This is March... Do we... I have... This is March the 4th, 1997. Good morning, Eustace, and greetings, Commander. Good morning. I'm going to push right along. We had a fun yesterday. I want to start this morning by, I have already been up with Dorma riding and it was an early, early morning for us. And if I seem impatient, it is because you have so much to do and so little time with the help that can really make a contribution.

You'll just have to catch up with your friends whenever they come or later. I have the primary parties that I need to address this morning. One is Gene as to the Constitutional Law Center. The other is Mr. Mullins as to common law. Then we will have to branch out. I can warn you in advance that I'm going to call on Mark and Della. I'm going to call on Ray Bilger. I'm going to lay a heavy trip on Bruce and Valerie. And it's going to come as sort of, pardon the pun, alien input. Because each one is already busy doing something.

Well, except Mark, who just lays around and props up his foot. Well, that's busy doing something. Yes, well, that's true, and he certainly keeps Della busy doing things, so it works out. Literally works out. Not fairly, but it's sort of like the justice system. And you better wait until everybody else gets here, because they're the only two that are here. Well, now here's Bruce. Well, I don't necessarily want them to know yet. Oh, okay. put a little bubble around Gene Dixon.

Uh oh. Um. He was just saying he has to lose weight today. Well, no, he needs to eat because soul food will help. Gene is in an extremely personally dangerous circumstance. He heads up the law center, and I'm not going to go into all the reasons why Gene may have gotten disbarred or what indiscretions he may have pulled to get himself in trouble in these things, but Gene is working on an emotional misconception that somehow if he gets his bar association ticket back, somehow vindicate himself from all past pressures or whatever. He also, unfortunately for Gene, in our circumstances is a very, very close friend, personal friend, has served in paralegal situations for years for Scott Tips, who turns out to be, right now, a very concerted opponent of ours.

We cannot mix maritime or admiralty law with common law and actually go in and make much of an impact. But we do need to know the laws of the court as they are so that we know what paperwork can be accepted and what they'll let pass the clerk's office and what they won't just throw in the garbage and so forth. But we're going to take control and we're going to try to leave Gene his independence so that it isn't until he is ready to make that step over the line. We're going to have to work around him. He can have input.

We will ask him, but we're not going to dump some of these loads on his head that are going to get him into remarkable disagreement with these people who do hold a club over his life if that's what he wants his life to be. I believe that what he really wants is to succeed in these efforts and to hell with that system because attorneys are going to go down and having a bar association ticket is just sure demise. Now I mean that is going to be sure demise of the individual particular, and I hesitate to call it, but I will, profession. We're very, very short of time to get the kind of input that we need. For Mustis, he has to go. We'll only have today, and I mean, come on, some of us are getting old and tired. We cannot carry this entire load much longer. And if I seem offensive to anybody, please, I don't want any explanations of why or what. We're going to move along. And I'm not going to refer back to yesterday except to say we covered it yesterday. Gene was busy in Las Vegas.

He is, all this is going to hit him square between the I's without back up information. But we're going to have to just move ahead and we can sort that out tomorrow when we have time to do that. We're just going to move today. And I believe the best example we can use is not to consider Ricks, for instance, at this particular time. obvious that can be used on the shortest period of time and work over it. EJ has been making copies, for instance, of the agreement and the injunction connected that was signed by the Eckers. as a kind of a group worksheet to begin to formulate what we're trying to do. And I believe that it can work very nicely without, you know, getting out our AK-47s and getting killed.

We want to investigate the possibilities of doing a lot of things with the corporation. And if we decide to quote discharge attorneys, I want you to know it's in quotes. We're going to be better for Eckers to go and pro per or we have a new name for it. Now somebody tell me what it is. Citizen and party. Citizen and party. Alright, citizen and party. No more per se. It's citizen and party.

by the way, by David Miller, by saying, Plaintiff is the movement, M-O-V-A-P, who is appearing as a private citizen, a citizen in party. So you have to have the whole sentence. It's in his work. And instead of just saying citizen in party, I think you have to prefix it. You're appearing as a private citizen. Yes.

That precludes the fact that you're, as a pro se, you would be falsely representing yourself as a licensed attorney and a practicing attorney. So that is necessary. You cannot say citizen of the party by itself. You have to prefix it with private citizen, identifying yourself positively as only a private citizen appearing for yourself. E.J. now I want you to keep kind of a going list. I want though citizen and party incorporated or citizen and party association. I prefer association for incorporation. Now, we're going to play this game. And nobody seems to know the rules. I asked that Miller's tapes be transcribed.

But that has not happened. So we're going to have to work. Eustace is the only one who studied that closely enough other than Bob James, to be able to say exactly what he just said. And it is going to be so important that we do it exactly right or we're going to make a big mess of it. And US&P is the very first one to work on because they have done such a blatantly foolish thing. Gene should know that, and I will bring this up today, he should know that out of the Buchanan Law Firm, and I'm not going to start breaking it down because you need to find out these things because you need, when you make an association with someone, you need to know the players around them.

And all of you who left the meeting too early to find out the facts really blew the best part, the only part really, of that meeting worthwhile. Now in that room was an attorney. Everybody knew that. He raised his hand. But you didn't meet the attorney. And the minute you hear he's from Beverly Hills, you think, oh well, goodness gracious. But his name is Cy Schaefer. He represents himself as a common law representative, but he obviously practices in contract law within the admiralty system. So he's not going to be a friend who's going to run over here for nothing and help you. On the other hand, he might run over here for something because he's trying to work out a real association for the use of corporate structure with court. But the important thing to know, and this will be very important for Bob James to know, is that he is the one who went to Australia and represented Ewell Brown, you know, of Brown Gas, which you're going to use and Ewell will be moving to this area as soon as there can be affording of it. And I mean financially. He knows Terry Yark very well. So you already have someone who could associate themselves with you, but it will be for his benefit, not necessarily yours.

So we're going to have to begin to ask people who want to share in what we're doing to come on in and share both the load, the responsibility, and the financial aspects. to carry everything and especially without exchange. Excuse me, Commander, for a second. Yes. I'll be meeting with Frye Schaefer probably Wednesday or Thursday, tomorrow or the next day. Oh, Bob, wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. And he will be given the Dave Miller material which he's willing to look at. Oh, thank you. What I'd like to do before Court gets here, he probably isn't going to get here, be able to get here before round 10, he and Ron.

I'd like to go over just this letter, and Mr. Mullins will certainly recognize it, because it's from him. Rick sent him some information regarding this USMP case and I don't know, EJ didn't turn it up until this morning. So you know, we're sitting here with something that is extremely valuable and it doesn't mean that Rick didn't provide it, it means that in the rush of trying to get away and all the other hullabaloo, it just didn't make it to us. So I'm going to read it to you. Dear Rick, many thanks for sending me your legal papers. I have spent quite a bit of time going over them, and my conclusion is that you have not counterattacked where your opponent is most vulnerable. That is, they're standing to bring action against you.

By standing, I mean their background, who they are, and what they represent. Now I'm going to take exception with Eustace. He has picked the most obvious. But legally in an admiralty court he has not picked the most valuable. And he would have had no way to realize this. USMP is a corporation. A CEO and a president cannot bring a lawsuit in behalf of the corporation. So we're left to deal with the fact that the very first lawsuit they brought was invalid. But nobody picks it up. Nobody. So you go through hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to prove that you're innocent of plagiarism.

Who gives a damn? Who's been damaged? Number one, no damaged party was ever presented. Mr. Binder, who signed all the paperwork, did not supply a resolution from that corporation to sue anybody. He had no standing upon which to bring the second suit and he had no right whatsoever under any law, common or otherwise, did he have any right to make a representation that USNP is doing this case. USNP is a corporation, it is a thing, it is operated by people. And when you start handling your pronouns correctly, you will say, Timothy Binder brought this invalid case. And you're going to learn to structure that explicitly and without any other thing. And right after you do that, you could demand a dismissal, but I don't think you want to do that.

And Eustace Mullins has the best example of all. You never go in that courtroom as a defendant. You get control. You counter-sue. You do whatever is required to make yourself the plaintiff. And in this instance, you decide how you want to handle it, because you're going to bring a suit against Timothy Binder and those attorneys and that judge. Now you're going to handle the judge a little bit nicer than I'm going to yell at you about. You make his little snakelets over there, having put him in this position. Because, as Eustace points out in just a little bit of discussion, he said, well, huh, those clerks and those attorneys are the ones that present an order for the judge to sign.

And if you both stipulate it to an injunction, it doesn't matter whether it's any good or it's not any good. He just signs it. And it becomes part of your agreement. So we're going to go over the agreement and the injunction, and when you get through looking at it, you're going to stand from the very moment you began to read it. USMP cannot sue anybody. Only the board of directors can vote in a lawsuit. They put US&P versus George Green at all. You're not even in the case. You, Ackers, are not even in the case.

But nobody notices that. at all and maybe Mr. Mullins will tell you about where you should look for that information as to why you should not. And Bob's here, he can really lay that one on too. Why don't you use et al? Mr. Mullins, we'll just nail you right off. Well, I spent hours looking for that and apparently in my digest of David Miller's tapes, I only heard two of the five tapes. He must have brought it up in those tapes. I did not find it in the mimeograph material, but it's definitely in there in which he says, et al. invalidates the entire description of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Now, I haven't found it yet. Maybe it's on videotape.

He brings that up much more in the video. Yes, and that's why I'd ask that those be transcribed. So it's in there. I heard it, and I know, and I agree with him in his evaluation of it all, but I have not found it yet in the paperwork. to have people or an attorney. Now, which is it? And where is that law? I want somebody to show me that law, because with a corporation, and especially bearer stock, the same party doesn't have to always be the dirty bounder in court, because whoever is holding the stock can be appointed as the power of attorney. And that puts it into the position of being, well, Binder took that position. You see, Binder just took that position and then he runs and hides under the shelter of USP. And all of you, then, have to think that Mr. Binder didn't bring the lawsuit, but USNP did, and because of that, and I want them to think this is a fact, that they have to have an attorney.

You don't have to have an attorney. US&P brought this against the Eckers. But in all these other cases where the Phoenix Institute is named and they keep throwing in Ecker, Ecker, Phoenix, use it. For goodness sakes, use it. What Ecker has to do is assume the responsibility of Phoenix Institute, which is a fiduciary responsibility, heaven help them if they lapse that. That's why they're in court, because they supposedly took millions of dollars and ran off to Costa Rica or Chile or somewhere, or they have it packed under their call space, according to Mr. Ince. Ready to go. Now, they don't seem to stipulate or suggest where millions of dollars might have come from.

I mean, after all, this whole bunch is still living on Leon Fort. Come off it! Do you think Mr. Abbott has left Mr. Ford anything for you to go to lunch on? Come on, people. You've got to start thinking in an entirely different direction than you're accustomed to thinking, and the world opens up like a light bulb. USNP had no authority, gave no authority, I mean, this is accepted in the Maritime Admiralty Court is not valid. And the judge is going to back off when you put it properly, with respect, that he has been screwed by his own people, set him up to look stupid. That is contempt, sir.

And now they have brought this, and through these years of their contempt of you, we have been severely damaged. And until you get this in your head that you can go in there with the proper wording, you probably don't even need more than that. I think you may want more than that because you'll want to lay your strategy so that they know you're coming after them. And let's see how comfortable Mr. Binder and Mr. Green are in their coalition. Because when we go back in there, we are going to bring charges against them and ask for contempt and criminal activities and criminal rico and criminal conspiracy and it will not be considered frivolous because if that judge makes the error of tossing it out as a frivolous lawsuit, he has to know you will go to the appeals board and to the Supreme Court if necessary, friends. Now, we're going to do this, or we are no better than the system already in place.

We can play with the system and use the system, and we can very quietly use common law. We're going to have to get over the fact that in an admiralty court, how can you go in there and maintain control with that flag hanging there? Well, you do everything from your constitutional common law basis, with reason and logic, and you throw in enough law that the judge has an excuse to rule with you. He's got to save face now. He did something pretty dastardly. He's got to save face, and you have to provide him with the ability to do that. And you can't call it blackmail. It's not wise. Now let us move further. They, for some funny reason, don't fly their fringe flag outside that courthouse. And yet anything, go back, read, know what Ray has dug up and really study it. There is so much more, but you don't have to have it all to begin to function properly enough. And Eustace is going to go home and redo all his cases, which will keep the government busy for the next 20 years. But I don't want and come down here in summer vacation, we're in the diatropy, to cover all these others.

So you're going to need not just a constitutional law center that sort of gets you in through the system some way, but you've got to have a common law center. You've got, and I don't want anymore, ever again, the possibility of a constitutional law center, spelled T-E-R, corporation, and a constitutional law center, T-R-E, trust in the same room. And get away with it and get by with it. And that will be the downfall of Gene if there ever is any. And I think that we've been able to protect him from that association long enough, because they're working on the statute of limitations, but in fraud there's no limit. They have thought up this statute of limitations to protect their ass, and we're not going to honor it.

Nice enemies keep bringing up more and more cases that keep it open anyway. Now isn't that smart? The dumbest thing Timothy Binder ever did in his life was to attach himself with George Green because George Green fed them full of erroneous documentation. And Eustace, I hope that Desiree stays in Hawaii. That'll be the smartest thing she ever did was to leave that man. I better just keep reading. You are probably not aware that when Walter and Lau Russell bought the Dooley Estate, Swannanoa, they knew no one here and faced many problems in moving in. The person who made it possible for them to move in and worked with them was my father, Eustace Mullins, Sr.

Oh, what a coincidence! Laughter After Walter died, I met with Lau a number of times. She seemed, without openly saying so, receptive to my taking charge of the operation. Who? Well, Lau was at loose ends at that time and I was in the area and she knew my family. And I think she thought perhaps I could come in and help her work out some of her problems, but I had a lot of things of my own to do and I just never got together with her. Uh-huh. That's okay. However, I had so many other things going that it was not possible for me to do so. Exit Lau. Now we have a new crowd in control at the University of Science and Philosophy.

The question must be asked legally, who are these people and how did they come to own this valuable property? They are not Walter and Lyle Russell which placed them in command of this property. I know a lawyer in Waynesboro, J.B. Yacht III, now isn't that a coincidence that they have the same name, that Mr. Green and Albert Norton keep flaunting, who I believe handled the legal details and cut himself into the action, for a fee of course. This is probably your best line of defense. Challenge their standing to bring the action against you. Otherwise, you are sitting ducks for the judge's contempt citation and sentencing.

I will continue to study the situation and let you know if I can come up with anything else. At the moment, this seems to be your only course of action. I enclose my latest article on the FBI. It is just timely and then he goes on. So I won't belabor. Maybe I should say here that I did investigate the transaction, the wills of Lau and Walter. gave all his estate to Lau when he died and Lau gave most of the estate to USMP reserving some unnamed assets that went to people in England I believe. Not all the assets are listed but there is a legal paper trail. Yeah. Well, the reason I brought that up is that the USP is not well regarded in the area there.

They're considered to be a wacko outfit with very suspicious activities. And so they have never cultivated any particular image in the area except an unfavorable one and that's the reason I wanted to point that out to you. That's useful. It is useful. Yes. So let's be objective you know. What you want to do is to be able to back off from the emotional scramble, confusion that befalls you. You know when they call you a cult you immediately start trying to figure out how to defend yourself.

Quit defending yourself. Become the plaintiff in every action. Turn around and say, you prove it. They cannot prove it. Don't you see? No matter what you are, they cannot prove it before the fact that you're not. Don't wait for yourself to be in the vulnerable position of a defendant. Get control of things. Now I want to know why Eckers, in behalf of the Phoenix Institute to go against Horton, Abbott and Gamble and get that gold released. is either to just put a hold on Mr. Ellie or whatever needs to be done.

Let's talk about that first because that's coming up toward the end of the month and it could make a difference whether you can continue to function here comfortably until we can begin a different kind of flow of income. What is the law? And if they don't even know their own corporate laws, then you can come in with a stronger push and state that the corporate laws of the state of Nevada allow for this. Others will file a wit. The games have got to stop. It's legal tiddlywinks. The games have got to stop. And then we're going to go against them for loss of value. Go or dropped.

If it was worth $350,000, it went up to $600,000 and now it's back down below $350,000. Well, they've been holding it for these three years plus. You can't do that because they've been holding it. Or you can charge them for the interest lost. You're not going to be able to do both. And in the admiralty court, you probably can't do the former. Oh, extremely large loss of value. But in the admiralty court, I don't think that they'll go for it. And I don't think you can push it hard enough.

No, they do have a concept now they call interference with prospective advantage meaning that you have lost the benefit and interference with prospective advantage is being used a lot now if you've had any loss whatsoever then you simply file under interference with prospective advantage which means you're you're notifying them of a loss which you have sustained and that they're responsible for that loss loss. Interference with prospective advantage and a lot of people have been using now a lot of lawyers have been using that lately it's a wonderful catch-all phrase in other words everything that you might have gained it's prospective which makes it very good very sweeping anything that you might have gained during this period from the increase in value of gold or anything else or reinvesting the interest and so forth comes under interference with prospective advantage.

Graham was so generous with that gold that wasn't his that I think maybe I'm going to offer a bonus or bribe to Eustace to please not go or would you rather have a broken leg? You don't know how hard I've tried to get you here. I mean, what calls you home? Well, you would be in the fair with my perspective. But let us negotiate. I can volunteer everybody to help you write up and get your stuff structured so that when you hit, you hit hard. Eustace has never been married. I think he showed some interest in one of my ex-wives. I've been the wild bachelor too long.

Well, then we're going to for sure have to spend today doing some hard, let's draw it out, let's ooze it out of him. See that was a valuable thing to know. So, why don't E.J. pass out what you do have, whoever's handy, and then please read the agreement. I don't know how much of the stuff you have here. You may want to read what they have said first, or what they're claiming, if you can brief that right down, and on what basis they brought the lawsuit. And then let's look at the agreement and this incredible injunction. And all of you, take, please, if you will, even though we're on tape, let's take pretty good notes because I'm going to repeat.

Now that everybody's here, I'm going to ask Mark and Della and Ray Bilger and Bruce and Valerie and I want... Well, that's better. He's not here. We'll dump it on him when he gets back. He has over and over and over again said, sir, anything I can do. Well, I accept that. I don't have to ask every day. Once somebody has committed to me, I let it go. I assume that they will mean it forever until they sue me. Which seems to come more frequently now.

As a matter of fact, Eustace is probably, you better put bars around his chair. He's going to tip it over in laughter. And how naive we really are to struggle along with this. The facts are, the only answer is, for goodness sakes, in the agreement they made you give up everything, even your own information that might come back through your office. Dorma, how in the world can you plagiarize your own mind? If you want to do away with that, Tom, let's just consider this a minute. Someone sits down to write, and they have required that everything be removed from her under penalty of law and contempt of court. And remember the point of the case as you read this.

Hell. And the best way, I believe, to make a point is just as quickly as you can assemble something is get a case going against them. And then you've got control. I believe you asked me to read the settlement agreement first. Well, however, you will want to refer back to it probably after we refer to some of the other background. But let's just do that. Let's just do this under the idea of common law or just plain old law. What is missing here? What is here? Once again, without ever being shown any documentation or corporate resolution that Timothy Binder could in fact bring to suit, you don't have anything.

So they don't have anything from the beginning of, unless they can produce that resolution. Probably the best way to handle this is for me to, because I've been through it several times, selectively read those portions of this that have to do with this particular contempt. No, you're doing the same thing the lawyers do. And you're going to overlook the very thing that's going to save your ass. So let's not do that. I've changed my mind. I think I'll read the whole thing. I'll... surely. Flexibility is really interesting. I know that I asked you to leave some parts out, but please just read the whole thing.

Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims Parties Number one, the parties to this agreement are the University of Science and Philosophy, hereafter USP, and E.J. Ecker and Doris J. Ecker, hereinafter the Eckers, and includes the representatives and successors in interest described in paragraph 21 below. This agreement shall be effective as of December 1st, 1994. You see, right off the top it should have been, and there should have been documentation, USP, by authority of its board of directors, represented by Timothy Binder or whatever, see, was wrong right there from the first word. Recitals. Number two. USP and the Echres are named parties in case number CVF 925431 REC, that stands for Robert E. Coyle, District Eastern District Court of California. Generally stated, USP in that action seeks injunctive relief and damages from Eckers and others for violation. Well, our agents send us signs. They get around to it.

Although there are none, so there, you can start that one. That's erroneous. There are no others. Okay. And couldn't be in reference to Greene? Well, I don't know. I guess probably, I don't know who was there when this all came down, but Eckers were ordered to even serve the papers on their agents' Greene's. And there was no argument or anything. Our attorney, bless his little heart, tried to make a statement that they don't have any agents, but that didn't work. The judge said, Echres are to serve them.

Feel free to jump in, anybody in this room, please, Mullins, don't let it go by. I just see so many flagrant things, we'll be here for days and days. He got him an application on the garrison mail fraud. Right! Absolutely. You're right. Write it down. We're building damages now, gentlemen and ladies. Oh, man. And that goes for the judge, the attorney, and everybody involved in it.

I mean, I remember Mr. Dixon said he wouldn't mind having that palace from which to work. And Virginia, you know, is right there in the heart of everything. But unfortunately, letting it decay into the ground, the property is in terrible condition. Yes, it's in terrible condition, and that's why we offered Chief O'Keele a large portion of one of these contracts to rebuild that for him. That's how bad our intent is.

