an exhibit A to a properly documented treaty. So that does not have to meet any particular requirements. Michael Will. Yes, something like a Will.

So we're back to where we were earlier before we got back, before we got off the track in terms of courts thing. Is this a case for common law filing or is it, or are we filing the way Gene said? Now if we're going to file it according to the way Gene was talking about, Bob, when you were shaking your head no and saying that we should let it go the way it is. I recognize that there's a fraud now. As a U.S. citizen of sovereignty, that's a fraud, and I will not perpetuate a fraud. Period. And how does this bring into sense it's a corporation that's going to be doing the motion? These are sovereign citizens making the declarations. That's right. But we're not talking about the declarations. We're talking about the motion or the affidavit or the what's it called Gene? The filing itself.

The response, it's our initial pleading. Initial pleading, right. These are affidavits of fact going to a court from a sovereign citizen. Really? Yes. But the affidavits can all, we've already established the affidavits can be in upper, lower case, any mixture. They could be in handwriting. So what about... a fraud. What is not a non-negarity? That is a killing of a person on paper in uppercase letters.

Okay, Bob, what I want you to talk about is are you talking about the affidavits themselves? I'm talking about that paper right there, yes. You're talking about the filing? No, that's the affidavits. The exhibits can be typed in anything or even handwritten, capital or small letter or any way you want. Are you talking about the filing itself? I'm talking about that paper written in Nandagir. Which paper is that? The affidavit. Now, it's true that it's acceptable any which way in an admiralty court, but to be valid from a common law perspective, it shouldn't be in all caps.

So let's just change it. Are we talking about the exhibits? This is the affidavits. Okay, yeah, those are the exhibits. These are the little ways that you can change. We've already established that the exhibits can be filed any way you want. In an admiralty court? Okay, now Bob, what you're saying is the coverage... In either one....kills them off anyway.

The way it's structured, yes. It's an absolute fact. See, let's find out what we're talking about here. So, if you walked up... It's very simple, you've read it. Here's the error right there. Okay, let me see it. No, wait a minute. Now, this is a sovereign citizen. Let me look, could I look at it?

Is this the filing? Or is that an exhibit? That's not a filing, that's an affidavit. This is an affidavit that will be attached to a set of legal pleadings. Okay, so the legal pleading is, I'm wanting to talk about the legal pleading. I'm saying is this can be put the way you want to. Upper and lower. That can be put upper or lower, Bob. Now I'm talking about the legal paper that you file with the clerk to which that is attached as an exhibit. I'm not talking about the exhibit.

Let's have that. This thing. This page. How do we file this? Can you get up? This is what I'm talking about. You think you can get away without capitalizing these people? Is that the paper that files these? No, this is a real file. The one that files those will be similar to that, yes.

Let me go get the actual complete that's being filed. OK, here we go. I came here with black hair. What I'm saying is, those exist. It doesn't matter which one. But what I'm saying is, those don't matter what matters is this well it may be a case where the judge could see it down say it says put those caps this is not out or he might not well what I'm saying is see our question was we can change this and that's not going to affect the final but if you present the filing which is the thing she's getting in capital at non capital letters that's the question we were having this is are we going to file it the way they've got it and then learn common law and do it that way or are we going to mix the two while we're doing Sorry for the delay folks.

Well see, now Gene, this is, Commander is gone. I'm on break. You'll be kissing makeup then. Yeah. As long as you don't let me go to jail. Let's consider. Yeah, I'm still here. One of the things in this very last letter, and you see this is a common law point and it's probably not even worth struggling with, but another thing that negates their case is they just, and they very subtly do things and they don't expect anybody to catch them and then get away with it. So they come along and in this rebuttal saying don't let them respond because we had the last word. It was our turn and we did it and you know which one I'm talking about.

Right, but you should be tipped off. As soon as they don't want you to do something, that raises a big red flag and you should go ahead and do it. Oh I agree, but look what they did. In this case, in this paper, of all papers, they have said USMP versus George Green at all. Which literally in common law negates us, period, we're out. It doesn't obviously in admiralty court, but nobody ever removed his name or any of these other names, And so we're the only one that got hanged with it. And our own fellow defense person provided all the information. So it's great for conspiracy and stuff later, but how do you utilize it now to your benefit? Or do you let it go? Right now you let it go.

And then... But you use it later. On the next phase we hit them with every bullet. Alright. Because I'm willing to put off everything as long as I don't have to go to jail. Well, I mean, even that for more than a short period of time. And how short is short? Very. Imagine, if you really care, Bob's going to serve you time. But he didn't sound willing.

Now we get a lot of witnesses. Hey Bob, Bob, here's the paper that will be filed. This is the filing. And see, it's going to kill all of us. Us sovereign people. I know, wrong now. See? Now, according to common law, that is not proper. Understood. The question is, are we at this point mixing common law and admiralty in the filing for NCH?

Well, since I know this is a fraud, I wouldn't do it. Well, see, but do we, can we come in and begin to try to get a few things in? Why would you do it this way? Why wouldn't you do it in upper and lower case? Because it wouldn't be accepted by the court. It won't be accepted by the court. How come they do it here and he can have his name in proper? That's what I wanted to ask. How is the judge allowed to do that? Put his name in upper and lower? You got all upper case and he's in proper common law. That's his common law name.

That's because he's smart. And that's probably exactly the fact. And I, as the judge, I can do what I want. This is my courtroom. Have you seen my cousin, Vinnie? It's never been brought to my attention before, but that's also typed by the attorneys on the other side. But why they type it like that, that's very interesting. And I presume that we'll know in a few weeks once we get to Mr. Miller's work there.

Yeah. I suggest you... Merle won't say something. I have one thing. What's up with all this? They won't do it? That's foul. Wally does a lot of suggestions and not very much do it. I noticed that too. Go ahead, Merle.

Make sure it's up. You're on. Okay, Wally. May we just go together? Okay, I think one of the confusions here is that there's a lot of confusion. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing.

I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. Okay, Wally. May we use that together? Okay, I think one of the confusions here is, and I may be totally wrong, nobody's listening.

That's true, nobody's listening. Go ahead, Meryl. I'm listening. I think that Gene is an attorney. No. Okay, wait, wait, wait, wait. But you're giving advice as an attorney to Doris and EJ. No, he's not. No, he's not. Okay, he's not.

Okay, fine. Whatever. Can we get through that? I think that... He's not giving any legal advice. Just the same as your doctor. Thank you very much, I am.

