|0.00|> Oh, Debbie Hamilton, excuse me. No. I'm sorry.<|4.32|><|4.32|> How is it that Flint and Debbie are so close to certain ones that,<|10.12|><|10.12|> literally to the helping of managing their portions of the corporate seminar?<|16.88|><|16.88|> Probably because they've gone to, they have attended, I think, probably four different programs in the past and have a relationship with the company through entities that they formed. Alright. Because you know that on the outside there are other connections that have been very, very much associated with the very ones that are giving great, great trouble here. I hope that if you're not aware of that, you better be made aware of it before you leave today or get in touch with someone around here after you get back. They were very, very close with Enzi's. Hamilton's still have property out at the farm. It's inoperable and literally the agreement had been to pay Hamilton's but with the sale of the equipment, Ents took the money. So you're going to find, and I'm sorry that the hurt always goes far deeper than the first shocker.

So you're going to find that there is some interchange here. And whatever information you might be getting over there is seeping back and seeping through, and there is more to the Betty Tootin setting up an agency and so forth and you might be aware. So keep your eyes open. It's all part of the same thing, no matter how much you would like to believe it's separate. Now have the attorneys drawn up anything as to case structure? You know, that will say we want an injunction because. The case structure was drawn up by myself before I met with the attorneys. As I left the attorneys, the entire complaint was pre-drawn for the attorneys before I ever met with the attorneys under auspices of my paralegal situation. Okay.

And they included causes of action for unfair methods of competition, unfair competition, theft of trade secrets, and on and on a variety of causes of action, including damages and all types of injunctive relief, relief based upon the fact that all this wrongful conduct and contacting present employees, theft of monies, theft of corporate secrets, everything. It was a terrible case of deceit, treachery, and unfair methods of competition. I hope everybody recognizes that these six affidavits that were read recognize the value of those affidavits when they're impenetrable.

The three of us did an absolutely brilliant job of locating people, digging out from persons every little bit of information that they had, and then dropping out the stuff that wouldn't affect the judge and just leave a compact, concentrated story that would not only allow the judge to, with good conscience, sign an injunction order, a restraining order, orders to return the bonus monies, order to return all the documents, the stolen copies, the copied things, but also to put us in a position where we would not have to post a bond for an injunction. And the judge has total discretion on the amount of that bond. And at times, if he takes the view that, well, you've got a new business starting out here, I'm not going to be the one to stop the business, he can post a very high bond. To counteract that ability of the judge to post a very high bond, We went to extensive trouble to have conversation after conversation with these persons who gave their affidavits, to do everything possible that we could to drain from them every bit of information that they could honestly say that yes, they saw or they heard that was the final summation of everything that they knew, put them in a position where they could lie or distort anything because we would not want to be a party to that. So in my opinion, the six affidavits that were read are the most compelling, the most complete, and could not be more perfect.

Well, we're not going to argue perfect or complete or anything because it's the paperwork judge that we want to play with and don't even accept the fact against yourself. This is, you're still dealing in admiralty court, we're still trying to figure out how better can we serve and cover ourselves as parties or people as citizens. citizen and party I think is what you're calling it in their preceding words that fit that. So let's, you're having problems now with attorneys. Already you've got problems with attorneys, haven't you? Yes and no. The particular attorneys that we went to were somehow indebted... That sounded like an attorney's answer.

Yeah. We'll stop with the yes. No. It's a it's a it's a damned situation that I seem to find myself in every once in a while. It's very awkward. The attorneys that I referred to were somehow indebted to NCH in the amount of some twenty six thousand dollars or something like that involving a transfer or ownership of some funny money. You're going to have to explain funny money stuff. But I could right away see the resentment on the part of these attorneys that their payback in the funny money was somewhat restricted. And and there was a barrier there. One thing I learned from hundreds and hundreds of jury trials and questioned hundreds and hundreds of potential juries is I can immediately sense a vibration of negative thoughts.

So I very quickly recognized that and spent the better part of an hour and a half, I guess, with these attorneys. I got them to understand the value of the case and I could see in the back of their mind too, this case is going to take a lot of time, is there enough funding money out there for us to make any money on? And they came back and they said, okay, we like what you've done here. They had read the complaint that I prepared. They said this is very good, it's excellent, make a few changes, we can work with this complaint, we're satisfied with the complaint, but we want absolutely perfect affidavits. So I can understand that. I said it's going to take time to get perfect affidavits. I said in addition to running these people down, they have a seminar going on this weekend, they're running off in 15 different directions, I have trouble locating them and working with them. So it took me the better part of two or three days to get the rough affidavits.

And daily I was keeping contact with these attorneys, telling them, I'm working on it, don't get discouraged, we're running down the affidavits, you want the perfect ones, we're making them perfect. When I met with them Friday, I could see that they had spent more time thinking about their funny money, and I contacted another firm of highly reputable attorneys. I don't know why I hadn't thought about them before, but I'd worked with one of their main attorneys years and years ago on many big cases up in northern Nevada, where they're very experienced with corporations, with civil litigation, and I have a call in to them. I expect a call back in the next few hours. What I worry about, and I was present this morning, spent some time with Eustace over the weekend and with Bob, and have some knowledge of the common law aspect and what might develop in association with the Constitutional Law Center or some adjunct to that.

I'm concerned that we are not far enough advanced yet with the procedures. We haven't proven a lot of the procedures, and I was under the impression that we were going to spend a lot of time to develop those and perfect those procedures, because I see merit in it. But I also see a lack of merit in jumping too early into a situation. The situation that's presented to NCH right now, with how we have caught these employees red-handed, how we have built an ironclad affidavit system that will support any injunction, restraining order, recovery order that we want along with the final complaint, that can't be beat. Yes, it can. to have a new pro per or citizen party brought into that when I see we have a guaranteed or almost guaranteed winning position using the established judicial process in Nevada.

Well, it depends on what you're trying to win. What are you trying to accomplish? Let's take the goal and then we work back from the goal. What is the goal? What are you trying to do? The goal is in a separate lawsuit. Let me clarify my position. Take the mic, would you, Bob? I want to clarify my position in that I don't know anything about what's happened with Nevada or the corporations, or even suggesting that we look at that particular situation as a common law solution. I only brought this in to address the Ecker situation and their land home situation and see that as a prospective way to cure that situation.

I don't want to impose my will on Gene on how to handle the Nevada situation, if he has solid affidavits, then the court will accept. I think that is where you will get your immediate action and curtail these people from spreading that confidential information around. So I support Gene in the sense that I think what he's done so far and what he's doing with the corporation should continue? Well we have to begin somewhere to look at these things. I don't think anybody with the exception of possibly Bob and Eustace in this room have enough information to even possibly go change this or whatever may be here. and dissecting it. Where do you start? A child starts by stumbling to its feet and falling down. Well, let's not fall down in the courtroom. Let's fall down here in this room. Let's discuss these things. Let's see alternatives, and then establish a mode of operation or how to proceed.

You see, there are ways where Court literally could represent himself, himself, in this. They have literally talked about him personally as if it is his corporation. Well, who cares whose corporation it is if a board of directors, for instance, authorizes him to act on behalf of Nevada corporate headquarters. He becomes the person. This is what's wrong with the system. So why can't we begin to integrate what we know to be correct, even though it is not a functional piece of literature? Let's not say NCH with authority 2 and have a person. Commander, can I ask a question? Yes.

Was a constitutional right violated, Jean? Yes, a constitutional right was violated. Which one? What? The constitutional right that was violated was the contract that was entered into by at least two of the parties, the non-competition agreement. That's a contract. All right. And that's protected by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. Even though the copies have been secreted away? Oh, that doesn't matter. So that's the only violation you can go after under common law, is that not right?

No, under Constitutional law and under common law. Right. What else is there? Well, do they have a right to take information off your computers and go start a business? That's theft or trade safety. Now that's theft. So that becomes criminal. Criminal law. I mean, that's not constitutional. Criminal law.

And that's our first cause of action, the complaint. I have complaints in the office over there. Well, the question is, can this case be used in the manner the commander suggested it, in the manner that... In the manner... Right. Absolutely not. It would be the worst thing we could do. Why not? Well, and you're assuming the commander's commanding.

The commander's trying to just stay in his meeting. Okie dokie. Well, I'm trying to establish what we're talking about here because this is what we're talking about. We are not ready yet to proceed with the common law approach as laid out by David Miller. Okay. laid out by David Miller. So in your opinion, this is not a good test case to use. Bob James is shaking his head. No. Also, Bob James always shakes his head. From my years of experience, why would you take a horse by the name of Seabiscuit or Secretariat and put a 500 pound horse outrider on top of it? If you have a winning situation, legally before the courts, you sewed up every little detail, you put together six of the finest affidavits I've ever seen in my life, which completely through the entire conspiracy, the wrongful acts, the use of the wrongful acts, the intent for further use, when you're in that situation, why would you bring on a new entity to present it to the court. Use the established and maybe wrongful court practices and procedure, but let's use that at this stage of the game.

If I may, Gene, the problem historically through all of these cases has been, and the experience that I have garnered is, is that attorneys are there for nothing other than to extend their payments. And are we not once again entering into an endless round robin of attorney fee, attorney fee, attorney fee? That's what I think everybody wants to avoid. See, it seems very cut and dry to you, but so did it seem cut and dry when officers had to go out and make George Green dig up money that he had stolen and take it to the court, and now three years later, they still have it. Yeah, at least having our friend George Green go out and dig up all that money and bring it in the court, that was done through the established legal procedures. The fallacy in that case, the weakness in that case, is there is a couple of loose nuts attorneys who should never have been attorneys part of their attorneys code and ethics to prolong everything.

Well then why haven't we gone after them? We will go after them. But first of all, we have to, you can't go after them until you complete this particular case here. And then you can go after them for all the wrongful things, plus the recovery for the loss of use of the gold for three or four years. that prospective advantage situation with EJ on several occasions. Well, we don't count EJ. I have to count EJ. Well, we have to learn, and this is the only way we can learn, is to take what we have with which to work and work at it.

And then each little step that we play, it's called game playing and rehearsal. And you really appreciate that Gene. I certainly do and I appreciate the fact that it seems like every damn time we get in a situation we draw the worst of attorneys and I don't know if that's good for us or bad for us. Well it's good for you because it keeps you in the turmoil long enough to begin to seek other ways. And once you seek other ways, you find them. So it's the grounds upon which you build all other things. And that gives us cases to look at, just like we are right now.

It doesn't mean that anybody is going to go out and change anything, except that I can guarantee you if there are hard feelings between lawyers and the corporate, and the client you better clear that one up right away and get an outside attorney just don't even spend a dime on it funny or otherwise that's just my observation it doesn't mean that court has to do it you have to do it it's just a real shame that we do have such talent and it gets bogged down outside your ability to keep control of it. Let me first put one thing on the record here. My loyalty is and has always been to everyone in this room right here.

I'm well aware of the defects of my fellow, or used to be fellow attorneys out there, and I concur in 99% of those. But if I make any suggestion, it is always with the best interest of how to best protect everybody here. It is a terrible, I should tell you, I raised seven brothers and sisters. I protected them from every little accident. I gave up any time of playful activity that I had to help raise seven brothers and sisters. And then to compound that, I had eight kids of my own. I have taken care of people all of my life. I don't know how to get out of the habit of taking care of people. And this is, I'm getting worried here about some of the things that I see that are happening that, to me, threaten my ability to take care of people that I love and respect in this building right here.

The gold situation. We have a hearing on March the 24th before Judge Gamble for the release of the gold. Now, this has gone on for too many years. Judge Gamble made his feelings known about us almost two years ago, and he's been able to manipulate the courts as the judge can, and we still haven't got the gold coins. If we don't get those gold coins on the 24th, I would suggest that that then may be a perfect opportunity for this common law procedures that we're talking about. But let's don't jeopardize anything on the goal until that date when we know which way the judge is going to go, because he may go our direction. It would not be different. Yes. And if he doesn't, we have more ground to go against him.

Right. And it may be a perfect case for the common law approach. And by that time, we'll have a lot more information under our belt a lot more knowledge we have a date then of the 24th yes of March for the hearing and after that who's been hammering because we need to hammer it that's what I feel and the advantage on this case is that I mean the one with court is that we are taking the offensive we are the plaintiff right they are the plaintiff so therefore you control the motions.

That's a real good point. One of the other aspects of this is you have the names of the people who have incorporated the privacy and all of a sudden those names start showing up on government files or something you have an endless amount of lawsuits coming back at you so you better shut the thing down and expedite the process. That would be my issue with going in any direction right right right together and this has got to come down and nothing and nothing would stop doing it that way anyway right you can go ahead with what you've got prepared now and as it would become more advantageous to switch and they don't want a business.

But also, protecting your fiduciary position, because if those names start leaking out through the government, and it has tax consequences against your clients, you've got problems. Well, it's just another... Just look at the variety of cases that you have to play with. RTC and Santa Barbara Savings stealing a house, no sale. It points up the fact that the system is so crappy as it is and unfortunately it always boils down to the judicial people involved. Lawyers, judges and the system itself. Because, you see, I don't care. We can begin to spin off these corporations so they don't even touch us anymore as we grow.

But that's not our purpose. That's why I say let's look at the goal and what do you want to accomplish. So I think we need to, and this is once again just an exercise, and let's look at what this is. What do you want to accomplish? Well, you want to accomplish an instant shutdown of the use of your materials. Now that's basically what US and P claimed they wanted. But you see, it got so corrupted in the system that George Green was even served the papers and he pulled out his father's driving license and said he wasn't that person. And then he was able to do his side dealings. Well, are these guys going to go somewhere and do some side dealings and filter off and sell that information? There's no way now that they have it that you can ever again know that you've reclaimed it unless you inform all of your clients. You've got to inform all of your clients and make some public statements about this.

So that any of them and the names of the corporations, Nevada Corporate Solutions, anyone hearing from them, any client hearing from them, must inform you. Now I don't know how you do this, but you make public announcements. And maybe you just say, we are not responsible for anything from Nevada Corporate Solutions. And maybe you run it three times in the paper. I don't keep up with those things. I don't care. But you must. We have had the opportunity and in court protecting information at the risk of going to jail. E.J., when he finally was forced to produce a partial statement, he did. He brought forth the very one that housed Yonks and Tootin's accounts. And I'm telling you, before you got back from Carson City, that what was supposed to be in camera to the judge, the judge released to everybody, and before the week was out, George Green had sent that document from Wilmington Trust, the most private piece of information in a business, he had sent it out to everybody mailings. So you've got to stop that. And that means that every client has to be informed.

And you have to make public statements, give us something to run in contact, because a lot of those early clients came this way, from this source. And if it bogs down over there and they lose their privacy, we lose our credibility. You know, Houghton did it. You also engender tremendous liability. It's not credibility, it's liability. A horse is out of the barn, you've got the names, you're running with it. If those names are turned over somehow inadvertently, no matter how it happens, to the IRS or any other agency, and those people start to get sued, they're going to come right back to Nevada Port. And so to that end, I think James should follow through with what he's got going.

Immediately, it's not true. They shut that whole thing down. But you have incurred liability already. And if they have mailed anything, they are guilty of mail fraud. Well, Commander, Rod Kort and myself did put together a letter that is being sent out to every one of the clients, and I have discussed with both Cort and Ron that one or two of their very major attorneys who handle a lot of the corporations for their particular states that are real good patrons and clients of NCH, that those persons should be met personally by court and sat down and shake their hand and make sure that they're not signing over to the other corporation. Because we do know that a couple of these bad conspirators were in very, very close contact with those major suppliers.

So we are taking the steps that the commander here just suggested that should be done. Great. Now, can I get on to one other subject? No, we're through with Gene. We don't want to hear any more of that. Sorry, Jane. Oh, does that mean I can go or shut up? Go either. OK. All right. This is the one that that I see developing a problem between the two of us. I don't want that to develop. I want to just resolve it. with the present situation and the contempt action. First of all, how it was brought to the attention of the court.

A contempt action can be brought to the attention of the court by any person who knows of the contempt action and the violation. It does not have to be brought to the court by an officer, a director, or anybody like that. Anybody who knows of the contempt action and believes there's a violation can file a thing with the court, and can bring a contempt action. Initiate it. Now after this contempt action was served, there was a lot of discussion between me, E.J., and a variety of other people as to the fact that we now had a lot of information that the copyright that Mr. Walter Russell had originally obtained was wrongfully obtained.

