Nov. 10, 2015

Full text of "Eustace Mullins - The Rape Of Justice; America's Tribunals Exposed (1989)"

 

THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

Americans Tribunals Exposed

The First Part O F T H E INSTITUTES

 

Of the Laws of ENGLAND.

 

OR.

 

A Commoitaryapon Littleton, not the name of the

Autboronly, but of the Law itiel£

Martial.

 

J(ain/ te vm* Jmunf mifirs luMrl* dartt I

Hw kgt, qntdfijjit dietrijurt mtum tfi,

Cicero.

Major hxreditas. venit tinicaidue noftnun k

Jure 8c Legibus, quStm a Parentiboi;

Aa&ovt Edwardo CoKE.Mtlitd

 

 

TiteSeremh Editkm carefully CorrcAed.

LONDON^

Piiatedby aatniitnatcr) 3!atW0f(e(^cr, and |)enry iS.1ni^li, Affigu ii

Bitdarb Stktne and eomcD atUns , Efquiret.

 

AaAsattoheSMhyGccrgeSamMJge, "JAmPhett Ipfm BtUrngtr^ mlUtmVUekt

JBkm UJkl-, Cb. tLrftt, John Amery, Jtb» Pcole, John Lagb, UUcTXX. 1

 

CumCratia 6c Pcivi1c}>ioReg;b; Majcftatis.

THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

America's Trihunals Exposed

 

bY

EUSTACE MULLINS

 

 

 

 

Legal Studies Group

The National Commission for Judicial Reform

 

 

 

THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

America's Tribunals Exposed

 

 

 

Published by the National Commission for Judicial Reform

POBox 1105

Staunton VA 24401

 

 

 

First Edition

 

 

 

Copyright 1989

Eustace Mullins

 

 

 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

 

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted

in any form by any means — electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise —

without express prior permission, with the exception of brief excerpts in magazine articles

and/or reviews.

 

 

 

Printed in the United States of America

 

 

 

for

 

JANE KATHARINE MUSE MULLINS

 

"the mother makes all things possible"

 

 

 

**••*•••*••••*

 

Books by Eustace Mullins

 

Secrets of the Federal Reserve

My Life in Christ

This Difficult Individual, Ezra Pound

The World Order

A Writ for Martyrs

The Curse of Canaan

Murder by Injection

 

 

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

 

 

 

The Legal Studies Group of the National Commission for

Judicial Reform presents this latest investigative research coup

of Eustace MuUins, in the hopes that it will aid the citizens

of America to reduce the odds against winning a favorable

decision in our courts. A native Virginian, Eustace MuUins

is a descendant of William MuUins, whose name is on the

Mayflower Compact, a government code written for the May-

flower settlers, and the first compact written in the New World.

He served thirty-eight months in the United States Army Air

Force during World War 11. He was educated at Washington

& Lee University, Ohio State University, the University of

North Dakota, New York University, Escuela des Bellas Artes,

San Miguel de AUende, and the Institute of Contemporary

Arts, Washington, D.C.

 

His name, Eustace, means "Justice," in Aramaic, the lan-

guage spoken by Jesus Christ.

 

In his forty years of investigative work, Eustace MuUins's

rapid progress was made possible by his becoming the protege

of Ezra Pound, the leading literary force of the twentieth cen-

tury; George Stimpson, founder of the National Press Club, and

the most respected journalist in Washington, D.C; and H. L.

Hunt, the business entrepreneur with a consuming interest in

good government. After Ezra Pound's passing, Eustace MuUins

founded the Ezra Pound Institute of CivUization, which carries

on Pound's ground-breaking work in literature and economics.

 

 

 

vu

 

 

 

Contents

 

 

 

1 Legal Anarchy 1

 

2 The Origin of Law 16

 

3 A Plague of Lawyers 56

 

4 Judge Not 133

 

5 The Supreme Court 188

 

6 The Court as Arena 241

 

7 The Department of Justice 276

 

8 Durance Vile 313

 

9 The Case of the Strange Director 336

 

10 The Strange Case of the Schizophrenic Driver . . 370

 

11 The Strange Case of the Senile Millionake .... 392

 

12 Freedom of Speech, Anyone? 419

 

13 Taxation Without Hope 429

 

14 The Taxing Power 448

 

15 Mullins on Equity 481

 

16 Our Legal Future 532

 

 

 

IX

 

 

 

Foreword

 

 

 

In my travels throughout the United States, I have found

that the first complaint of our citizens is the sorry state of

our legal system. They do not complain that the laws them-

selves are onerous, but rather that thek administration is almost

universally unfair and unjustified. I have even heard farmers

arguing with each other at their markets, each protesting with

inverted pride that "Our county has the crookedest lawyers

and judges in this state," only to be met with the fervent

response from a farmer representing another county, "Oh,

no, our lawyers and judges are a lot crookeder than the ones

in your county!"

 

Americans recognize that we must have laws, and that we

must abide by them, otherwise life would become intolerable.

The problem is that law-abiding citizens are usually greeted

in our courts with disbelief that anyone still obeys the laws

in this nation, and two, that a legal system which is operated

by and for criminals has no greater enemy than the law-abiding

citizen.

 

The first purpose of law has always been "Salus Populi,"

the safety of the people. I write this in a building which has

five locks on every door. Twenty-five years ago, the doors

were never locked. We hardly knew where the key to the

front door was kept. With hundreds of other citizens in Wash-

ington during its tropical sununers, I went to a nearby park

 

 

 

XI

 

 

 

xii FOREWORD

 

to sleep in the era before air conditioning. Today, no one in

his right mind would close his eyes in a Washington park,

either by day or by night. It is rightfully known as the ' 'murder

capital of the world," rather than as the capital city of the

United States of America.

 

This situation has been created, not by the negligence of

the police, who are working harder than ever, but by the

legal system, which abruptly denied the previous basis of

our legal system, "Salus Populi," in 1933, with the advent

of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who adopted the

Marxist concept that the legal system was being used unfairly

to defend property. Because of the Communist decree that

all property was now the property of the state, the legal system

need no longer defend crimes against personal property. This

was soon extended to crimes against persons. The doctrine

of compulsory equality meant that no citizen was entitled to

wear a gold watch or to live in a large home. Other citizens

who wished to deprive them of their excess property, even

at the cost of their lives, were looked upon with approval

by the legal system. If they injured or killed too many citizens

in their exuberance, they might be confined for a short time,

but they were soon released to continue the Marxist campaign

of "levelling," that is, of reducing all citizens to a common

level of fear and despair. This goal was first achieved in the

Soviet Union, when Wall Street bankers financed the "noble

experiment in compulsory equality." Soviet Russia was re-

duced to a giant concentration camp, a Gulag in which tomor-

row might be worse than today, but it would surely be no

better. The United States has travelled that same road with

 

 

 

FOREWORD xiii

 

remarkable speed, constantly accelerating the techniques which

force our citizens to new levels of personal depth and degrada-

tion.

 

Under this Marxist system, our citizens have found that

the legal system is now something quite apart from "the law,"

that is, the fixed doctrine under which we live. A law is a

fixed power. In contrast, the administration of the law today

is a fluid power, in flux, and subject to outside influences,

mainly the power of money and its concomitant political influ-

ence. When an American citizen comes into court today, he

is not faced with the power or the majesty of the law. To

his dismay, he finds that this force is no longer present. Instead,

he finds that he is facing the power of money, and the power

of political influence.

 

Traditionally, the scales of justice are depicted as awaiting

the weight of the evidence. A preponderance on one side or

the other will tip them to a just conclusion. Indeed, this is

the ideal to which we still aspire. Unfortunately, it is rarely

found today in our courts. If an attorney finds that the weight

of evidence is tipping the scales against his client, he immedi-

ately employs one of the myriad techniques of "civil proce-

dure" to have that evidence declared inadmissible, to have

his opponent's witnesses impeached or found incompetent,

and to mount a counterattack of his own to tip the scales

back to favor his client. This technique is called "practicing

law." Like any other skill, it is honed by constant practice,

but this skill depends heavily on its practitioner's willingness

to employ any subterfuge on his client's behalf. It is as though

a football game were being played during which the players

 

 

 

xiv FOREWORD

 

were allowed to commit any unsportsmanlike or illegal act

in order to gain a point, with the umpire (that is, the judge),

actually cooperating in and officially approving the illegal

conduct. In legal parlance, this has a name; it is known as

"professional courtesy," because the judge, like the lawyers,

is also a member of the bar.

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 

 

 

I extend heartfelt thanks to the staff of the Library of Con-

gress, the curator of the John W. Davis Collection at the

Law Library of Washington and Lee University, and most

especially, to the staff of the Law Library of the University

of Virginia (and indirectly, to Thomas Jefferson, who spon-

sored this splendid university) for their painstaking cooperation

in making this research possible. My sincere appreciation to

Bill M. for his valuable guidance in the preparation of this

book, and to my correspondents throughout the United States

who have sent crucial material for my research.

 

 

 

XV

 

 

 

 

Chapter 1

 

Legal Anarchy

 

 

 

In perusing articles in the nation's press concerning the

present practice of law, one can only ask whether the lunatics

have finally taken over the asylum. Consider the following;

a mother is ordered confined to jail for many months by a

judge because she refuses to obey a court order from a judge

who demands that she turn over her infant daughter to a di-

vorced father. The mother refuses, because she states that

the father has sexually abused the child, a statement reinforced

by medical evidence. After twenty-seven months of confine-

ment, she is still in prison, but has never faced a juiy or

been convicted and sentenced for any offense.

 

Another mother, in the state of California, is sent to jail

because she refuses to turn over her fifteen year old son to

her husband, a homosexual, and his lover. A judge in Boston

appoints himself the Superintendent of Schools because he

disagrees with the manner in which the city's schools are

being operated. Another judge, in Yonkers, New York, fines

the city one million dollars a day for "racism" because its

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

2 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

inhabitants, who have fled in terror from the drug-crazed streets

of Manhattan, now refuse to turn their neighborhoods over

to the very criminal influences from which they had fled.

They had been found guilty of the crime of "white flight,"

of seeking a more stable area in which to bring up their children.

In American courts today, "white flight" is accepted by judges

as prima facie evidence of guilt of the crime of "racism."

 

Rather than extremes, these stories are to be garnered from

the issues of any metropolitan daily newspaper. However,

in more mundane court cases, which do not merit attention

by the press, the ruling presence of what can only be described

as madness (perhaps the peculiar delusions and madnesses

of crowds), provides endless examples of equally horrendous

examples of the rape of American justice and its perversion

at the hands of the mob. The guillotine is omnipresent in

our courts, where our modem Madame Desfarges sit knitting

on the front row. Here again, the blade drops, not on the

heads of criminals, but on those who have been found guilty

of being productive, law-abiding citizens of these United States

of America.

 

Consider the following; a plaintiff sues for damages incurred

in an automobile accident, after the person at fault has stead-

fastly refused to make any payment. The opposing counsel

finds an elderly black alcoholic who will support the defen-

dant's claim that the plaintiff was responsible for the accident.

However, during his deposition, the alcoholic states that he

is unable to identify either the plaintiff or his vehicle. Realizing

that they have a credibility problem, the defendant's lawyers

suddenly have their witness committed to an insane asylum

the day before the trial. (He has been an inmate on previous

 

 

 

LEGAL ANARCHY 3

 

occasions). The plaintiff demands that this witness be produced

before the trial can proceed. The judge has no option but to

comply. The alcoholic is brought in from the insane asylum

under armed guard. His testimony is crucial to the defense,

but the jury must now consider its source. Before this farce

goes much further, the judge hastily saves the day for the

defendant by declaring a mistrial.

 

At the second trial of this cause, the judge thoughtfully

requests the plaintiff to bring his car to the court building,

so that the jury can examine it and decide who was at fault.

The plaintiff welcomes this opportunity to let the members

of the jury look at his car. They file out and solemnly inspect

the car, noting that its two right front doors have been smashed

in, where the defendant's front bumper struck it three years

before. The jury returns to its deliberations, and after eight

minutes, files back into the courtroom to deliver their verdict

that the plaintiff had backed his car into the firont bumper of

the defendant, smashing in the two doors on the righthand

side! The fact that this feat defies all the laws of physics

carries no weight with them. Verdict for the defense.

 

Developments of this type illustrate the theory of morphic

resonance. Morphic resonance is the process by which the

past becomes present within morphic fields. The rape of justice

is an excellent illustration of the process by which the transmis-

sion of causal formative influences becomes evident through

space and time. The memory within the morphic fields is

cumulative, so that things become increasingly habitual and

more acceptable through repetition. This is apparent in much

of our legal system, where the most outrageous testimony

and judicial decisions are made to seem reasonable and accept-

 

 

 

4 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

able. This illustrates the operation of morphic resonance con-

ceived by an evolutionary spirit, becoming impressive non-

material fields of influence extending through space and con-

tinuing in time. Because they are localized within the systems

which they organize, they turn the cosmos into a growing

organism. However, the processes of morphic resonance need

not be devoted entirely to formulae of insanity or unreason;

they can just as easily be influenced by reason and human

intelligence, instead of irrationality. This process was in force

during the creation of the American Republic, when the finest

minds among the American pioneers conceived the Constitu-

tion as the vehicle in which to enshrine their reason.

 

Even among these Founders of the Republic, there was

no overweening optimism that what they had created would

be immune from later abuse. Samuel Adams may have ex-

pressed the concerns of his peers when he wrote in 1789,

 

"I have always been apprehensive that through the weakness

of the human mind often discovered in even in the wisest

and best of Men, or the perverseness of the interested, and

designing, in as well as out of Government; Misconstructions

would be given to the federal constitution, which would disap-

point the Views, and expectations of the honest among those

who acceded to it, and hazard the Liberty, Independence and

Happiness of the People. I was particularly affraid (sic) that

unless great care should be taken to prevent it, the Constitution

in the Administration of it would gradually, but swiftly and

imperceptibly run into a consolidated Government pervading

and legislating through all the States, not for federal purposes

only as it professes, but in all cases whatsoever: such a Govern-

ment would soon annihilate the sovereignty of the several

 

 

 

LEGAL ANARCHY 5

 

States so necessary to the Support of the confederated Com-

monwealth, and sink both in despotism."

 

Adams did not envision the judiciary as the vehicle of this

despotism, but his colleague, Thomas Jefferson, who was

aware of the perils inherent in a central banking system as

well as in a consolidated judiciary, wrote in 1821,

 

"It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never

shrunk from its expression. . . . ; that the germ of dissolution

of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal

judiciary: an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely

a scare-crow.) working like gravity by night and by day,

gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing

its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction,

until all shall be usurped from the States, and the govenmient

of all consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because,

when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in

great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of

all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of

one government on another, and will become as venal and

oppressive as the government from which we separated. It

will be as in Europe, where every man must be either pike

or gudgeon, hammer or anvil. . . . If the States look with

apathy on this silent descent of their government into the

gulf which is to swallow all, we have only to weep over the

human character formed uncontrollable but by a rod of iron,

and the blasphemers of man, as incapable of self-government,

become his true historians."

 

Modem governments rule by a simple formula, by convinc-

ing the masses that they are able to exist by the labor of

others. In return for this ' 'free' ' existence, they agree to ' 'coop-

 

 

 

6 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

erate" in helping the "government" crush anyone who dares

to speak out in favor of our traditional liberties. Frederic

Bastiat, the French philosopher, pointed this out when he

said, "Government is the great fiction through which every-

body endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else."

Note the crucial word "endeavours." The subhumans, that

is, the gray men, the mattoids, those who admit they are

unqualified to compete in the games of modem life, sink

back into the morass from which they emerged, a morass

which is variously labelled. Communism or other dictator-

ships. In the United States, the gray men have found a unique

defender, the court system.

 

Although many Americans express concern, but little else,

about the growing crime problem, few of us understand that

most crimes are committed in our courts. If a criminal commits

an illegal act, this constitutes a crime. However, when he is

taken to court, our legal system then becomes an integral

part of the criminal process. The crime of which the criminal

stands accused is nothing to the crimes which are now commit-

ted in the name of a "legal system." During the course of

an ordinary legal action, whether it be criminal or civil, from

three to ten additional crimes are usually committed. These

crimes, in most instances, particularly if two attorneys are

engaged, one as plaintiff and one as defendant, consist of

subornation of perjury, suppression of evidence, intimidation

or silencing of witnesses, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and

denial of the rights of the injured party.

 

Because of the crimes committed against them by the legal

system, the American people have been for many years en-

gaged in a desperate war, a war to the death. Their mere

 

 

 

LEGAL ANARCHY 7

 

survival in this war is an amazing and almost unbelievable

historical event, because most of us have no inkling that we

are in the midst of a great war. We believe that war is a

situation where two countries formally engage each other in

battle. In fact, during the past five thousand years of recorded

history, most wars have been internal, or civil wars. Very

few of them are wars fought against an external enemy.

 

Civil wars obscure the issues at stake, but the result is the

same, the survival of the fittest. It is still a war of the fit

against the unfit, even though the unfit manage to survive

by creating alliances, by keeping the issues in the dark, and

by dividing and conquering their historic foes. Although the

results of this great civil war may result in a temporary advan-

tage for one side or the other, the issue remains unresolved

until one side has succeeded in ending the conflict by totally

exterminating the opponent. The unfit are resolved that they

will be the victors, and that the fit will disappear from the

pages of history. The fit rarely have a clue as to what is at

stake, that is, their very survival, and in most cases, they

massacre each other at the clever instigation of the unfit.

 

A further amazing aspect of this impasse is the fact that

once the fit do disappear, if indeed they are exterminated,

the unfit themselves, unable to exist without their parasitic

dependence upon the fit, will also disappear from history.

Humanity, as a brief happenstance of history, will be forgotten.

This paradox is explained by the ample evidence of the psycho-

logical aspects of the unfit — that they are perpetually mired

in their self-hatred, and that the goal of their earthly existence

is to end in their destruction. If this is their goal, one may

well ask, why don't they go ahead and end it? They cannot

 

8 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

do so until they have fulfilled what they see as their historic

mission — ^to exterminate the fit everywhere on earth before

they go down to their own long sought self-destruction. This

dilemma is rooted in the hatred, misery, greed and envy which

characterize the existence of the unfit upon the earth, from

which they can never escape, despite any ameliorating effects

of improvement or civilization.

 

Rather than face this stark dilemma, most of the unfit prefer

to ignore it, turning their attention to some ephemeral excuse

for not facing reality. It is another paradox that the fit, so

able to compete and to excel in any field of life, have but

one condition which continues to place their very existence

in peril, their refusal to face reality. From birth, they are

brainwashed to deny their fitness, and to cast about for some

area of weakness which will enable them to believe that they

really belong with the unfit. It is this brainwashing which

enables the unfit to constantly recruit able allies from the fit.

Although the educational and religious systems are constantly

maintained "in form" to achieve this objective, it is the legal

system which remains the final arbiter of the unfit in their

war against the fit.

 

The present writer has appeared in American courts for

some forty years, arguing his cause in every court except

the Supreme Court of the United States. I have ignored the

Supreme Court, because it is geared to handle only the plead-

ings of special interests. The individual has no chance to

appear before this court. It is a waste of time and money for

an individual to prepare and submit a brief to the Supreme

Court. If he can enlist the support of one of the special interests,

who see in his plight some opportunity to advance their own

cause, he has a chance, albeit a slim one.

 

 

 

LEGAL ANARCHY 9

 

During these forty years of court appearances, a record

which exceeds that of most practicing attorneys, this writer

has seen elderly judges turn off their hearing aids, and sit

dreaming of their mistresses, while apparently following with

intense interest the droning protestations of attorneys and their

paid witnesses. Many of us would be alarmed, thinking that

if the judges are not listening to the testimony, justice is not

being served. In fact, this creates no problem. In most litiga-

tion, the case has been decided long before the trial actually

begins. This charade is necessary in order for the attorneys

to collect their enormous fees, and to convince the ignorant

litigants that they have indeed had "their day in court."

 

It is difficult to be critical of the judges for not bothering

to listen to days and months of testimony in litigation, because

experts believe that up to ninety per cent of all evidence

given in American courts is perjury. The judges may have

other impairments which interfere with their proper absorption

of vast amounts of manufactured and coached testimony. This

writer has appeared before judges who were widely known

for their "quart a day" habit, a necessary preparation for

sitting long hours on the bench. Although most of us might

be affected by such daily consumption of the best Southern

bourbon, here again, there is no real effect upon the judge's

rendering a decision, as this has been decided before he took

his first drink of the day, nor is there any question of his

impartiality. His verdict usually favors a merchant or a profes-

sional man over a complaining customer.

 

There is also no real abridgment of the citizen's access to

justice. He does have access to justice, but it is his misfortune

that he is totally in the dark as to what kind of justice is

available. He has been brainwashed to believe in the impartial-

 

 

 

10 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

ity of the law, the application of Constitutional principles in

our courts, and the absolute integrity of our legal system.

At no time is he ever advised by his omnipresent "counsel"

that the Constitutional "law" in which he retains such a child-

like belief, touching in its very innocence, has long since

been replaced by the "law merchant" that is, the law of

commerce. This will be explained in greater detail in a later

chapter, but for the moment, let us suppose that the citizen

comes back with "Well, what's wrong with the law of com-

merce? It is also a vehicle of integrity, is it not? Doesn't it

maintain principles of equality and fair play, and honest deal-

ing?"

 

Certain aspects of the law merchant are acceptable — ^the

merchant asks a price, and the buyer pays it. There is a warranty

on the goods, debts should be paid and so on. However,

there are disturbing ramifications to the law merchant. First,

it is always international, although it may be applied nationally.

Second, it recognizes no national boundaries, or any national

obligations. The United Nations, a law merchant entity, had

made this clear. For instance, under the United Nations Treaty,

the crime of treason against an individual cannot be success-

fully prosecuted. Alger Hiss had to be prosecuted for the

crime of perjury, rather than the crime of treason, because

he was protected by our acceptance of the United Nations

Treaty (which he himself had written!). He was convicted

of lying about his thefts of government documents, because

he could not be convicted of turning them over to the Commu-

nists. Subsequent espionage cases in the United States have

been prosecuted by the same subterfuges, with varying results.

Many of the convictions have been obtained by relying upon

military regulations and their violation. Nevertheless, no

 

 

 

LEGAL ANARCHY 11

 

American judge is willing to make the pronouncement in open

court that we can no longer prosecute the crime of treason,

although this is generally acknowledged throughout our judicial

structure.

 

Judges and lawyers are always aware that they are proceed-

ing according to the principles of the law merchant. Litigants

are never informed of this crucial fact. Citizens who confidently

cite their Constitutional rights in court are amazed to find

that the judge becomes furious, and threatens them with severe

punishment if Constitutional principles are brought up again.

This is our hidden code of justice. It is not a secret code,

because it is no secret that our courts function on the principles

of the law merchant. However, it is concealed from the citizens,

hence it is a hidden code. When the citizen objects that his

Constitutional rights are being violated by this foreign proce-

dure, he is curtly informed that "You just don't understand

how we do things here."

 

The law merchant principles guide the outrages committed

by agents of the Internal Revenue Service against American

citizens. Americans know that they are guaranteed the right

of trial by jury, and cite the Seventh Amendment to the Consti-

tution in support of that guarantee. However, the law merchant

recognizes no right of trial by jury, nor does it recognize

any "rights" of individuals. There are no rights; there are

only adherence to the principles of the contract between the

parties. The Internal Revenue Service would be violating its

own principle, the principle of the law merchant, to allow

trial by jury. For this reason, the Tax Court does not allow

jury trial. The sitting judge is the only person who can render

a decision.

 

Another vexing aspect of Internal Revenue operations are

 

 

 

12 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

the continual demands that personal records and papers be

produced for their "inspection." They cannot know how much

of your property to seize until they have made an inventory

of it. This IRS custom was drafted by Lenin in his crucial

program "The Threatening Catastrophe," in 1917, He laid

down the dictum that "concealing income" would result in

the confiscation of assets. Not only did this program ensure

his success in setting up a Communist dictatorship in Russia;

it also became the guiding principle of our Internal Revenue

Service. The actual basis of the IRS operations is the Commu-

nist principle that ownership of private property by an individ-

ual is a crime. An individual who owns private property or

assets of any kind, cash, bonds, etc., not only is committing

a crime against the Communist State by owning said property —

he commits an even more serious crime by not making a

Jesuitical "confession," admitting that he owns said property

which he has concealed, and that he thereby loses his rights

to it. It is confiscated by the state. In essence, most "judg-

ments" by IRS agents consist of the confiscation of all assets

of the accused; not merely the "tax" owed, but all other

assets as well, in penalties interest, fees and other "assess-

ments." Thus Nikolai Lenin has established his dictatorship

over the citizens of the United States.

 

American citizens are expressly relieved of any obligation

to turn over their personal records to government agents, ac-

cording to our Constitution. However, the compulsory mainte-

nance of records, and the compulsory producing of them in

a controversy, is an essential feature of the law merchant.

Without the keeping of adequate records, recording transac-

tions and payments, commercial life would be very difficult.

 

 

 

LEGAL ANARCHY 13

 

Therefore, the law merchant compels the keeping and produc-

tion of records, a command which is now mandatory through-

out our legal system, not only in tax controversies, but in

all litigation, despite the fact that Constitutional law states

that said records are the inviolable private property of the

individual. However, the law merchant overrides this protec-

tion by defining as a "merchant," anyone who engages in

any conmiercial transaction, whether as a buyer or as a seller.

Thus every citizen, engaging in commercial transactions on

a daily basis, is classified under our present legal system as

a "merchant," and thus subject to the precepts of the law

merchant.

 

Once the law merchant had become the dominating factor

in our legal system, just after the Civil War, lawyers began

to demand the production of personal papers and documents.

However, this did not become endemic until after the Second

World War, when individual nations which had attempted to

establish national boundaries for their commercial law, and

had become identified as "fascist" nations because of that

precept, had gone down in utter defeat, and the international

commands of the law merchant had become the law of all

nations. Court orders are routinely issued by judges for the

"production of documents," ignoring all Constitutional pro-

tection against such orders. These orders also become the

instrument for destroying an opponent, because an order to

produce documents can run into millions of dollars in costs.

Such costs are always ignored by our judges, because "justice

must be served" — ^no matter what the cost to the parties.

This meant that litigation, which had once been the trial of

issues of fact, that is, the conflicting stories of the opposing

 

 

 

14 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

litigants, now became a process of "discovery," meaning

that a race was on to discover which party would run out of

money first, and then go into default.

 

The present writer has endured many such assaults upon

his personal rights. He was stripped of all the earnings from

his historic work, the first history of the Federal Reserve

System, when a conniving "philanthropist," who had guaran-

teed him all proceeds from the sales of the book, embezzled

all of the income from sales. With no other recourse, this

writer was forced to sue him. He was then served with a

federal court order by the philanthropist's attorneys, to produce

all of his income tax returns, expense disbursements, and

other financial data for the previous thirty-five years, although

he had been involved with the philanthropist for only two

years. Being unable to comply with this federal court order,

this writer was then informed he could either go to jail for

an indeterminate period, possibly life, since the records could

not be produced at any time in the future, or he could sign

a quitclaim, which he did. The embezzler kept all of the

proceeds fi-om the book, aided and abetted not only by a

federal judge, but by the precepts of the law merchant.

 

Most Americans, being informed of this amazing outcome,

would exclaim, "That's impossible! They can't do that!"

Of course they can't do that, under Constitutional law. How-

ever, such a court order is routine under the law merchant.

At the time of this imbroglio, this writer had seen references

to the "law merchant," but naively supposed that it referred

to the Uniform Commercial Code. I strode into court, prepared

to defend my complaint on Constitutional principles. Instead,

I was quickly ground down by the wheels of our legal Jugger-

 

 

 

LEGAL ANARCHY 15

 

naut, the law merchant. At no time was I infonned that our

modem day Benedict Arnolds had turned the court (our West

Point fortress of our rights) over to the English foe, or that I

was now standing on the property of the Bank of England.

However, in future trials, I will be prepared. I will begin by

requesting the court to identify each legal procedure used in

the trial, as to whether it is authorized by the Constitution,

citing the pertinent Article, or whether it is a procedure of

the law merchant, again identified by the pertinent code. The

judge has but one defense — ^to cite me for ' 'contempt of court' '

each time I raise this question. Otherwise, he will have to

answer my request.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2

 

 

 

The Origin of Law

 

 

 

The law under which we live, that law which is now so

liberally construed, altered, misinterpreted, and bent to private

ends by members of the legal profession, has always been

intended, from its earliest records, as a fixed power. The

word "law" in its pristine meaning, is recorded in its Old

English roots, "Lauh," or "Laucht," meaning "laid" or

"fixed." This in turn was earlier derived from the Aryan

"logh," also meaning fixed, and in the Teutonic root, "lag,"

meaning, "to lie in a fixed manner," and evenly. In Latin,

it was "lex," or law, and in Old French, "loi" a word similar

to the earlier Aryan logh.

 

In previous civilizations, the law was not only regarded

as a fixed power; it was deemed to originate in the heavens,

and in godly rule. We find in the Cairo Museum a nineteenth

century B.C. papyrus, the "Hymn to Amen-Ra":

 

"Hail to thee, Ra, Lord of Law; father of the gods; maker

of men."

 

Civilized nations have generally acknowledged that the ulti-

 

 

 

16

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 17

 

mate source of the law and its authority is the will of God,

as it was codified in scripture. In Isaiah 2;3, "The law shall

come forth from Zion." In Micah, 4;2, "The law shall go

forth from Zion." Isaiah 51 declares, "Thus saith the Lord;

Hearken unto Me, ye that know righteousness, the people in

whose heart is My Law; fear ye not the reproach of men.

Neither be ye afraid of their revilings. For the moth shall

eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them

like wool; but My Righteousness shall be forever, and My

Salvation from generation to generation."

 

Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries, a primary

source in the English common law, states a profound belief

in the origin of law: "When the Supreme Being formed the

universe, and created matter out of nothing, he impressed

certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never

depart, and without which it would cease to be." Blackstone's

observation, offered as an article of his faith, has been remark-

ably verified by the modem discovery of DNA, the gene

structure which controls our actions. The law, then, is not

only the law of God, the law of men, and the law of our

people, but it is also the law of nature, the very law which

binds oiu" physical being. This explains the multitude of "psy-

chosomatic" illnesses which plague millions of people, and

which stem directly from the perversion of law and the rape

of justice. In my book of health, "Murder by Injection," I

quoted the great scientist, Morley Roberts, on "Malignancy

and Evolution," "Malignancy is the diversion of energy from

high differentiation into the proliferation of low-grade epithelia

which can endure irritation but only differentiate with difficulty.

May we go further and even say that the common tendency

 

 

 

18 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

to malignancy is the result of sociological refinements which

ask for a higher role for epitheha?" In short, Morley Roberts

is asking whether the widespread cases of cancer are not due

to sociological factors, which demand that we alter our genetic

makeup in order to proliferate low-grade epithelia. The courts

have led the way in this "crusade," punishing the healthier

and more productive members of society in favor of "the

deprived, the homeless, the malformed. ' ' This has been accom-

panied by the systematic debauching of our monetary unit

through international central bank manipulation, as I pointed

out in "Secrets of the Federal Reserve," impoverishing the

healthier, productive members of society. The subsequent ruin,

in turn, has resulted in the weakening of our immune systems,

creating the phenomena of AIDS, cancer, and many other

degenerative types of illnesses.

 

The first codifications of law recorded in civilization ac-

knowledged the importance of law to our human systems.

Noah enjoined his sons to observe justice, to cover the shame

of their flesh, to bless their Creator, to honor their father

and mother, and to refrain from iniquity and uncleanness.

These principles were later refined into the form in which

we know them, the Ten Conunandments. Man's very existence

was predicated upon his obedience to the Law of God. Tradition

maintains that this law was formulated as a verbal acknowl-

edgement of the covenant between God and His People. It

entailed consideration from both parties, and thus was a legal

and binding contract according to the established principles

of law. However, this Covenant did not encompass all of

the known population of the world, but merely that group

known as God's People, the People of Israel. As chronicled

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 19

 

in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, Man, that is, Adam,

was ruddy of complexion. This ruddiness was the conscious

reminder of his dedication to upholding the Law of God.

Whenever he transgressed this law, he would blush, in con-

scious acknowledgement that he had been disobedient. The

blood would rush to his face, in a visible blush, as the mark

of his disobedience and the reminder that he must fulfill the

Law.

 

Because of this dedication, Adam had an immortal soul.

His son, Enoch, differed from Adam because he was mortal.

Henceforth, God's Law would deal with the mortality of His

People. God later blessed the seed of Isaac, because "Abraham

obeyed My Charge and kept My Commandments and obeyed

My Law." Among Isaac's sons, a term later shortened to

more popular usage as "Saxons," was Jacob, whose name

was later changed to Israel. Since that day, Israel has been

the chosen People of God. Isaac's sons, the Saxons, brought

God's Law to the nations of the world, as they emigrated

and settled in other lands. This law was codified by the jurists

of England, principally by Coke and Blackstone, as the English

common law. It was later transformed, after having been

brought across the Atlantic Ocean by English colonists, as

the Constitution of the United States. The Founding Fathers

were acutely conscious of their precepts and thek mission.

Samuel Adams, the main instigator of the struggle for Ameri-

can independence from England, declared, "We have come

here to establish our Israel."

 

The history of civilization has always been marked by the

clearly defined milestones of codified law. In 2250 B.C.,

the Code of Hammurabi was promulgated "to establish law

 

 

 

20 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

and justice in the land. ' ' We have also been greatly influenced

by the codes of Roman jurispradence, which were administered

as the ruling code of the world for some thirteen hundred

years. Kent's Commentaries, the principal legal textbook for

American lawyers throughout the nineteenth century, notes.

Vol. I, p 556, "The great body of the Roman or civil law

was collected and digested by order of the Emperor Justinian,

in the former part of the sixth century. ... It exerts a very

considerable influence upon our own municipal law."

 

The Roman jurists developed the principle of ' 'jus naturale, ' '

that is, a code of laws which reflected the laws of nature

and the natural order. In his Commentaries, Blackstone ex-

pands upon this "law of nature." "Law of nature — ^the Will

of his maker is called the Law of Nature, being coeval with

mankind, and directed by God Himself as a course superior

in obligation to any other. It is binding over the globe in all

countries and at all times; no human laws are of any validity,

if contrary to this."

 

Blackstone also writes that ' 'Revealed Law is only scripture.

Upon these two foundations, one, the law of nature, and

two, the Law of Revelation, depend all human laws; that is

to say, no human law should be suffered to contradict them."

 

This is in strange contrast to our present day legal system,

in which the rape of justice daily contradicts both the Law

of Revelation, and the law of nature.

 

Because it was developed over a period of many centuries,

Roman law had ample time to respond to the emerging prob-

lems brought on by its historical growth. Founded by Romulus

in 753 B.C., Rome became a Republic in the year 509, after

the expulsion of the Etruscan kings. In 450 B.C., the Laws

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 21

 

of the Twelve Tables were formulated. The earliest Roman

law was the Jus Quiritium, developed by the Quirites, who

were the First Families of the Republic. As patricians, the

Quiritian Law was developed primarily to protect their families

and their property. These families were known as gentes, or

the clans. Their descendants have since been known to history

as "gentlemen," as contrasted to the less distinguished masses,

or plebs, as the freedmen, or non-gentiles, were known. The

Latin "gentilis" meant belonging to the same clan or gentes.

In those European nations which developed from these Roman

antecedents, the gentes' descendants were known by the sobri-

quet "gentilhonmie" in France, and as "gentlemen," later,

aristocrats, in England.

 

The privileges arrogated by the First Families, the gentle-

men, became a source of constant criticism and contention

from the plebs. In fact, ancient Rome soon developed into

the two groups which have remained fairly constant for three

thousand years, the older families, which held the majority

of property, and the masses. In the twentieth century, they

are usually known as Republicans, and Communists.

 

The essential difference between the two classes was that

the patricians, or gentlemen, knew who their parents were,

and the plebs, who paid little attention to such niceties, did

not. Because of their family records, the patricians were able

to hand down their property to their heirs, while the plebs,

even if they prospered, had no family records with which to

protect their holdings. This fundamental distinction led to

the demands of the plebs that the government intervene to

support them, demands which, some twenty-five centuries

later, led to the Communist Manifesto, and Karl Marx's de-

 

 

 

22 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

mand that all inheritance be abolished. In the United States,

this precept of Communism was enshrined in punitive inheri-

tance taxation and income taxes.

 

The Quiritian Laws in ancient Rome served to protect the

family lines of the patrician families, and to provide inheri-

tances for their descendants, their rightful and acknowledged

heirs. Property and inheritance laws have been a basic part

of our laws since that time. Roman law was divided into the

fas jus and the boni mores. By fas was understood the will

of the gods. The scholar Breal derives this word from the

Greek "oeuis," meaning, the divinely inspired word, the laws

given by heaven for earth. Jus also derived from the Sanskrit

ju, to join, bond or unite, meaning the family bonds and

ties which transcended the mortality of man. This was later

interpreted as the jos or jaus of the Vedas, and the jaes or

jaos of the Zend-Avesta. Boni mores was an essential ingredi-

ent of the maintenance of the patrician family; it meant dutiful

service, respect, chastity, and fidelity to the law of contract,

the law of the family.

 

The stem family discipline of the Roman patricians, which

enabled them to continue their family lines, was steadily bat-

tered by the rapidly multiplying plebs, whose mathematical

proliferation and willingness to endure a lower standard of

living resulted in their greatly outnumbering the patricians.

Under this pressure, the great landed estates were broken up

into smaller, individually held parcels of property, as the

gentes, or clans, began to disintegrate. Heretofore, strict laws

had governed the ownership of property in Rome. Heredia,

that is, plots of land within the city proper, had been granted

to the heads of the gentes, the leaders of the patricians. Our

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 23

 

word heredity derives from this custom, referring to the passing

on of these plots of land to the heirs of the patricians.

 

Emboldened by their increasing numbers, the plebs began

to demand more and more "rights" for themselves. The is-

suance of the Twelve Tables marked a watering down of the

original Jus Quiritium. This process was greatly enhanced

with the Jus Civile, at the establishment of the Republic.

Our "civil law" derives its name from the outcome of the

centuries long struggle between the patricians and the plebs,

when the plebs insisted upon a law which granted them more

privileges, as "civil" laws. In 471 B.C., the plebs celebrated

their final triumph, with the establishment of the "tribunes,"

as the expression of their newfound political power. Thus

the patrician age in Rome lasted a scant three hundred years,

a short period in the long history of Rome. Nevertheless,

much of the power and organization of Rome continued to

be based on the stem precepts of its founding patricians, just

as much of the protection afforded to its citizens in the United

States by the Constitution had been laid down by the stem

precepts of our own Founding Fathers. Even today, our lawgiv-

ing bodies are frequently referred to as ' 'tribunals, ' ' as recogni-

tion of the triumph of the plebs in Rome in 471 B.C.

 

In 445 B.C., Caious Canuleius led the final assault of the

plebs against the entrenched privileges of the patrician families.

He wrested from them the source of their continuing power,

the protection of their blood lines. By very stringent and exclu-

sive marriage bans, they had managed to preserve their blood

lines by prohibiting marriage with a pleb. Canuleius now

succeeded in overcoming this ancient prohibition. From that

time on, plebs were allowed to marry into the patrician families.

 

 

 

24 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Rome was now "democratized." With this democratization

came the inevitable dimunition of the powerful blood lines

which had so encouraged the ascendancy of Rome. Rome,

in the time of the passage of a mere three cenmries, had

already begun her downhill road to decline. With the new

democracy came increasing power and growing complexity

of the Roman legal system. Cicero was led to publicly denounce

the wellknown practice of bribing jurors. By the end of the

fourth century, B.C., Ammianus Marcellinus protested that

' 'We see the most violent and rapacious classes of men besieg-

ing the houses of the rich, cunningly creating lawsuits. Doors

are now daily more and more opened to plunder by the deprav-

ity of judges and advocates who are all alike."

 

We could remind Marcellinus of the old saw that "The

more things change the more they remain the same. ' ' Certainly

his complaint could be echoed in any American city today.

At the present time, our economy is imperilled by the burgeon-

ing merger and acquisition activity among the large corpora-

tions, as they prey upon and swallow up each other. Corpora-

tions were wellknown in Roman law; the provisions for the

establishment of corporations had been copied from the laws

of Solon. Private companies were entitied to stay in business

as long as they did nothing contrary to the public law. This

precept was soon ignored. Both Augustus and Julius Caesar

were forced to dissolve the corporations, because then- machi-

nations created widespread faction and discord among the

people. It was during this crisis that a schism developed which

has remained fairly constant to the present time, the schism

between the civil law, which was designed to protect the

public, and the law merchant, or the law of commercial activi-

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 25

 

ties, which was designed solely to protect the merchant. Al-

though civil law takes into consideration the rights of the

individual, commercial law only recognizes the stipulations

of the contract, however this might infringe upon the rights

of the citizen. Also, commercial law was pragmatic in its

origins, having developed strictly from mercantile operations,

whereas civil law ostensibly was based upon religious precepts

and the Law of God.

 

By 467 A.D., Roman civil law, overtaken by historical

developments, had reached the end of its legal authority. In

476, the Roman Catholic Church sought to resuscitate the

power and authority of the ancient Roman law through its

worldwide operations, with the presentday version of the Ro-

man Empire headquartered in the Vatican, in Rome. The Ro-

man Senate re-emerged as the Vatican's College of Cardinals.

In contrast to this development, England became the repository

of the ancient law of Isaac's sons, or Saxon law. Three branches

of this law were established there; the Danes brought Dane

Lag, the Danish Law, to England; the West Saxons brought

the West Saxon Law to England; and the ancient Britons

had their traditional Mercan-Lage, or Mercian Laws. King

Alfred the Great codified the English common law in 872

A.D., as the Dooms of Alfred, taking his inspiration from

tiie Covenant of Moses. By this upholding of the contract

with God, Alfred assumed the title of "Great," becoming

the representative of the People of Israel.

 

Blackstone notes that "The common law of England is

generally founded in Biblical principles." Alfred the Great

began his Dooms of Alfred with the Ten Commandments.

In the eleventh century, Henriciius Bracton blended the English

 

 

 

26 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

common law with the Roman law, as it had been revised in

the Justinian Code of 533 A.D. This became operative in

England as a Christian version of Roman law. Hugo Grotius,

a lawgiver whom one of our Founding Fathers, James Madison,

called "the father of the modem code of nations" firmly

believed that God's law was superior to human laws. This

view upheld Cicero's earlier contention that a law of the state

which was in contradiction of natural law could not be viewed

as law.

 

The Anglo-Saxon common law developed in three distinct

steps: first, as the conmion law; second, as Equity; and third,

as Parliamentary enactments. Each development represented

a fiirther watering down and perversion of the original Teutonic

or Anglo Saxon precepts. In the United States, we have fol-

lowed a similar path. American law began as Constitutional

law, the enshrinement of the ancient Teutonic strictures which

protected the rights of the individual from powerful lords,

which today we call the State. Coirmiercial legal requirements

then gradually took over as equity law or the law merchant,

continually subduing Constitutional precepts of law, a process

which was typified by the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth

amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These

amendments contraverted the original intent of the Constitu-

tion, as Congressional or Parliamentary enactments, which

were and are legislative powers delegated to the law merchant.

Included in these developments are the Federal Reserve Act,

the Internal Revenue Service code, and the National Recovery

Act of the Roosevelt Administration. The latter was overturned

by the Supreme Court, as obviously being imconstitutional.

However, the Federal Reserve Act and the Internal Revenue

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 27

 

Service have never been challenged before the Supreme Court.

 

The principal feature of the ancient Teutonic law, from

which our common law derives, was "veragelt," a legal princi-

ple which established the payment of compensation for death

or injury. Also known as "manngold," it evolved into the

term "wergeld" under Saxon (or Isaac's sons) law. The

amount of wergeld was always stated in schillings. After Wil-

liam the Conqueror invaded England and established the power

of the "Black Nobility" there (see "The Curse of Canaan,"

by Eustace MuUins), the nation was once again divided into

two classes, the foreign lords and the native bom population.

The natives became known as borders, or villeins. A "border"

was a villein of the lowest rank, who held his cottage only

at his lord's pleasure, and only if he produced sufficient income

to the lord to justify his continued presence. This became

known as the legal principle of Bordlands Anglice, governing

the land held by a border in tenure under Anglican law, which

was also known as villeinage.

 

The fundamental change in legal authority in England after

the Norman Conquest eliminated many of the principles of

the ancient Anglo-Saxon law. However, it continued to be

the basis of the legal system, because it was so firmly rooted

in long recognized Roman and Saxon precepts. These precepts

could be traced all the way back to Alaric the Goth Visigoth,

who issued laws for his Roman subjects well before Justinian.

His code was known as the Breviarium Alarici, or the Lex

Romana Visigothorum. In England, Alaric's precepts were

preserved in the Lex Salica, circum 500 A.D., in the Dooms

of Ethelbert, of 600 A.D. , and in the Lex Saxonum. However,

legal historians often choose to ignore these precepts, prefer-

 

 

 

28 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

ring to attribute the development of the common law to Henry

of Bratton, whose name was later corrupted to Bracton. He

died in 1268 A.D. These historians claim that "legal mem-

ory," that is, the record of our legal system, can only be

traced through written precepts to the coronation of Richard

I in 1189. Bracton served King Henry in for many years,

as the model for Henry's justices. His legal work was based

upon the treatise of Azo of Bologna, who is remembered as

"Master of all the masters of the laws." Bracton, in turn,

served as the model for the most illustrious name in English

common law. Sir Edward Coke.

 

Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634), was bom of an old Norfolk

family, which traced its lineage back to William of Coke of

Dedlongton, in 1206. Coke not only managed to codify the

English common law in his Institutes; he was also embroiled

in most of the major political disputes of his time. He was

bom to the lord of the manor of Milkham. At the age of

nineteen, he began the study of law in 1571 at Cliffords Inn

at the Imer Temple in London. He completed his studies

some seven years later, in 1578, and was called to the bar

on April 20 of that year. His first marriage, in 1582, was a

fortunate one. He married Bridget, the daughter of John Poston

of Suffolk. She brought him a dowry of thirty thousand pounds.

After her death, he made an even more advantageous second

marriage, choosing Lady Elizabeth Hatton, granddaughter of

the great Cecil, Lord Burghley. The Burghley family, the

Cecils, were one of the three mling families of England.

Coke's political future was now assured. His first marriage

had brought him money; his second marriage, power. He

had now become privy to the small inner circle of the men

who actually mled England.

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 29

 

Coke had won Lady Elizabeth despite the fact that, as a

very desirable partner, she had been actively pursued by two

of England's most powerful lords, the Earl of Essex, and

Sir Francis Bacon. Essex was rumored to be the lover of

Queen Elizabeth; Bacon, a founder of the Rosicrucian Society,

maintained secret alliances with Freemasons throughout Eu-

rope. In his continuing quest for power, he was able to draw

upon these sources for support. He also became Coke's princi-

pal rival in seeking the influential post of chief justice of the

common pleas. Again, Coke won the post. As the protege

of Lord Burghley, he was named Chief Justice of the King's

Bench in 1613. In this office, he had the pleasure of prosecuting

another former rival, the Earl of Essex, in 1600. Later, he

was the prosecutor of Sir Walter Raleigh in 1603; in 1605,

he prosecuted the perpetrators of the Gunpowder Plots.

 

When his daughter married the elder brother of the Duke

of Buckingham at his wife's home, Oatlands, Coke further

cemented his growing political alliances. Throughout a long

legal career. Coke dedicated himself to completing his monu-

mental work on law, first published in 1628 as Coke's Insti-

tutes; it was also known as Coke on Littleton. Subsequent

volumes of this work continued to appear until 1644. Coke's

work remains the fundamental treatise on law, although it is

seldom taught in American law schools. After the triumph

of equity, the system of the law merchant, in our system of

jurisprudence, Coke and Blackstone's works were relegated

to remote shelves in the rare book rooms.

 

The lasting influence of Coke's work may be attributed to

its firm grounding in both Roman and Anglo-Saxon law. Coke

returned to the principles of the ancient Jus Quirites, when

he divided the people into two classes, the nobility and the

 

 

 

30 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

commonalty. This was a restatement of the earliest legal divi-

sion in Rome, the patricians or the gentes, and the plebs.

Coke began his work with the statement, "Reason is the

life of the law; nay, the common law itself is nothing but

reason . . ."He continues with a Latin maxim, "neminam

oportet essem sapientorem legibus; no man (out of his own

private reason) ought to be wiser than the law, which is the

perfection of reason."

 

Coke also commented in the Institutes that "the common

law of England is called right, sometimes common right,

and sometimes communis justitia." He dwelt on the principle

of ligeance, or a ligando, that is, the quality of allegiance as

"the highest and greatest obligation of duty and obedience."

With this precept, he had returned to that stem sense of duty

which had guided the patricians of Rome and the establishment

of the Roman Empire. It was just such a sense of duty which

guided our Founding Fathers, and such leaders as General

Robert E. Lee.

 

These basic qualities of Coke in his work later made a

great impression on the imprisoned poet Ezra Pound, who

had been shut away without trial because of his obedience

to such a stem sense of duty. Coke also spent much of his

later life as a political prisoner. During his years as a prisoner.

Pound was able to study the entire work of Coke, which

had appeared in four parts: 1. The reprint of Littleton's treatise

on tenure, which was to serve law students during ensuing

centuries as their first textbook; 2. the text of various statutes

of the Statute de Donis, and other statutes to Magna Carta

to James I; 3. criminal law; 4. the jurisdiction of the different

courts of law. He later published his further studies of the

law. Coke's Reports, which appeared in thirteen parts.

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 31

 

Despite his powerful political patrons, Coke frequently

found himself under attack by his many enemies. On Feb.

26, 1620, he delivered an important speech on the problems

of the scarcity of money, a statement which increased the

number of his enemies by the number of those whose fortunes

were made by trading in money. After much study of the

problem, he found that the scarcity of money could be traced

to seven causes, which he enumerated as: 1. the turning of

money into plate; 2. the use of gold folia in gilding; 3. the

undervaluing of silver; 4. the East India Company ' 'who inter-

cept the dollars and other moneys that would otherwise come

into the Kingdom and bring in for it nothing but toys and

trifles; 5. the excess of imports over exports; 6. the French

merchants for wine carry forth 780,000 pounds per annum

and bring nothing but wines and laces and such like trifles;

7. the patent for gold and silver lace and thread which wastes

our bullion and coin and hinders the bringing of it into the

kingdom."

 

Much of Coke's definition of the problem facing his nation

four centuries ago is applicable to the plight of the United

States as we approach the twenty-first century. We too are

plagued by an excess of imports over exports. We import

not only wine and lace, but oil and many other expensive

products. Coke's emphasis on the necessity of maintaining

the nation's supply of bullion echoes the preoccupation of

our Founding Fathers, when they inserted into the Constitution

the specific provision that lawful money should consist of

gold and silver. However, it was Coke's open criticism of

the activities of the East India Company which caused him

to undergo the most severe pressures. This company repre-

sented then, and for many years afterward, the secret govern-

 

 

 

32 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

ment of the British Empire. With full knowledge of this power,

Coke refused to hold his tongue, when more prudent men

would have remained silent. The passion for justice which

ruled his life was not confined to the courtroom, but was

applied to every realm of life. Chambers Encyclopaedia notes

that "from 1606, Coke stood as the champion of national

liberties, opposing any illegal encroachment of both church

and crown." He openly criticized the Spanish marriage of

King James I, who married a Catholic. This marriage resulted

in a civil war, the end of the Stuart dynasty in England, and

the Glorious Revolution.

 

King James I responded to this criticism by sending Coke

to the Tower of London. The imprisonment lasted for nine

months; Coke was released in August of 1622. While he

was in prison, his enemies sought to close in on him. Five

different lawsuits were filed against him. He won them all.

He was called up by government agents four times for lengthy

examination "on state interests" with no incriminating results.

His chambers were repeatedly ransacked; again, no evidence

against him was found. Nevertheless, his private papers were

seized and brought to the council to be searched. His victorious

emergence from these trials later caused him to refer to his

"seven great deliveries while in the Tower" (Holkham Ms

727).

 

For the remainder of his life. Coke remained under suspi-

cion. In 1631, King Charles I gave the order that his papers

should be secured (SPDP S.P.D. clxxxiii 490) lest he be an

influence on the people. However, Coke continued to denounce

any interference by the Crown with the liberties of Parliament.

He opposed King Charles I's demands for additional subsidies

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 33

 

for the Crown; he continued to speak against illegal taxation;

and he denounced the King's favorite, the Duke of Bucking-

ham. For these reasons, his career as a citizen of England

was as illustrious as his career as a jurist and as a legal scholar.

After his imprisonment in the Tower of London, he was se-

cluded in his home in Stoke Poges. On the news that he

was seriously ill, a King's Warrant had been prepared (S.P.D.

cclxxii 65), and an envoy, Sir Francis Windebank, was sent

to Stoke Poges to seize Coke's personal papers. These effects

were kept by the government for seven years. Many of his

most important manuscripts disappeared; even his will was

never returned to his heirs. They had to assign his belongings

without the benefit of his testament. Sir Edward Coke died

at Stoke Poges on September 3, 1634. His personal story is

typical of the treatment of a great man by envious and lesser

rivals, who knew how to abuse their governmental powers.

Many years later, one of his descendants, Thomas Coke, was

finally named Lord of Holkham; his present heir is known

as the Viscount of Coke.

 

Sir Edward Coke's long and fruitful life embraced the years

of the British Empire's greatest power, which had been attained

under Queen Elizabeth, from 1558 to 1603. James I followed,

from 1603-1625; Charles I from 1625 to 1649. Coke had

entertained Queen Elizabeth at his home in Stoke Poges in

1601. During that visit, he presented her with gifts worth at

that time more than one thousand pounds. Coke's patron,

Lord Burghley, was Elizabeth's secretary of state. Whether

because of or in spite of his illustrious patronage, Coke never

hesitated to challenge Elizabeth's successor, King James I.

Coke's successful impeachment of Sir Francis Bacon was

 

 

 

34 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

widely interpreted as a direct attack upon the authority of

King James, and the king himself believed this was the case.

Coke had stood before the King, citing Bracton to his face,

"The king should be subject to no man, but to God and the

law." After King James' death, his enemies circulated the

claim that he had been a homosexual, a slander which has

been traced to but one originator, Anthony Weldon, who had

been excluded from court circles. As a consequence of this

exile, he developed a pathological hatred of the Stuart family.

He first penned the story about King James in 1650, twenty-

five years after James' death. Antonia Fraser, a prominent

historian, attributes the slanders to the fact that James had

begun to suffer from early senility, years before his death,

causing "peculiar unorthodox behaviour." In support of King

James, historians cite cardinal facts of his life; that he was

the first in history to unite the feuding tribes of Scotland

into one nation; the man who united Scotland and England;

and the man who encouraged the propagation of the Bible

in the language of the people; the King James version of the

Bible.

 

Coke's impeachment of Sir Francis Bacon not only caused

King James to imprison him; it also brought down upon him

the wrath of the rapidly growing Masonic movement through-

out Europe. Freemasons and their shock troops, the lUuminati,

have continuously sought to wreak their sinister program on

the people through control of the legal system. To lose the

chief justice of England was a serious setback to their plans.

In retrospect, we can only wonder that he was not executed,

as the death penalty was a frequently employed punishment

of political offenders. Apparently the Cecil connection was

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 35

 

too great, and Coke was allowed to die quietly at his home.

The Dictionary of National Biography honors him with an

effusive memorial, "in his mode of stating what he believes

or wishes to believe, he often reaches a perfection of form,

exhibiting that freedom from flabbiness and that careful use

of terms which is essential to a good legal style."

 

Legal historians have pointed out that perhaps never before

or since has one man made so much law. He denied the

right of the king to judge cases personally, or to give jurisdic-

tion to ecclesiastical courts at the expense of the courts of

the common law. He asserted that it was unlawful to give a

commission (such as a royal commission) the power to hear

and determine offenses which should be heard in the ordinary

courts. Such practice robbed the citizen of the protection of

established law. Coke maintained that no martial law which

was executed by military law should be carried out without

following the common law process. He briUiantly expounded

the conmion law, simultaneously defeating Sir Francis Bacon's

project to codify the law, a tactic for which Bacon had appar-

ently been engaged by his Masonic conspirators. Coke thus

gave us an exposition of the common law which has spread

it throughout the English-speaking world. Coke laid down

in Peacham's case (1615) that it is contrary to law to ask

the judges separately before trial in a pending case to give

their opinions in camera and ex parte. This practice has become

a growing abuse in the American legal system. It was Sir

Edward Coke, standing alone, who denied the right of the

king to delay or stop proceedings in the common law courts.

Coke further denied the right of the King to make law by

proclamation.

 

 

 

36 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Coke's monumental Institutes fixed the common law for

the next three centuries, and established its supremacy over

the Church, the Admiralty, the Star Chamber, and the code

system of law which was propounded by Sir Francis Bacon.

Coke also established its supremacy over the royal prerogative,

through his insistence upon grand jury indictments, jury trial

protection against unlawful searches and seizures (from which

he himself was not protected), protection against double jeop-

ardy, and the right of habeas corpus. It seems impossible

that one man could have done so much, and thus he remains

an inspiration to all who share his passion for justice. Few

Americans today are aware of Sir Edward Coke's influence

upon our Founding Fathers. Our historians ignore Coke's great

feat in backing the Petition of Right of 1628 in England,

which directly challenged the ascendancy of King Charles I.

King Charles not only ignored the Petition of Right; he contin-

ued on his arrogant course while his popular support steadily

eroded. He was executed in 1649. The Petition of Right later

became a major factor in the drafting of our Declaration of

Independence and the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

 

The rivahy between Sir Edward Coke and Sir Francis Bacon

continued to affect the history of England long after both

were gone. Ironically, it was Coke's challenge to the Crown

as an absolute monarchy which resulted in the limited mon-

archy which we find today in England. His challenge exposed

the vulnerability of the absolute monarchy, a situation which

was eagerly exploited by a group of bankers in Amsterdam.

They financed Oliver Cromwell and his Puritan forces' military

takeover of England, resulting in the execution of King Charles

I. When Cromwell's death without a suitable heir led to the

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 37

 

collapse of this dictatorship, and the restoration of the mon-

archy with King Charles II, the Amsterdam bankers used

their financial skills to cause unrest and economic chaos in

England. After King James II succeeded Charles, the resulting

problems proved too much for him, and he was forced to

leave the throne, being succeeded by William of Orange,

the Amsterdam bankers' choice, who became King William

in. This event is known historically as "the Glorious Revolu-

tion."

 

The Glorious Revolution is a historical event which is little

noted in the United States. It refers, not to our own successful

American Revolution, but to the even more momentous revolu-

tion of 1688 in England. No historian has noted that the history

of the world since 1688 has been directed by the consequences

of the Glorious Revolution, which not only ended the attempts

of the Vatican to recover its extensive landed holdings in

England which had been seized by King Henry the Eighth,

but also resulted in the establishment of the Bank of England

and its espionage service. Great Britain's notorious SIS, the

Secret Intelligence Service, which in turn set up our own

Central Intelligence Agency, under the name of Office of

Strategic Services, during World War II.

 

The Glorious Revolution not only made possible the charter-

ing of the Bank of England, which was to become the world's

most influential central bank; it also opened the door for the

subsequent usurping of the English Crown by the lUuminati

in 1714, when George I, Duke of Hanover, ascended to the

throne of England. Since that date, the English monarchy

has been prominent in the world machinations of the Freemason

movement. The Amsterdam bankers had first subdued the

 

 

 

38 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

English Crown when they financed Oliver Cromwell's rule

of England as a Calvinist dictator, controlling England as

Lord High Protector from December 1653 to September 1658,

when he died. After Charles II, King James II succeeded to

the throne. A Stuart who had converted to Catholicism in

1670, James married a Catholic, Mary of Modena, in 1673,

and launched a campaign to rescind more than one hundred

years of Protestant rule in England, by returning the nation

to the fold of the Roman hierarchy. However, this goal was

strongly resisted by the great majority of the EngUsh people,

who were Protestant, and had no wish to return to submission

to Rome. At first, James' crusade was not taken too seriously

in England, because he had two daughters who had been

baptised as Protestant. However, he now had a son and heir

who was baptised as a CathoUc, ensuring that the throne of

England would descend to a Catholic prince. It was this birth

which provoked the Glorious Revolution against him.

 

A small group of EngUsh aristocrats, led by the "King-

maker," the Duke of Devonshire, with his associate, the Duke

of Marlborough, sent a cypher letter to WiUiam at the Hague,

inviting him to take the throne of England. WilUam had married

James' daughter, but his claim could only be exercised legally

at the demise of James and his Catholic heir. James further

angered the English people in June of 1688, when he jailed

seven bishops in the Tower of London. Their offense was

that they had refused to read his latest proclamations about

religion from their pulpits. The bishops were then tried by a

jury, and were acquitted on all counts.

 

At the time of the Glorious Revolution, King James had

an army of 40,000 men, led by carefully chosen officers, all

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 39

 

of whom were Roman Catholics. The challenger, William

of Orange, had only 13,000 men. To compound his problems,

his fleet was blown off course and missed their landing spot.

The Duke of Devonshire hastened to their rescue, and received

William's daughter. Princess Anne, at his castle. James was

then informed that despite his superior numbers, his troops

would not obey their Catholic officers, and he had little chance

of succeeding against the invaders. He abdicated to France.

His abortive attempt to make a comeback in Ireland also met

with defeat. William was now King William in, the King

of England. He signed a Declaration of Rights on February

13, 1689, which ended the king's power to suspend the deliber-

ations of Parliament or to dispense with its laws, which had

been the goal of Sir Edward Coke's mission. Coke's Petition

of Right had now become the law of the land. England has

been a constitutional monarchy ever since. The official release

of the British Information Service, the propaganda arm of

England, states that "the United Kingdom is a parliamentary

democracy with a limited constitutional monarchy. Govern-

ment is carried on by Her Majesty's Government in the name

of the Queen, who reigns but does not rule. The Queen is

an integral part of Parliament."

 

The Declaration of Rights of 1689 was followed by an

even more powerful contract between the English monarchy

and the people of England, the Act of Succession of 1701.

This Act specifically barred the Stuarts from ever again claim-

ing the throne. The Act further placed the Hanover line of

Germany, which was waiting in the wings, in the direct line

of succession. It specified that all future monarchs must belong

to the Anglican Church, the Church of England. It specifically

 

 

 

40 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

barred Catholics from the throne. Later monarchs received

the title of head of the Church of England. Other clauses of

this Act secured parliamentary supremacy by requiring that

the monarch must go to Parliament each year and request

his annual stipend. The royal household now existed at the

pleasure of Parliament, which controlled its pursestrings.

 

In 1694, King William III chartered the Bank of England.

Since that date, there has never been another revolution in

England. A history of civil wars and revolutions against the

throne had come to an end. A privately owned central bank,

the Bank of England, now controlled the issuance of money,

which had formerly been a royal prerogative. The throne's

goodwill was secured by the assignment of a large number

of shares to the royal family.

 

The sudden access to funds provided by the Bank of England

ushered in a great flowering of English culture and international

prestige. The Bank's monetary manipulations created enor-

mous fortunes for its shareholders, and great estates were

built throughout the countryside. The fortunate few who had

invited William to take the EngUsh throne, and who had subse-

quently been invited to become charter subscribers to the Bank

for 10,000 pounds each (the equivalent of ten million dollars

in today's currency), made certain the success of the Glorious

Revolution. One of these chosen few, the Duke of Devonshire,

was appointed Lord High Steward of England by King WilUam,

given a seat on the Privy Council, named Steward of the

Royal Household, and given the coveted award, the Most

Noble Order of the Garter. After William's death, his daughter,

now Queen Anne, continued the Duke's appointment as Stew-

ard of the Royal Household.

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 41

 

Queen Anne married Prince George of Denmark. Although

seventeen children were produced, they all died. Anne was

extremely self-indulgent, and was plied with rich foods by

her solicitous staff. She became very fat, and endured poor

health because of her excesses, which finally caused her death.

Once again, the throne of England was a matter of contest.

Historians have suspected that Queen Anne's overindulgences

were deliberately encouraged by some of her staff, to ensure

that there would be no heir to the throne. She ruled from

1702 until her death in 1714.

 

The successful claimant who replaced Queen Anne was

the Elector of Hanover, in Germany. Although he was merely

the head of a small principality, the Elector was descended

from Henry the Lion (1129-1195). Henry the Lion, Duke of

Saxony, was the only son of Henry the Proud, and was a

prominent member of the Guelph dynasty. At that time, the

fate of Europe was contended for by two opposing forces,

the Guelphs, representing the new "Black Nobility," and

descended from the Canaanites, or Phoenicians (see MuUins'

"The Curse of Canaan"), andtheGhibellines, who represented

the ancient Teutonic Knights and the ruling dynasty of Europe.

Frederick of Barbarossa, a member of the Hohenstaufen fam-

ily, was head of the Ghibellines during the time of Henry

the Lion. Henry the Lion persuaded the Hohenstaufens to

make peace with the Guelphs, (known as Welfs in that area

of Europe). Henry, whose capital was Brunswick, a city later

to figure importantly in the development of the lUuminati

movement, married Matilda, daughter of Heiuy II, King of

England. The Hanovers later came into possession of the Gos-

pel Book, a twelfth century manuscript from the Abbey of

 

 

 

42 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Helmarhausen, which sold it to the King of Hanover in 1861.

In 1983 the family put it up for sale; it was purchased by a

consortium of German interests in 1983 for eleven million,

nine hundred and twenty-thousand dollars.

 

The Hanover family had spent some twenty years diligently

preparing their claim to the throne of England. Their official

genealogist and historian was one of the most wellknown

scholars in Europe, Gottfried Wilhelm Liebniz (1646-1716).

Leibniz had been secretary of the Rosicrucian Society in Nu-

remberg in 1667. He then moved to Frankfort, where he was

employed by the Elector of Mainz from 1676 until his death

in 1716. Not only did he serve the Brunswick family loyedly

as their historian; he was also a lawyer, and served them as

a judge and administrator. His massive work. Codex Juris

Gentium Diplomaticus Hannoverae, not only traced the descent

from Henry the Lion, who had married into the British royal

family; it also documented the later developments. Elizabeth,

one of King James Fs Protestant daughters, had married Freder-

ick the Fifth, the Elector of Palatine. Their daughter, Sophie,

married Ernest Augustus, the first Elector of Hanover. Al-

though Sophie was not a claimant to the English throne, having

died before Queen Anne, her son, who was now Elector of

Hanover, was able to overcome the other claimants by the

sheer weight of Leibniz' tremendous amount of research. Thus

Leibniz, secretary of the Rosicrucian Society, not only brought

the Hanovers to the throne of England; with him came the

fraternity known as the Freemasons.

 

Because of these mystical connections, Leibniz, who

founded such esoteric systems as economic science, and many

other branches of physical science, was a close correspondent

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 43

 

with his fellow Rosicrucian, Sir Francis Bacon in England,

the historic opponent of Sir Edward Coke. Bacon, subsequently

given the title of Baron Venilam, authored a book, "The

New Atlantis," which describes the purpose of the House

of Solomon. Nicolai, among others, has ascribed to this cele-

brated romance the origin of Masonry in its present form.

Leibniz was at the very heart of the new intellectual movement

of the eighteenth century, a spirit of liberalism and humanism

which has been traced directly back to the ancient cult of

Baal (The Curse of Canaan). He was a major influence in

the development of legal doctrine, reaffirming doctrines of

Christian natural law which originated in the Golden Renais-

sance of the fifteenth century. His writings shaped the thinking

of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefiferson in their phrasing

of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of

the United States. In addition to providing intellectual inspira-

tion for the American Revolution, Leibniz's writings also be-

came the inspiration for the Industrial Revolution. It was his

influence which led Benjamin Franklin to establish the Ameri-

can Philosophical Society. Franklin served as colonial Post-

master General, and carried on a worldwide correspondence.

He went to England in 1757; the following year, he worked

with Matthew Boulton Jr. on electricity, metallurgy, and the

harnessing of steam power. Josiah Wedgwood, the potter,

and Boulton's personal physician, Erasmus Darwin, organized

a group which duplicated the aims of Franklin's Junto in

Philadelphia, the organization being known as the Junto of

Birmingham. It was later known as the Lunar Society. Through

its influence, Manchester by the year 1790 had become a

major industrial power. Boulton built the massive Soho Works,

 

 

 

44 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

the first great manufacturing plant. It used water through a

system of canals and steam power. The Soho plant became

wellknown as the headquarters of the Lunar Society.

 

With Leibniz' able assistance, the Elector of Hanover be-

came George I, King of England, in 1714. He spoke no En-

glish, and stubbornly refused to learn a single word. Only

German was spoken at the royal court in London. He ruled

from 1714-1727. George 11 ruled from 1727-1760, and George

in, whose name figures so prominently in American history,

ruled after 1760, placing him in the crucial role of provoking

the American colonists until they erupted in revolution. He

was succeeded by William IV in 1830. In 1837, the grand-

daughter of King George III, Victoria, became Queen. She

married Prince Albert of the German province of Saxe-Coburg-

Gotha, whose family name was Wettin. During the First World

War, this sounded suspiciously German, and it was legally

changed to Windsor, the name by which the present royal

family of England is known.

 

The Glorious Revolution unleashed many currents in history

which remain strong today. The European battle between the

rival forces of Protestant and Catholic was exacerbated by

the ascension of William of Orange in 1688. For more than

a hundred years, the historical enemies, England and France,

had been at peace. William changed this arrangement, by

joining the League of Augsburg against France, which resulted

in seven wars between England and France between 1689

and 1815. The alliance of France with the rebelling American

colonists was but one minor aspect of this longstanding strug-

gle. One legacy of this rivahy is the present contretemps

between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland. The Protestants

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 45

 

proudly wave banners depicting their great patron, William

of Orange. William's participation in the League of Augsburg

was but one aspect of the growing conspiratorial work of

the Masons. The League was essentially a Masonic foreign

policy apparat which was determined to destroy the traditional

balance of power between the reigning monarchies of Europe,

finally displacing them by setting up their own World Order

(see The World Order, by Eustace MuUins).

 

In effect, Leibniz and his fellow intellectuals, with the ascent

of George I in 1714 to the throne of England, became the

secret powers behind the throne. In 1717, it was announced

that Freemasonry was officially revived in England. From

this base of power. Lord Sackville was dispatched to Italy

in 1733 to set up Freemason lodges there; in 1735, Lord

Derwentwater was sent to Paris to organize a Grand Lodge.

The result was the destruction of the monarchy in those nations.

Through the secret forces which led to revolution, England

was finally able to dispatch its great rival, France, and to

end her claims to world power. The new order was announced

at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, when the triumphant Ma-

sons, led by the banking power of the Rothschilds, dictated

their terms, not only to France, but to the other nations of

Europe. Financed by the monetary power of the Bank of

England, enforced by the British Navy and the worldwide

intrigues of the Secret Intelligence Service, the Masons were

well on their way to fulfilling their historic goals.

 

Leibniz' accomplice, Sir Francis Bacon, had paved the way

as the aposfle of the new humanism in England. He thus

imposed on this nation his interpretation of the ancient rites

of Baal, the cult of Canaan, and the predecessors of Europe's

 

 

 

46 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Black Nobility. He was one of the founders of the Rosicrucians,

the Knights of the Rosy Cross, and the group known as the

Free and Accepted (Speculative) Masons, who had departed

from the function of the Masons as a craft organization. Schol-

ars have identified much of Bacon's work as reflecting the

Rosicrucian Manifesto.

 

Under the Hanovers, the Freemasons were able to step up

their own monopoly of secret societies in England. On the

12th of July, 1798, an Act was passed in Great Britain, known

as the Sedition Act, for the Suppression of Secret Societies.

In his definitive work, "The Brotherhood, the Secret World

of the Freemasons," Stephen Knight complains that the Ma-

sons have never complied with the stringent requirements for

listing their members under this Act. However, he seems

unaware that the Act specifically exempts the Freemasons

from compliance. Its language reads, "And whereas certain

societies have long been accustomed to be holden in this

kingdom, under the denomination of Lodges of Freemasonry,

the meetings whereof have been in great measure directed to

charitable purposes; be it therefore enacted, that nothing in

this Act shall extend to the meetings of any such Society or

Lodge which, shall, before the pasing of this Act, have been

usually holden under the said denomination, and in conformity

to the rules prevailing among the said Societies of Freema-

sons." In effect, this Act banned all secret societies except

the Freemasons.

 

Such a powerful ban reflected the active participation of

the now reigning family of England, the Hanovers, in the

lodges. From 1782-1790, the Grand Master of England was

His Royal Highness Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland;

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 47

 

from 1791-1812, His Royal Highness George, Prince of Wales,

who subsequently became King George IV; from 1812-1842,

His Royal Highness Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex,

son of King George III. The Duke of Sussex united the rival

lodges, the Ancient and the Modem, into a single potent

force. Thomas Howard, the Catholic Duke of Norfolk, had

been Grand Master in 1730 despite many Catholic edicts issued

against membership in the Freemasonry movement. Several

Earls of Strathmore have also been Grand Masters of England.

A Strathmore married the Duke of York, later King George

V, and is now Queen Mother of England.

 

A century after the passing of Sir Edward Coke, another

great legal scholar appeared in England. Sir William Black-

stone published his monumental Conmientaries in 1765. Black-

stone continued and expanded Coke's work, by further defining

the language and the principles of the common law. In Book

 

1 of his Commentaries, he lays down the three absolute rules

of civil liberties: one, the right of personal security; two,

the right of personal liberty; and, three, the right to private

property. Blackstone divided the law into the rights of persons

and the rights of things, private wrongs as opposed to civil

or public wrongs, and crimes and misdemeanours. In Section

 

2 of his Commentaries, he writes that "Ignoranti juris, quod

quisque tanatur scire, neminem excusat. Ignorance of the law

is no excuse, because who can ignore God's will." This be-

came the presentday legal maxim, "Ignorantia non excusat

legem; ignorance of the law is no excuse." This was further

qualified by the presence of fraud, or a mistake in fact, as

"Ignorantia facti excusata."

 

Sir William Blackstone was bom in 1723. He was called

 

 

 

48 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

to the bar in 1746, and was named Solicitor General to the

Queen in 1761. Like his predecessor, Sir Edward Coke, he

also had a powerful benefactor. Prime Minister Sir Robert

Walpole, who named him to the prestigious foundation of

the Charterhouse School, and to Oxford's exclusive Fellow

of All Souls. The Commentaries appeared in four volumes,

the first brought out in 1765, and the other three volumes

appearing over the next four years. He made fourteen thousand

pounds from the sale of the Conunentaries, an enormous sum

for that age. The Commentaries also proved to be a great

influence in the legal doctrines of the United States for the

next century. They were finally supplanted by a native product,

Kent's Commentaries, as the basic textbook for American

lawyers.

 

Calvinism, a stem branch of Protestantism which had origi-

nated in Switzerland under the aegis of a French leader, Calvin,

had played an important role in the winning of England from

the Catholic Stuart dynasty. Oliver Cromwell had been an

ardent Calvinist, as was the eventual victor over the Stuarts,

WiUiam of Orange. After the American Revolution, an adept

combination of Calvinist and Masonic influences was brought

to bear at the Constitutional Convention. Although the princi-

ples of Sir Edward Coke had been a contributing influence

to the writing of the Declaration of Independence, and survived

in the Bill of Rights, which was a belated addition to the

Constitution, the convention itself was dominated by Episcopa-

lians, that is, for all intents and purposes, by a branch of

the Anglican Church, and by a strong Jesuit presence. How-

ever, the guiding principles of the convention were laid down

by Freemasons, many of whom were also members of the

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 49

 

other dominant groups. Bradford notes that Daniel Carroll

represented the State of Maryland at the convention. He was

the brother of the Archbishop of Baltimore, and was a Mason,

as well as a Catholic.

 

The convention purported to draft the Constitution as the

final protector of the rights of independent citizens against

any oppressive force of government. However, as we have

previously noted, the Bill of Rights was added, not as an

afterthought, but as a device to ensure the adoption of the

Constitution. Much of the work of the convention was mere

window dressing to conceal its real purpose, which was to

establish a strong central government with legal authority to

provide repayment of loans made to the Americans by British

financiers, principally those who were also stockholders of

the Bank of England. The new government was also commis-

sioned to insist upon the repayment of mortgages to British

lenders, which the post-Revolution courts, notably led by

George Wythe, a drafter of the Constitution, and called the

father of our legal system, duly demanded from the debtors.

 

On July 9, 1778, meeting in Philadelphia, Congress had

approved the Articles of Confederation, which then became

the ruling body of law for the young nation. These articles

established the principles of states' rights, and effectively ruled

out the possibility of a strong central government, a federal

power. When the Constitutional Convention met in Philadel-

phia on May 27, 1787, its secret agenda was to emasculate

the Articles of Confederation, and to authorize the establish-

ment of a strong federal government. The delegate who was

entrusted with the task of carrying out this secret mission

was Edmund Randolph. During the previous year, Randolph

 

 

 

50 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

had been elected Grand Master of the Masonic Lodges of

Virginia. His father, a leading Tory, and King's Attorney,

had returned to England at the outbreak of the American Revo-

lution. He never returned to America.

 

Edmund Randolph opened his plan with an unexpectedly

strong attack on the Articles of Confederation. He claimed

that "the confederation fulfilled none of the objectives for

which it was framed." He then listed a number of objections

to the Articles, among them, ' 'It is not superior to state constitu-

tions. Thus we see that the confederation is incompetent to

any one object for which it was instituted. Our chief danger

arises from the democratic parts of our constitution."

 

Although one might have expected cries of outrage from

the defenders of liberty who were present, none were made.

In fact, most of those assembled were of like mind; the few

who might have objected preferred to remain silent and go

along with the crowd. Randolph's proposals received strong

and concerted support from his fellow Masons at the conven-

tion. He then worked out a Constitution which largely scrapped

the Articles of Confederation, and replaced it with a Constitu-

tion which authorized a strong centralized federal government.

A cloak of concealment was thrown over this creation by

the hasty addition of a "Bill of Rights," intended as a sop

to those who otherwise would never have voted for ratification.

Well-hidden within the basic framework of the Constitution

were Masonic plans and authorizations for a national judiciary

power, which would exercise final authority in disagreements

between the branches of government, while the national execu-

tive power was given little opportunity to enforce the Bill of

Rights.

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 51

 

During the first few years of the Republic, the national

judiciary was discreetly quiet. The Supreme Court met in a

basement room, and appeared to be little more than an orna-

mental power within the government. However, it asserted

itself sharply when John Marshall became Chief Justice of

the Supreme Court. He had recently succeeded Edmund Ran-

dolph as Grand Master of the Virginia Lodges, which have

played a major political and judicial role ever since. Marshall

made his first bold bid in 1803, in the wellknown case of

Marbury v. Madison. Marshall's court ruled that the judiciary

has the power to strike down any law. The legal background

of Marbury v, Madison was that it was a brazen exercise in

partisan politics. The case became a cause celebre after James

Madison, the Secretary of State, worked far into the night,

hastily signing commissions for members of the Federalist

Party on his last day in office. On the following morning,

Thomas Jefferson came in as the new Secretary of State.

Because Madison was a stalwart of the opposing Federalist

Party, Jefferson threw Marbury's commission into the waste-

basket, even though Madison had signed it. Marbury then

brought suit to claim his due appointment as a justice of the

peace. Chief Justice Marshall, who was also a leading member

of the Federalist Party, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and

awarded Marbury his commission, a decision delivered along

strict party lines. Marshall's decision created the precedent

for the supremacy of the federal power.

 

On September 3, 1807, Marshall delivered another famous

ruling, in U.S. v. Burr, as reported by Mr. Ritchie. He declared

that "the laws of the several states could not be regarded as

rules of decision in trials for offences against the United States,

 

 

 

52 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

because no man could be condemned or imprisoned in the

federal courts under a state law." This legal decision came

about because of Marshall's role as "one of the usual sus-

pects." For many years, Aaron Burr had been one of the

most active Masonic conspirators in the new Republic. He

had plotted to set up a separate and independent republic in

the states bordering the Mississippi River. When Burr was

charged with treason for this plot, he was defended by his

attorney, Edmund Randolph, a former Grand Master of the

Lodges of Vu-ginia. Sitting as judge in this important case

was Justice Marshall, who was then Grand Master of the

Lodges of Virginia. The decision was a foregone conclusion,

because Masonic law decrees that a Mason must always rule

in favor of a fellow Mason, due to his "obligations."

 

Despite the success of Edmund Randolph and his fellow

Masons in writing a Constitution which gave the federal gov-

ernment supremacy over the states, many legal authorities

continued to cast doubt on the validity of that power, until

the Civil War silenced forever the Americans who still opposed

a strong federal power. In Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 S

Wheaton 193, the Chief Justice of the United States observed

that "the powers of the states remained, after the adoption

of the Constitution, what they were before, except so far as

they had been abridged by that instrument."

 

During the nineteenth century, the available legal textbook

for American lawyers was Kent's Commentaries. In Book I,

p. 490, Kent commented on the Marbury v. Madison decision.

"The question, said the Chief Justice, was whether an act

repugnant to the constitution can become a law of the land.

The powers of the legislature are defined and limited by a

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 53

 

written constitution. But to what purpose is that limitation if

those limits may at any time be passed? The distinction between

a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished

if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are

imposed, and if acts prohibited, and acts allowed, are of equal

obligation. If the constitution does not control any legislative

act repugnant to it, then the legislature may alter the constitu-

tion by an ordinary act. The theory of every government with

a written constitution must be, that an act of government

repugnant to the constitution is void."

 

What Kent does not deal with here is the power of the

judiciary to reverse itself on national issues, as has repeatedly

occurred. The Supreme Court today declares that an act is

not repugnant to the constitution. Tomorrow it rules that the

act is repugnant to the constitution, and is void. No safeguard

exists that the court cannot be subjected to varying influences

which bring about these stunning reversals on decisions.

 

Kent further observed, in Lecture xviii, "The limitation

of state power or sovereignty would exist in only three cases:

where the terms granted an exclusive authority to the union;

where it granted in one instance an authority to the union,

and in another prohibited the states from exercising a like

authority; and where it granted an authority to the union, to

which a similar authority in the states would be absolutely

and totally contradictory and repugnant."

 

The American Republic had the benefit of a written constitu-

tion, plus the well-established precedents of the English com-

mon law. The legal basis of the common law was firmly

established in England, one source being "The Laws of En-

gland," sec. VI, chapter 31, which stated, "Be it therefore

 

 

 

54 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

enacted etc. that the common law is, and shall be, in force

in this government, except such part (pertaining to the prov-

inces) laws of England are the laws of this government."

At that time, America was a province of the British Empire.

Kent notes in Book I of the Conmientaries, p. 514,

 

"The common law includes those principles, usages and

rules of action applicable to the government and security of

persons and property, which do not rest for their authority

on any express and positive declaration of the will of the

legislature,"

 

The Laws of North Carolina, chapter 5, which were enacted

in 1785 by this free state, declare, "An act to enforce such

parts of the statutes and common laws as has been heretofore

in force and use here, and the acts of assembly made and

passed when the territory was under this government of the

late proprietors and the crown of Great Britain." C. J. Pearson

says that "The laws of our state rest for a foundation upon

the conmion law of England." However, the Supreme Court,

in 8 Peters 658, stated, "It is clear there can be no conmion

law of the United States (only constitutional law)."

 

The authority of Constitutional law has been steadily eroded

in the United States by the growing dependence upon the

law merchant, and the consequent violation of individual rights

of American citizens. This development flies in the face of

James Madison, who wrote the Fifth Amendment to the Consti-

tution. Madison stated that power must come from the people;

"the government has only such powers as the people delegate

to it through a social covenant, the Constitution which is

derived from God's Covenant with man. This derivation limits

the power of the process of law and the powers of government.

 

 

 

THE ORIGIN OF LAW 55

 

This covenant cannot be contravened as it is 'the law of nature

and of nature's God.' "

 

The natural laws written by Madison and the other Founding

Fathers laid down the separation of powers of the legislative,

executive and judicial branches of the government and the

nexus imperium, the law of checks and balances, safeguards

which are now largely being ignored and contravened by the

judiciary through the adept usage of admiralty law and jurisdic-

tion of the law merchant. In modem times, the law of checks

and balances has been redefined by the Speaker of the House

of Representatives, Jim Wright (who has since resigned), "We

(the Congress) will write the checks and the people will have

to provide the balances."

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3

 

A Plague of Lawyers

 

 

 

In his "Institutes," Sir Edward Coke defines a lawyer as

"one who is set in place of another." In the early years of

the American Republic, many of the Founding Fathers were

either lawyers or trained in the practice of law, as part of

their classical education. As a result, we have maintained

the fiction that lawyers themselves are personages of unim-

peachable probity, so much so that in the rare occasions when

a lawyer absconded with a widow's funds, it was a moment

of great shock. Such occurrences have now been relegated

to the era of old W. C. Fields' comedies; the lawyers no

longer abscond with the widow's funds. They merely transfer

them to their own bank account and then send the widow an

enormous bill for "services rendered." Charles Dickens gave

us the most memorable portrait of a lawyer's techniques in

his rendition of Uriah Heep; servile, insinuating, and once

he has taken your funds, overbearing and demanding. Dickens

also posed the great problems endured by those who found

themselves delivered over to the hands of lawyers, in his

 

56

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 57

 

rendition of the case of Jamdyce v. Jamdyce, a legal struggle

which went on for generations , beggaring the clients but enrich-

ing the lawyers. Unfortunately for Americans, Jamdyce v.

Jamdyce has proved to be the model on which our legal profes-

sion has modeled itself; our courts are filled with similar strag-

gles, the least of which may come to a decision in a mere

five years.

 

The Rand Foundation recently completed a study of our

legal profession, finding that soaring legal costs accompany

delays in getting to trial, which now reach an agonizing eigh-

teen months, on the average. The Rand noted that half of

the $30 billion annually spent on lawsuits goes to lawyers.

Fifteen billion a year, much of which is created by deliberately

prolonging the time and expense of litigation, goes to the

lawyers for shuffling a few papers. Their expenses rarely entail

more than five per cent of this amount: consequently, hundred

dollar power lunches, fifty thousand dollar a year memberships

in country clubs, and many other perquisites must be pursued

in order to sop up the excess cash.

 

When an American citizen hires a lawyer, he enters the

office of the practitioner under the now defunct image of the

profession as that closely akin to one's physician, into whose

hands one delivers the vital question of one's personal health;

or of one's minister, who will be glad to cooperate in one's

eternal salvation. However, just as the physician is likely to

give you a new drag whose side effects will be worse than

what is ailing you, or that the minister will divert your financial

contribution to some tart in Harlot's Alley, the lawyer may

prove to be even more devastating. Few people realize that

an association with a lawyer may tum out to be the most

 

 

 

58 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

dangerous step you can take, possibly resulting in the loss

of your home, job, family and life's savings. They have no

idea that lawyers often engage in one or more of the following

practices during a single case of litigation — ^subomation of

perjury; conspiracy to obstruct justice; and flagrant violation

of the Constitutional rights of the opposing party.

 

Perjury, that is, false swearing under oath, is one of the

most prevalent practices in our courts, not only by witnesses,

but also by lawyers, who often coach witnesses to repeat

carefully directed and totally false testimony. I once appeared

with an attorney in a traffic case in New Jersey, which went

on for about five hours in a stuffy small town courtroom (no

air conditioning). At the end of the case, the judge, who

ruled against us, informed the attorney that of all the testimony

heard that evening, his was the most incredible! Subornation

of perjury, that is, going over the prospective testimony of a

witness, and instructing him what not to say or what he should

say, is the linchpin of our present courtroom drama, the adver-

sary system of justice. Two pit bulls are released into the

arena, to tear at each other until one sinks into death. This

system has little to do with justice, but much to do with

power, profit, and augmentation of fees. The practice arose

because a lawyer who did not know what his witness might

say on the stand would be sitting on a keg of dynamite,

wondering when it would go off. Many cases, which have

been arduously prepared, have been lost in a twinkling when

a witness goes beyond the scope of a question, and volunteers

further information which destroys the client's case.

 

For this reason, lawyers rely heavily upon pre-trial deposi-

tions, or pre-trial discovery. Once these are typed up and

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 59

 

presented to the court, they are set in stone, removing the

fear that the witness will volunteer extra information or alter

his testimony. Like Congressional speeches which are daily

reprinted in the Congressional Record, the testimony may

be subjected to intensive editing, alteration and deletion, all

without any notice to the witness or the court. The altered

deposition is then presented to the court, after a lawyer's

extensive changes, as "sworn testimony"! Should an error

be exposed, it would be blamed on the court reporter.

 

The other tools of pretrial discovery are written interrogato-

ries and requests for admission, both of which are also an-

swered under oath. The interrogatories constitute one of the

greatest abuses of parties. They were sometimes expanded

to as many as fifty or even one hundred questions, some of

which were so artfully phrased that the party who answered

question 18 would be asked it again in question 74 so that

in answering it, he would totally contradict his answer to

question 18. Interrogatories are always identified as "continu-

ing in nature" — that is. First Set of Interrogatories, followed

by Second Set, ad infinitum. Some courts now limit the number

of questions in a single interrogatory to twenty or thirty, but

no correction of the abuse of "continuing" interrogatories is

contemplated.

 

As I have repeatedly pointed out in Motions for Protective

Orders against Depositions to the court, pretrial discovery is

actually "pretrial trial." The lawyer actually conducts the

hearing with himself sitting as judge and jury, with no actual

judge being present. Judges have been universally hostile to

my motions and have always denied them, indignant that a

"layman" would question one of the most profitable and

 

 

 

60 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

arrogant practices of the legal profession. I identified them

as "bills of attainder" which are absolutely forbidden by

the Constitution, being too naive at that time to understand

that the law merchant or admiralty procedures of our courts

ban any and all Constitutional protections of citizens. Pretrial

discovery is also modelled after the ancient Star Chamber

procedures; the subject of the deposition is summoned to a

room where he is placed under oath, with the understanding

that anything he says may be used against him. As Roy Cohn

has pointed out, discovery has become the bread and butter

of the legal profession. Previously forbidden by both common

law and the Constitution, it is now the sacred cow of our

legal procedures. Legal authority Emily Gouric pointed out

in an article in Albemarle Magazine, July, 1989, that lawyers

in the state of Virginia have been able to engage in this profit-

able practice since the early 1970s. She quotes Robert Taylor

as stating, "Discovery takes a great deal of interest out of

trial practice," further pointing out that it prolongs cases five-

fold and makes them much more expensive.

 

Although we may think that the proliferation of lawyers

and their willingness to abuse everyone is something new,

an affliction peculiar to modem civilization, we have only to

turn to the scriptures to find these warnings,

 

"Woe unto you, you masters of the law! you snatch the

keys of knowledge.

 

"And Jesus said. Woe unto you, you masters of the law!

You heap great burdens on the sons of men, yea, loads by

far too great for them to bear. . . . Woe unto you, you

masters of the law! you snatch the keys of knowledge from

the hands of men; You close the doors; you enter not your-

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 61

 

selves, and suffer not the willing ones to enter in. His words

provoked the Pharisees, the lawyers and the scribes, and they,

resenting, poured upon him torrents of abuse. The truths he

spoke came like a thunderbolt from heaven; the rulers coun-

selled how they might ensnare him by his words; they sought

a legal way to shed his blood."

 

This gospel offers striking insights into the practices of

the legal profession, not only in the time of Jesus, but even

more so today. We should not honor this profession by calling

it the "practice of law," but rather, as the subversion of the

law, and the rape of the law, the all-too-famiUar methods

by which God's law is subverted and perverted by dedicated

and professional criminals. Note the dictum, "the rulers coun-

selled how they might ensnare him by his words." I have

just identified this conspiracy as pretrial discovery. Further,

"they sought a legal way to shed his blood." This too is

the goal of our legal practices.

 

To protect American citizens from just such abuses, the

Founding Fathers added certain guarantees, which they termed

"the Bill of Rights," protective measures which had been

cited by Sir Edward Coke earlier in his Petition of Right,

and which had long been envisioned by enlightened European

scholars. Of these rights, none is more important than the

Fifth Amendment, which was personally authored by James

Madison, the prohibition of self-incrimination. However, the

legal profession has boldly circumvented this guarantee

through pretrial discovery. They attempt to force a party or

a witness to provide statements which will destroy his testi-

mony and his case. "The rulers counselled how they might

ensnare him by his words." In so doing, "they sought a

 

 

 

62 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

legal way to shed his blood." What does this mean? It means

precisely what it says. They sought a legal way to shed his

blood. When you go into an American court, the legal profes-

sion seeks a legal way to shed your blood. No technique

associated with this goal is too vicious or too base to be

excluded from the arsenal of the lawyer, even though its barely

concealed purpose, openly approved by the judge, is to shed

your blood. This may seem rather coldblooded, or even un-

christian, to the intended victim, who fails to recognize his

dilenmia. The court is the reincarnation of the ancient Roman

arena, where the Christians are present only because they

are to be thrown to the lions. Their struggles provide amuse-

ment for wealthy but bored spectators. The court has adopted

the old Roman rule of absolute impartiality, extending compas-

sion to none in the arena, whether plaintiff or defendant.

Each of them is to be equally torn and mangled until only

shreds are left on the teeth of the lions. The doctrine of "legal

immunity" is also an important part of the Roman games,

as our courts may more properly be known. The cheering

audience sits high above the arena. No lion is strong or agile

enough to leap into the seating, and present a threat to the

spectators. Judges, lawyers and the jury can safely watch

the torment of the victims without fearing for their safety.

Not a drop of blood will splash onto their silken robes. This

is justice.

 

Our jurisprudence demands that we hire an attorney to repre-

sent us, because the legaj system has grown so complex that

only a highly skilled practitioner is qualified to present our

case. There is some truth to this claim, but it is far from the

whole story. In fact, civil procedure as it is practiced in our

courts can be learned in a few hours. We are speaking now

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 63

 

of the basic practices. The ramifications of our civil procedure

are in fact infinite; the present writer has contributed his modest

addition to it by observing that under our present legal system,

any case is in fact endless and can be continued ad infinitum,

depending on the extent of funds of the rapidly impoverished

parties to the action. This writer has found most attorneys

not only unqualified, but unfamiUar with many aspects of

legal practice, a discovery made when I repeatedly filed mo-

tions which attorneys, both in private practice and employed

by government agencies, had no idea how to answer or to

argue. Their way out of this dilemma was one on which

they have relied constantly during this writer's forty years

of practice in the courts; they simply have the judge deny

the motions without argument.

 

The layman will exclaim, "But that's impossible! The

court's duty is to hear and to resolve all motions of the liti-

gants." In a perfect world, this would be true. The dodge

by which they ignore it is one of the most treasured privileges

which judges have granted to themselves. It is called "judicial

discretion." The first line of defense for the judges is "judicial

independence." No one can influence a judge, because he is

absolutely removed from any possibility of influence, whether

family, financial or political. His second line of defense is

"judicial immunity." This is the claim that when a man puts

on the black robe of ancient physical and ritual sacrifice of

victims, dating from the time of the cults of Babylon, he is

placed beyond any criticism or retribution, and removed from

any liability for violations of morality, national loyalty, or

religious concepts. As I stated in a letter to the press October

12, 1985.

 

' 'The present practice of ' 'judicial independence, ' ' ' 'judicial

 

 

 

64 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

discretion" and "judicial immunity" is intolerable in a free

society. A judge is simply a monitor or policeman who sees

to it that the statutes are observed. No one can be "immune"

from the consequences of his actions in a law-abiding society . "

 

In a previous letter, October 10, 1985, I had noted that

"For twenty-five years I have filed suits in area courts in

which the evidence in my favor was stricken or ruled inadmissi-

ble, while the evidence against me, including hearsay from

mental patients and patients with brain damage, was admitted.

I have sued four attorneys, all of which suits were dismissed

on demurrers (insufficient cause of action) which is barred

by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I went to the U.S.

Attorney with a list of forty-two consecutive motions I had

filed, all of which were denied, while motions against me

were perfunctorily granted. I later learned that this fellow

was a political crony of "our crowd." I never heard from

him to this day."

 

Of the three unholy practices of judges, the doctrine of

"judicial discretion" is the most pernicious and the most

frequently encountered. Briefly, this means that the judge

has the option of personally ruling for or against any motion

without going into its legal merits. He may also ignore it

altogether by "taking it under advisement." This means that

he postpones his decision for months, or even years, leaving

the case in limbo. His fellow members of the legal profession,

the opposing lawyers, eagerly accept this denouement, because

their meters will continue to run throughout the period of

the judge's monumental wrestling with the merits of the mo-

tion, until he finally reaches his decision. In truth, little or

no such "wrestling" overtakes place. The judge merely buries

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 65

 

the motion until the agonized screams of the victims force

the lawyers to request that he deliver his opinion.

 

But what does all of this have to do with justice? asks the

gentle reader. The answer to that question is in the title of

this book. It is not titled "In Praise of Justice" or "The

Merciful Qualities of Justice." It is only the rape of justice

with which this writer is concerned, that is, those who are

forced to submit to indignities for the pleasure and profit of

others. Force, as in rape, is the backbone of all legal practices.

Every order handed down within the confines of an American

courtroom is delivered with a backup of force. Armed bailiffs

stand on guard in the courtrooms, not merely to intimidate

those appearing, but also to arrest, incarcerate, or even to

beat or kill anyone who challenges what is taking place. The

attorney whom you hired is a willing participant to this force.

He never informs you, when he hands you his bill, that he

is bound as "an officer of the court." You pay their fees,

but the lawyers' primary obligation is to the court, that is,

to the legal system and the practices for which it stands. A

wit commented that the Pledge of Allegiance for lawyers should

read, "I pledge allegiance to the legal profession and to the

criminality for which it stands."

 

Sir Edward Coke's definition of a lawyer as "one who

stands in the place of another" takes us back to a more open

type of justice. In earlier civilizations, differences between

citizens were settled by trial by combat. The dissenters might

fight to the death, or until one was disinclined to continue.

The triumph went to the battler who was left standing. Our

boxing matches follow the same principles. The winner is

the one who is still standing, or who has outpointed his oppo-

 

 

 

66 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

nent throughout the bout. The victors emerge, not only as

champions, but also as leaders. This led to the hiring of ' 'cham-

pions" to stand in for those not able to enter the lists or

who obviously had no chance of winning. This is the raison

d'etre for the hking of attorneys today. Your lawyer is a

"hired gun" who will go up against the fastest gun in the

West, in your stead. The legal profession maintains that you

have no chance of winning in our complex legal system; there-

fore, you must hire a champion, an attorney, to appear in

your place.

 

In some forty years of court appearances, I have never

found myself in a legal situation in which an attorney would

have been better able to represent my interests than I could

do for myself. The reality is that no attorney can "represent"

you. As an officer of the court, he can plead or "pray" your

case before the court; in other words, he intercedes with the

imperial presence of the court in your behalf. He "prays"

that the lions may be called off before you are torn to bits.

He beseeches the court not to award damages or penalties

against you which are several times greater than your total

assets, but to exercise mercy and reduce them to a sum only

slightly greater than your entire net worth.

 

This explains why the patron saint of lawyers is Saint Mat-

thew. In Matthew 5:40, he counsels, "And if anyone would

go to law with thee and take thy tunic, let him take thy

cloak as well." This is not merely an exhortation to turn the

other cheek, but rather, to allow the attorney, who is making

off with your tunic, to turn back and appropriate your cloak

as well. For this reason, I have advised my audiences for

many years that the ancient adage, "A man who represents

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 67

 

himself in court has a fool for a client," must be brought

up to date with the admonition that "A man who hires a

lawyer is a fool."

 

Few Americans experience any qualms at turning over the

most intimate details of their personal and financial lives to

a lawyer, yet the risks should be apparent to anyone. For

years I have counselled anyone who plans to meet with or

consult a lawyer to take adequate precautions. The first precept

is "Never discuss any details with a lawyer over the tele-

phone." In one case which dragged on for three years, the

opposing counsel, one of the most influential and highly paid

lawyers in the state, repeatedly demonstrated that he believed

he was dealing with a fool, by calling me unannounced at

my home in the afternoons, and trying to obtain verbal commit-

ments from me about various legal maneuvers in which we

were engaged. I filed a complaint against him with the court.

The judge never took any action, but it did stop the telephone

calls. In almost every action in which I have been a party, I

have had to file repeated motions with the court, complaining

about the illegal procedures followed by opposing counsel.

Motions for Reprimand. To date, none of these has ever re-

sulted in a reprimand.

 

The second precept which I offer is that you should never

go alone to a lawyer's office. In recent years, books on legal

problems have suggested that you obtain a signed agreement

with your lawyer, agreeing on costs, etc., before engaging

him to represent you. This would have been unheard of a

few years ago, and is rarely requested even today, because

few lawyers would sign such an agreement. They would pi-

ously inform you that such an agreement would place too

 

 

 

68 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

great a limitation on their ability to represent your case. The

lawyer wants only a blank check from you, not an agreement

before his meter starts running. He will eventually fill in the

blank check with the sum of your net worth. Also, when

you go to an attorney's office, you would be wise to bring a

relative or a trusted friend with you. I have taken as many

as eight people into judges' chambers for motions hearings,

or into a lawyer's office for a required appearance. In every

instance, the judges and lawyers have not dared to voice any

objection, or to ask. Who are all these people? It is also

wise to tape record any conversation with an attorney. Here

again, most attorneys would object to this, as it places them

on notice that you do not trust them, and automatically places

limits on the amount of damage they will be able to inflict.

A fatal mistake made by many citizens is their naive belief

that because a lawyer is a relative, a close friend, or a longtime

neighbor or country club member, he can be trusted. In fact,

you would probably be safer with a stranger handling your

affairs, as thousands of widows and orphans could attest.

Lawyers trade upon such associations as relationship, member-

ship in a religious or a fraternal organization, or any human

contact which they can use to "bring in the business." The

Washington Post recently noted that "an ambitious associate

can generate profits to a firm of $200,000 per year on gross

billings of $300,000." Note these figures. They indicate that

two-thirds of the billing is net profit to the firm, with costs

amounting to one-third of charges. The Post noted that large

D.C. law firms pay associates with two to four years' experi-

ence $85,000 to $100,000 per year, in the salary range of

the attorney general of the United States. Partners of large

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 69

 

law firms bill clients at $225 per hour, while associates' charges

are $125 per hour. A typical eighty partner firm pays a mean

income per partner of $360,000 per year on $938,000 of

gross revenue, which means that the firm must gross $29

million annually, or $80,000 for every day of the year. Merely

organizing the file and indexing documents in a lawsuit can

cost from $2500 to $5,000, while the drafting and filing of

a complaint costs upwards of $10,000. No wonder people

sneer, "Sue me," knowing that few people can afford such

expensive justice, regardless of the merit of their complaint.

A single motion before the court will cost from $5,000 to

$30,000. The present writer sometimes filed as many as three

motions at a time, during a period of maintaining eight or

more cases in state and federal courts. None of the motions

were the one or two paragraph motions such as those filed

by opposing attorneys. My motions ran from five to ten pages

of documented legal arguments, with ample quotations from

precedents and legal authorities. I discovered that the judges

rarely bothered to read these motions, much less allow them

to be argued in court. I routinely filed interrogatories or an-

swered the opponent's interrogatories, which the Post states

costs $5,000 for each answer. Oral depositions are billed at

$1500 to $2,000 per day per partner, with half that fee charged

for the ever present associate, plus $300 to $500 per day for

the court reporter and costs of the written transcripts. Litigation

only a few months old can already have accrued costs of

from $50,000 to $100,000, witii little or no progress being

made towards a solution.

 

In my forty years of practice, lawyers' fees for the work I

did for myself would have been billed at more than five million

 

 

 

70 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

dollars. To nip the growing tendency for citizens to appear

as their own attorneys, lawyers have been urging the Internal

Revenue Service to compute the legal costs of litigation for

persons representing themselves, and then to tax the full

amount as accrued income. To date, the IRS has not acted

on the proposal.

 

One of the legal profession's dirty little secrets is the frequent

abuse of women by lawyers. Features have repeatedly been

run on such magazine type programs as "60 Minutes" about

sexual exploitation of women who find themselves alone in

a lawyer's office. Here again, I must emphasize the danger

of going alone to any lawyer's office, whether you fear rape

or not. You can expect the rape of justice to routinely take

place, whether physical rape occurs or not. A woman who

has been through a trying experience with her husband, and

who has reluctanfly decided to seek a divorce, is akeady

distraught. Many attorneys are quick to take advantage of a

woman who is akeady facing serious emotional difficulties.

Before she knows it, she is athwart his desk and undergoing

an examination which she never anticipated. One common-

wealth's attorney was finally removed from office, after a

series of complaints from outraged women, over a period of

years, forced reluctant officials to abandon their coverup and

to take action. Legal observers conjecture that perhaps only

ten per cent of such incidents ever result in a formal complaint.

First, the victim realizes that despite the unwelcome nature

of such attentions, she is dependent on this lawyer to salvage

some funds or property from her collapsing marriage. She

has already established dependency, merely by going into

his office. If she storms out and goes to another lawyer, voicing

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 71

 

her complaint about his behaviour, the lawyer, because of

"professional courtesy," is obliged to call his colleague and

ask if the charges are true. His peer will drop a hint that the

lady in question shows serious signs of being "disturbed";

she may wind up with no one to represent her.

 

The iconoclastic writer, Robert J. Ringer, has inveighed

forcefully against the destructive influence which lawyers in-

flict in the business world. He states that "the proper time

to lock Legalman in his cage is when you are serious about

closing a deal." Like most of us, he learned about lawyers

the hard way, after they repeatedly prevented the closing of

deals on which he would have netted millions of dollars. He

defines Legalman as ' 'the omnipresent defender of the nonexis-

tent problems of people" and as "one of the players in the

game of business who got into the park by sneaking under

the fence, then took it upon himself to assume the role of

head skimmer."

 

In some forty years of documenting the greatest crimes

which have been committed against the American people, I

discovered that in every instance, at the very heart of each

of these events, like a malignant virus, were the lawyers.

John T. Flynn, writing in the New Republic, May 22, 1935,

chronicled Professor William Douglas's address to a conven-

tion of lawyers in Durham North Carolina, as follows:

 

"It is sad but true that the high priests of the legal profession

were active agents in making high finance a master rather

than servant of the public interest. They accomplished what

their clients wanted accomplished and they did it efficiently,

effectively, and with despatch. They were tools or agencies

for the manufacture of synthetic securities and for the manipula-

 

 

 

72 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

tion and appropriation of other people's money. In doing this,

they followed the traditions of the guild. They never took

seriously the nature of their public trust."

 

The New Republic further commented on these statements,

"These great law firms have guided their greedy and acquisitive

clients through the mazes of trickery that the financiers had

not the wit to travel alone. No cause seems too reprehensible

for the lawyers to gild with their own sadly tarnished respect-

ability."

 

When you suggest a course of action to a lawyer, the usual

response is, "Oh, you can't do that." This response is almost

automatic, because it is incumbent upon every lawyer to dis-

courage any client from striking out on his own strategic

course. He must place his destiny totally in the hands of the

lawyer, no matter how incompetent that attorney may be.

Also, they are very reluctant to guarantee results from any

course of action. In his heyday, financier J. P. Morgan com-

plained that no matter what he proposed, lawyers would tell

him he could not do what he wanted to do. Morgan said,

"Mr. Elihu Root is the only lawyer who tells me how to do

what I want to do." The result of this compliance was that

Elihu Root became the preeminent lawyer on Wall Street.

Financiers flocked to his offices when they discovered that

no matter what manipulations they could devise, Root was

capable of coming up with a legally acceptable formula to

allow them to get away with it. He finally became the patron

saint of America's corporations, when he worked out the strat-

egy of setting up tax exempt foundations for millionaire entre-

preneurs who wished to preserve not only their money, but

also their power.

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 73

 

J. P. Morgan later chose Elihu Root to set up the agitprop

operation, the League to Enforce Peace, in 1916. Its purpose,

notwithstanding its seemingly pacifist title, was to involve

the United States in World War L It later took the name of

"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace," headed by

Alger Hiss, who later went to prison for committing perjury,

when he lied about his handing secret documents to Soviet

agents. After World War I, Root became the honorary chairman

of the newly estabUshed Council of Foreign Relations, which

had been set up as the American branch of the Rothschild

policy group, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in

London.

 

Elihu Root is also remembered as the man whom President

Wilson sent to Russia in 1919, with twenty million dollars

in cash to bail out the collapsing Bolshevik regime. This

money was taken from the one hundred million dollar Special

War Fund which Congress had appropriated for President Wil-

son's use. The record of the expenditure of this twenty million

dollars by Root's Special War Mission to Russia is recorded

in the Congressional Record, Sept. 2, 1919, as authorized

by Wilson's private secretary, Joseph P. Tumulty.

 

However, it is Root's role as the legal mastermind of the

chartering of the influential tax exempt foundations which

has laid his dead hand upon the throat of all living Americans.

In 1909, he drew up the legal charter of the Carnegie Founda-

tion, as its principal incorporator. His fellow incorporators

were Frederic A. Delano, son of China's most famous opium

dealer; Cleveland H. Dodge, of the National City Bank, and

financier of Wilson's presidential campaign; and the longtime

Rockefeller henchman, Daniel Coit Oilman, who had been

 

 

 

74 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

trained by the German Illuminati in devious techniques of

subversion. Oilman also incorporated the Russell Sage Founda-

tion, and other vital undercover operations. Elihu Root then

incorporated the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

in 1921. His assistant, Philip Jessup, ran the CEIP after Alger

Hiss was sent to prison.

 

The epitome of the great corporation law firm is the Wall

Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell. Its founders' background

provides ample proof of the ruthless nature required if one

is to succeed in this bandit profession. The Cromwell who

founded the firm, William Nelson Cromwell, was publicly

denounced on the floor of Congress as "the most dangerous

man in America!" This description was not the prose of some

reckless demagogue; it is to be found in a document published

by the Congress of the United States, a 736 page volume,

"The Story of Panama" the House Hearings on Panama in

1913. "In September, 1904, during the absences of Secretary

Taft from Washington, Mr. Cromwell, a private citizen, practi-

cally ran the War Department. John F. Wallace, Chief Engineer

of the Panama Canal, testified before the Senate Committee

on Feb. 5, 1905, 'Cromwell appeared to me to be a dangerous

man.

 

In these Hearings, Congressman Rainey was quoted as fol-

lows: "The revolutionists were in the pay of the Panama

Railroad and Steamship Corp., a New Jersey corporation.

The representative of that corporation was William Nelson

Cromwell. He was the revolutionist who promoted and made

possible the revolution on the Isthmus of Panama. At that

time, he was a shareholder in the railroad and its general

counsel in the United States — ^William Nelson Cromwell —

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 75

 

the most dangerous man this country has produced since the

days of Aaron Burr — is a professional revolutionist."

 

And you thought lawyers were dull! Congressman Rainey

used language which we might expect to describe Leon Trotsky

or Al Capone; however, he was talking about the founder of

the most august law firm on Wall Street. And what has been

the history of this firm since the passing of its notorious

founder? Cromwell trained and produced a protege who out-

stripped his predecessor, the famous John Foster Dulles. A

relative of the Rockefeller family, Dulles was closely linked

with international espionage groups headquartered in Switzer-

land and England. He can be described as the architect of

the Second World War, as well as the man who singlehandedly

issued the orders which precipitated the Korean War. At the

Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the senior partner of the J.

P. Morgan Company, Thomas Lamont, wrote, "All of us

placed great reliance upon John Foster Dulles. ' ' History proved

that that reliance was not misplaced.

 

In 1933, when a victorious but penniless Adolf Hitler needed

funds to build his Nazi regime, his personal banker. Baron

Kurt von Schroder, arranged a private conference with Hitler

at the Schroder residence in Cologne, Germany. Attending

this meeting as representatives of Kuhn, Loeb Co. and other

Rothschild interests were John Foster Dulles and his brother,

Allen Dulles, who later founded the Central Intelligence

Agency. The bankers, through their emissaries, guaranteed

Hitler the funds to install his Nazi government. However,

this did not mean that they were Nazis, or friendly to the

precepts of Nazism. They were bankers who were making a

sound investment in a coming event, the Second World War.

 

 

 

76 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Whatever one's feelings might have been towards Adolf Hitler,

there was no escaping the fact that without him, there could

be no Second World War. The Governor of the Bank of

England, Sir Montague Norman, whose financial manipula-

tions precipitated the Great Depression of 1929-1933, was

one of the first bankers to acknowledge this situation, and to

advance Hitler funds from the Bank of England.

 

During the 1920s, John Foster Dulles brought to Sullivan

and Cromwell as clients the blue chip firms of Wall Street —

J. P. Morgan Co., the National City Co., Dillon Read, W.

A. Harriman Co., and Brown Brothers, which later merged

to form the firm of Brown Bros. Harrimans. Dulles' instant

stature as the senior partner of the nation's most influential

law firm reflected a truism of the profession, that the senior

partner of such a firm is merely the one who has the greatest

credibility. His word will not be challenged, his authority

will not be denied, and when he exerts his influence on behalf

of a political candidate, a church, a university, or any institu-

tion, funds will be raised and the goal will be reached. Behind

this facade of respectability are the facts; that such senior

partners have been and are deeply involved in the greatest

international swindles and acts of treason throughout the twen-

tieth century. They attain the rank of senior partner precisely

because they have the talent of telling the most outrageous

lies with the highest degree of credibility, whether they are

launching a securities issue or the campaign of a candidate

for the presidency of the United States.

 

John Foster Dulles ensured his place in history by sending

a telegram from Tokyo to President Truman, "If it appears

that the South Koreans cannot repulse the attack, then we

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 77

 

believe that U.S. force should be used." It was this telegram

which Truman used as his authority to plunge the United

States into the Korean War. The use of tiie imperial "we"

by Dulles notified President Truman that the most important

leaders of the World Order wanted this war; he had no choice

but to obey. Dulles was rewarded for this extraordinary act

by his appointment to one of the nation's most influential

posts, the presidency of the Rockefeller Foundation. Ostensibly

a "charitable" organization, from its inception the Rockefeller

Foundation was planned by John D. Rockefeller and his legal

adviser, Elihu Root as a business operation using extraordinary

means. It is more properly described as a "syndicate," which

was the term Roget used to describe a trust. Roget further

describes a syndicate as a cartel, or a monopoly, which also

is an accurate description of the Rockefeller Foundation. The

purpose of the foundation's charter was to perpetuate a corpora-

tion in perpetuity by removing it from any threat of a takeover

by other interests. In a world in which everything is for sale,

the shares of a corporation are the most saleable item of all.

This means that no matter how profitable and powerful a

corporate entity you may build, it can be bought out from

under you by anyone who can raise the necessary funds. It

was Elihu Root's brilliant contribution to the future downfall

of American industry that a tax exempt foundation would

forever remove the possibility of any outside force capable

of buying control of the corporation. Standard Oil, the Rocke-

feller Oil Trust, placed its controlling shares in the Rockefeller

Foundation in 1913. They remain there today, insulated against

any outside threat. The foundation gave Standard Oil an enor-

mous financial advantage over its competition, as Congressman

 

 

 

78 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Wright Patman, chairman of the House Banking and Currency

Committee, pointed out in remarks before Congress. While

it could not be swallowed up by any other company, it could

proceed uninterrupted on its course of swallowing up or domi-

nating its rivals. This impregnability also made possible its

profitable cartel agreements with monopolistic firms in other

countries, such as its historic 1926 agreement with I. G. Farben

in Germany to control the world's chemical business.

 

In "The World Order," I painstakingly traced the back-

ground of the officers and directors of the Rockefeller Founda-

tion from 1913 to the present day. Very few of these directors

had any background in charitable work; however, most of

them had very impressive backgrounds in such "humanitar-

ian" endeavours as chemical warfare, international espionage,

munitions manufacture, cartel agreements, and so forth. On

the whole, charity was lacking in their resumes.

 

Although society has been, on the whole, over-respectful

of lawyers in recent years, mindful of their power and their

ability to inflict grief on their critics, diligent investigation

discloses a few rare expressions of doubt in national organs

of the media. Harper's magazine, October, 1976, featured

an article, "A Plague of Lawyers," by Jerome S. Auerbach.

He notes that the Constitution of Carolina declared it "a base

and vile thing to plead for money or reward." The states of

Massachusetts and Rhode Island prohibited lawyers from serv-

ing in their colonial assemblies, a striking contrast to today's

situation, as we find that ninety per cent or more of state

legislatures are now members of the legal profession. The

historian Crevecoeur described lawyers as "weeds that will

grow in any soil that is cultivated by the hands of others;

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 79

 

and when once they have taken root, they will extinguish all

other vegetation around them."

 

The historian, Ferdinand Lundberg, wrote in Harper's, April

1939 about "The Priesthood of the Law," in which he de-

scribed ' 'the Purchase of the law. ' ' Lundberg quoted a historic

case, Gebhardt v. United Railways of St. Louis, Mo. 1920,

in which the decision noted that "the law does not make a

law office a nest of vipers in which to hatch out frauds and

perjuries," a withering comment on the legal practices which

had come to light in this case.

 

The Saturday Evening Post, Dec. 2, 1933, noted in an

editorial that ' 'When the Attorney General of the United States

finds it necessary, in addressing an anti-crime conference, to

refer to 'unscrupulous lawyers who aid and abet crime (the

historic "mouthpiece" Ed. Note), criminals and employing

every artifice in their defense, the public cannot fail to realize

that in the relation between lawyers and crime it faces a problem

at once peculiar and ominous.' The Attorney General went

on to say that 'there is reason to believe that in many localities

a certain number of lawyers are in touch with and regularly

employed by the criminal element, being the scavengers of

the bar. . . . We find connivance and connection between

lawyers and crime, with its concomitants of jury fixing, bribery

and perjury.' "

 

One of the most astounding examples of legal conspiracy

in America is described in the exhaustively detailed book,

"Senatorial Privilege," by Leo Damore, Regnery 1988. The

nation's leading journals have resolutely ignored this docu-

mented work. Damore relates the amazing story of a phalanx

of lawyers, sworn to a Mafia code of Omerta, or silence.

 

 

 

80 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

which formed around Senator Edward Kennedy in a conspiracy

to obstruct justice shortly after the body of a young woman,

who was said to be pregnant, was found in his abandoned

car. The District Attorney in this case, Edward Dinis, later

publicly denounced the jury system in the state of Massachu-

setts as "absolutely discriminatory," and "a systematic denial

of justice throughout Massachusetts." He also attacked the

scandal ridden probate court system as "a littleknown citadel

of judicial patronage and favoritism operating in an atmosphere

of intimidation." The Chappaquiddick incident, as Kennedy's

escapade came to be known in the national press, not only

destroyed Kennedy's chances of being elected President; it

also destroyed the journalistic career of Roger Mudd, who

was already accepted as the coming heir to Walter Cronkite.

When Mudd interviewed Kennedy on September 29, 1979,

he asked the fateful question, "Do you think, Senator Ken-

nedy, that anybody really will ever fully believe your explana-

tion of Chappquiddick?" Kennedy made the equally fateful

answer that he found his own behaviour "beyond belief."

The liberal phalanx vowed to get Mudd for having exposed

their champion in the lists, and he was subsequently dumped

by the network in favor of Dan Rather.

 

This writer was exposed to the true character of the legal

professionals early in a writing career. An attorney accompa-

nied me on an afternoon outing along the Garden State Parkway

in New Jersey. Enjoying the openness of the newly completed

superhighway, I was tooling along in a new Hudson at a

comfortable ninety-five miles per hour, when I was surprised

to see a black Chrysler draw up beside me. The young trooper

motioned to me to pull over. When we stopped, the attorney

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 81

 

hastily drew out his card and handed it to the trooper. He

took one look at it, said "Okay," but added plaintively as

he drove away, "But try to hold it down, willya?"

 

This same lawyer asked me to accompany him to a court-

house in a small town, ostensibly to do some legal research.

When we went into the deserted record room, he asked me

to wait by the door in case the somnolent clerk wandered

in. I stood there while he calmly ripped out several documents

from the files and walked away. I expected that we would

be seized and sentenced to serve at least ten years, but we

walked by the clerk, nodded a brief "Thanks" and were on

our way. I later learned that it is customary for lawyers to

"delete" records in this manner, to alter entries, or to prepare

substitute pages which are then inserted in the files to replace

the genuine ones. Whatever is on paper can be forged or

destroyed — ^this, I discovered, is an unwritten motto of the

legal profession.

 

On October 5, 1988, the Washington Post headlined a feature

on lawyers, "LAWYERS ON DRUGS CREATE PROBLEM

WRAPPED WITH LEGAL, MORAL QUESTIONS." The

gist of the story was that cocaine was becoming an increasingly

serious problem among the lawyers practicing in our nation's

capitol. One attorney admitted to the press that he frequently

represented his clients in court while he was high on cocaine,

stating that while he was under the influence of the drug, he

felt "like nothing could go wrong." Another addict, Richard

Winters, said, "The thing that is really tragic in the legal

system is this concept of the officer of the court as a superhu-

man. This is what keeps a lot of lawyers who are addicts,

either alcohol or substance abuse addicts. . . . locked up in

 

 

 

82 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

their closets and unable to say, Christ, I have a problem,

somebody please help me."

 

The same issue of the Washington Post recounted the story

of an immigration attorney accused of preparing documents

for illegal aliens designed to defraud the inmiigration service.

 

In her documented work, "The Trial Lawyers," Emily

Gouric chronicles some of the successful techniques of the

nation's most famous attorneys, among them Howard Weitz-

man, who won acquittal for John DeLorean on charges of

conspiring to distribute cocaine, by first filing some fifty proce-

dural motions, including Freedom of Information requests.

Weitzman knew that the judge would probably deny all or

most of them. This process is informally known as ' 'exhausting

the court." It is wellknown among lawyers that judges have

a very short attention span; by flooding them with a mass of

procedural motions, the lawyer can usually beguile the judge

into a state of passivity, allowing him to proceed with a strategy

for the defense of a client who is probably guilty. It is a

truism of American justice that only the guilty can afford a

really good lawyer. The innocent must content themselves

with someone from the third or fourth echelon, who has a

discouraging record of lost cases.

 

Gouric also describes the tactics of the famed Texas lawyer,

Richard "Racehorse" Haynes, who represented Fort Worth

millionaire T. CuUen Davis in his notorious Smith and Wesson

divorce, as Texas style divorces are known. She also gives

us Arthur Liman, who was featured in a TV series, "The

Moscow Show Trials," as the North hearings before Congress

were later described. Liman had been a protege of Nelson

Rockefeller in an "investigation" of the Attica prison riots

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 83

 

and killings. He is a partner in the Wall Street firm of Paul,

Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison. Liman's clients include

takeover tycoon Carl Icahn, Lazard Freres, the investment

bankers, and Pennzoil, which won a ten and a half billion

dollar judgment against Texaco. Despite his role as chief coun-

sel of the Iran-Contra Hearings, Liman recently stated on

the op-ed page of the Richmond Times Dispatch, "We do

not have political trials in this country." This will come as

news to Col. Oliver North.

 

Outraged clients find that in most states, it is impossible

to find a lawyer who is willing to file a suit against another

lawyer. Theoretically, lawyers have no more immunity against

lawsuits than anyone else; in practice, membership in a bar

association, a law firm, or a Masonic lodge usually prevents

or discourages any lawyer from taking a case against another

lawyer, no matter how flagrant the offense may be. This was

demonstrated to me in the case of the wife of a wealthy

entrepreneur. Unknown to her, he had built up a billion dollar

operation. After he decided that his new wealth required him

to have a companion whom he could flaunt in public, he

began to spend most of his time with his mistress. The wife

sued for divorce, hiring a lawyer who, for reasons never re-

vealed, placed himself on the side of the wealthy and influential

husband. She stated that her lawyer summoned her to his

office for a conference with her husband's lawyer. Her attorney

then requested that she sign a stack of seemingly "routine"

papers in their presence. Hidden deep within the stack was

a document which stated that she hereby relinquished all claims

against any of her husband's property. She read it and refused

to sign it, even though her own attorney had conspired to

 

 

 

84 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

get her to do so. Although she was unaware of the ways of

the business world, she was not stupid. Nevertheless, she

did not fire her lawyer, but allowed him to represent her

through the divorce procedure. The layman finds that it is

extremely difficult to fire a lawyer for cause, due to court

procedures which are designed to protect the legal profession,

another Uttleknown aspect of our mediaeval legal system.

You discover, as I did, that you cannot fire your lawyer,

your attorney of record, as he is known to the court, without

the permission of the court. What this entails is that you

must find a lawyer to represent you in an appearance before

the court, in which you request or pray the court to allow

you to discharge your previous lawyer and hire this one. The

procedure requires that you hire an attorney to file a motion

that you wish to fire your first attorney; this motion is then

argued before the court. Had she been appearing as her own

lawyer, she could have done this herself, but few people are

wiUing to risk everything in our arcane legal system by such

an appearance. After hearing the motion, the judge then can

exercise his "judicial discretion" as to whether he should

allow you to fire the lawyer who has been selling you down

the river. Such a motion is usually granted, with the stipulation

that you must be sure to pay the fees of the lawyer who was

misrepresenting you, as well as the fees of the lawyer who

is now representing you.

 

This unfortunate lady wound up with a mere $20,000 settle-

ment from her husband; the lawyer claimed this was all he

could get from him. Her husband then called her up, to taunt

her as follows: "You didn't know I was a millionaire, did

you?" She was enraged to find that he was indeed worth

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 85

 

millions, which would now be lavished on his mistress. She

immediately resolved to sue her lawyer for malpractice. She

told me that for months she travelled the entire state, trying

to find a lawyer who would sue the attorney who had robbed

her. She was always given the standard response, "You have

already accepted the settlement through your attorney. There

is nothing I can do to help you." I informed her that I had

been aware for years that no lawyer in this state, as well as

in most states, will take a suit against a fellow lawyer. The

bar association claims it will hear complaints from civilians

against a lawyer, but in actual practice such complaints are

promptly buried, never to be exhumed.

 

I informed this lady that I had sued a number of lawyers

in this state, acting as my own attorney. All of these suits

were promptly thrown out by complaisant judges on the techni-

cality known as "demurrer," legally making a claim that

there is insufficient cause of action, but in reality, in legal

jargon, saying, "So what?" The entke texts of my complaints

against these lawyers had been copied verbatim from the stat-

utes. One judge grinned at me as he chidingly remarked,

"You know, Mr. MuUins, no one can expect to win every

suit." I could have risked a contempt citation by replying

that I would like to win one in forty years of pleadings, but

I said nothing. I had akeady reported this selfsame judge

for dismissing almost fifty consecutive motions without argu-

ment, only to find that the federal attorney was one of his

old pals. That complaint was buried, along with most of my

other legal pleadings. I obtained some small satisfaction from

these lawsuits against our sacrosanct legal profession, when

one of the lawyers came up to me at the door of the judge's

 

 

 

86 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

chambers, whining that during the last two years, my suit

against him had caused his malpractice insurance to double.

Small victories are better than none at all.

 

The filing of lawsuits against lawyers by disgruntled, be-

trayed and cheated clients remains one of the great untapped

oilfields of jurisprudence in the United States. On November

5, 1986, the Wall Street Journal carried a front page story

about one "maverick" lawyer, Edward Friedberg, who has

tapped this field, and found it a very profitable one. Friedberg,

a lawyer practicing in Sacramento, California, gleefully sues

his colleagues when clients inform him of their malpractice.

The statement that this is an untapped oilfield is proven by

Friedberg 's assertion that eighty per cent of his malpractice

cases against other lawyers are settled before trial. Only seven-

teen per cent ever go to trial. The reason was obvious; the

lawyers were guilty, and they did not dare to face a jury.

Friedberg says he has a great advantage in suing lawyers,

and forcing them to take the stand in their own defense. ' 'Jurors

hate lawyers. We rank just above used car salesmen. Besides,

lawyers are lousy witnesses. They talk too much, and they

are arrogant."

 

Despite Friedberg 's enormous financial success — ^he wins

million dollar awards for his clients in these malpractice suits,

and takes one-third, plus expenses, for his contingency fee —

no champion of the public has dared to enter the lists in

other states. Certainly, other lawyers are aware of the thousands

of cases begging to be filed for legal malpractice, but the

profession has closed ranks. It is not merely professional cour-

tesy — it is the fear that the entire profession will be imperiled,

and perhaps destroyed, if the public was allowed to go into

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 87

 

court with the amply documented cases of malpractice. The

state bar associations and the Masonic lodges will never permit

their members to do what Friedberg has done. Once the extreme

cases of malpractice, negligence, and conspiracy to obstruct

justice begin to be argued in the courts, the profession is

doomed.

 

The lady whose divorce case was previously cited, like

most clients, was unaware of one legal tactic which is always

devastating to the cause of the litigant. This tactic is called

"an advisory meeting" with the attorney for the opposing

client to discuss the ramifications of the case — ^how long it

will take, what sort of pretrial discovery is contemplated,

and, most important, how much each of them can milk his

client of before bringing the case to its predetermined conclu-

sion. Such conferences, known as "ex parte," that is, without

the parties, and without their knowledge or consent, may

include meeting with the judge to privately discuss the case.

Ex parte is one of the most flagrant abuses of the presentday

legal profession, and is strictly forbidden by law. A few indict-

ments for this practice have surfaced in the last decade, but

the chances of a lawyer being prosecuted for engaging in ex

parte discussions are still closer to his chance of being struck

by lightning.

 

By statute, private citizens are forbidden by law from filing

any paper with a court, unless they have previously filed the

case themselves, thus notifying the court that they are attorney

of record, and are representing themselves. In recent years,

emphasis has been placed on filing "in propria persona," as

a proper person, rather than as attorney pro se, the theory

being that one thereby escapes being tainted as an officer of

 

 

 

88 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

the court, or of being subjected to the jurisdiction of the

court. However, anyone who enters a courtroom is presumed

by the sitting judge to be under the jurisdiction of his court,

and those who deny it can protest all the way to their serving

of a six month sentence for "contempt of court."

 

The language of the statutes forbid any clerk of the court

to accept any paper for filing unless it is submitted by a

licensed attorney, or a person representing himself. You may

have a document which you believe will help your case. If

your lawyer decides not to submit it to the court, you have

no recourse. Your attorney will try to pass it off as irrelevent,

although it could win your case. The problem is that your

attorney has already agreed with the opposing counsel to watch

you wash away down the drain. You must accept his decision,

because the public education system carefully trains you to

accept whatever a professional man tells you, without protest.

Your doctor will tell you that vaccination is good for your

child; your banker will tell you that the Federal Reserve System

is not privately owned; and your lawyer will tell you that he

has your best interests at heart.

 

In recent years, public statements have surfaced which ques-

tion the competency of American lawyers. Chief Justice Berger

of the Supreme Court stated that ' 'American lawyers are incom-

petent." President Jimmy Carter warned that "ninety per cent

of our lawyers serve ten per cent of the people," which is

probably a break for the other ninety per cent of wouldbe

clients. Nevertheless, American lawyers show no incompe-

tence in conspiracy to obstruct justice, conspiracy to suborn

perjury, or their "ex parte" meetings during which they agree

to sabotage their clients for the conmion weal. This writer

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 89

 

has observed for forty years that American lawyers are ex-

tremely competent in carrying out the abuses of the public

which have enriched them throughout the twentieth century.

The American Bar Association issued a carefully weighed

statement that "it has long been aware that the middle seventy

per cent of the population is not being adequately served by

the legal profession. ' ' This may be a warning to the profession

that our lawyers are overlooking seventy per cent of the avail-

able market. The almanac shows some 651,000 members of

the legal profession in the United States, including judges.

Of this number, the American Bar Association has enrolled

some 335,000 members. In theory, the American Bar Associa-

tion is merely another professional group, whose function is

to promote the practices of its profession. In fact, the principal

function of the ABA, its state units, and its local bar associa-

tions, is to form an impenetrable phalanx for the protection

of its members from punishment for their transgressions against

the public. These transgressions include not only offenses

committed against individual members of the public, but also

crimes by lawyers against the public weal and the common

good. Many decisions obtained by lawyers through malpractice

of their profession serve not only to injure individuals, but

all members of the public as well. Anyone who has ever

filed a complaint against a lawyer with a local bar association

can testify that the complaint is met with thunderous silence.

Once filed, it is never to be heard of again. Public conmiissions

have repeatedly verified this claim by releasing their findings.

Former Justice of the Supreme Court Tom Clark headed a

commission, which, after an eighteen month study of the

legal disciplinary system, published its findings that "the pre-

 

 

 

90 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

vailing attitude of lawyers towards disciplinary enforcement

ranges from apathy to outright hostility. Disciplinary action

is practically nonexistent in many jurisdictions . ' ' We are given

an official conclusion that there are few, if any, areas in the

United States where a citizen can obtain any satisfaction after

making a complaint against an attorney. The Clark Commission

noted that ninety per cent of complaints against lawyers are

dismissed without any person bothering to investigate the al-

leged facts. If you live in Sacramento, you might be able to

hire Edward Friedberg to handle your complaint against an

attorney, if there is sufficient damages involved. As for the

rest of the United States, you can save yourself a stamp by

not writing to the local bar association.

 

Outrage over the known abuses of the legal profession caused

New York legislators to set aside $840,000 to fund disciplinary

proceedings against lawyers. However, the disposal of these

funds was left entirely to the discretion of the private New

York City Bar Association, which has sole authority to hire

or fire all employees entrusted with the handling of disciplinary

actions against lawyers. As could be expected, the $840,000

was turned into another boondoggle for the lawyers, providing

salaries for their relatives, with the understanding that they

would do absolutely no work on the job.

 

One of the more colorful opponents of the legal monopoly

is Andrew Melechinsky, the founder of the Constitutional

Revival movement, which is headquartered in Fairfield, Con-

necticut. In his literature, Melechinsky forcefully states, "Yes,

Virginia, there is a conspiracy. The driving force of that con-

spiracy is the bench/bar monopoly." A man who is willing

to stand behind his beliefs, Melechinsky regularly patrols court

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 91

 

buildings, wearing a large badge which reads, "Lawyers,

Judges and Politicians Are Scum." Note that he does not

qualify this statement. It does not read, "Some Lawyers,

Judges and Politicians Are Scum." His characterization is

all-inclusive. As an editor, I carefully analyzed his statement.

I found that despite the most stringent editing, nothing could

be either added to or subtracted from it to make it more

direct. Melechinsky also pickets courthouses and law schools,

bearing a large sign, "The court system is utterly corrupt."

One does not do this sort of thing in free America without

consequences. Melechinsky has been thrown into jail, but

his vast knowledge of Constitutional procedures always secures

his release. There should be a Melechinsky patrolling every

courthouse in the United States, but so far he has carried on

his crusade alone.

 

Texas journalist Molly Ivins, an iconoclast herself, offers

some explanation as to why Melechinsky describes our profes-

sional legal talent as scum. A lawyer named Heard was to

have been named the next president of the Texas Bar Associa-

tion. At the height of his campaign, he was picked up during

a police raid on a nude modelling studio. The Bar Association

reluctantly chose another candidate as president. Other promi-

nent attorneys make the news on charges usually found only

in the supermarket weeklies such as the Star. Marvin Mitchel-

son, who invented the concept of ' 'palimony ' ' for the discarded

lovers of Hollywood movie stars, was charged with profes-

sional misconduct after complaints originated from actress

Julie Newmar and Eleanor Revson, of the cosmetics family.

The complaints included charging excessive fees, failing to

place a client's funds in trust funds, an allegation of moral

 

 

 

92 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

turpitude, and that he had allegedly refused to pay one million

dollars for jewelry bought in Switzerland in April, 1987. The

two pieces of jewelry, from the collection of the late Duchess

of Windsor, had been auctioned in Geneva. The AP story,

dated Dec. 6, 1988, noted that the bar association now had

more than twenty complaints against Mitchelson, which would

be handled at a disciplinary hearing. On Jan. 15, 1989, Mitchel-

son was ordered to pay interest and attorneys' fees on the

one million dollars from April, 1987, when he took possession

of the jewehy, although he had claimed that the money was

not due until Oct. 21, 1988. His fellow California lawyer,

Melvin Belli, known as the King of Torts, was written up

in the Wall Street Journal as an exile from his twenty-five

room San Francisco mansion, a local tourist attraction, after

a court order was obtained by his wife. Now legally separated,

he lives on a one hundred and five foot yacht. Although his

staff has now been reduced to thirteen attorneys, Belli estimates

that he has won more than $350 million in damage awards

for his clients. In 1985, he lost a malpractice suit, resulting

in a $3.8 million judgment against him.

 

Six more malpractice suits have been filed against him in

San Francisco Superior Court. However, this has not discour-

aged his clients. He currently has one thousand cases pending,

or seventy for each lawyer on his staff. He also faces Tax

Court proceedings in which the government is asking for up

to three million dollars on a transaction involving his San

Francisco law office building. Belli vows revenge, threatening

a lawsuit for malicious prosecution. Because he sold the build-

ing to his children in 1981, the government wants up to three

million dollars in gift taxes, stating that the sale was invalid

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 93

 

because no money changed hands, nor was a written contract

drawn up when the sale supposedly took place. Belli 's fame

as "the King of Torts" was built on his mastery of courtroom

drama. He pioneered "demonstrative exhibits," such as

bloodstained bandages, gory pictures, and other materials

which shocked the jury members into making large awards.

 

If there is one word which describes the activities of the

legal profession, that word is bribery. However, this practice

is less important in the poorer areas of the nation than the

equally effective force of intimidation. Bribery reaches its

apogee in the large cities, and among the major law firms,

which handle multi-million dollar cases . In small towns , money

rarely changes hands, because the legal system functions on

political influence, fraternal ties, and the ubiquitous club laid

along the rear of the neck. There is a certain ' 'noblesse oblige, ' '

that is, I owe you and you owe me, or "one hand washes

the other." The latter was the favorite saying of an attorney

with whom I worked for several years.

 

Few legal bribery cases are ever brought to the attention

of the public. However, one such case, involving the august

Wall Street law firm of Cravath, Swaine and Moore, exposed

the activities of one of the firm's senior partners, Hoyt Augustus

Moore. In the early 1930s, Moore was legal counsel for the

giant Bethlehem Steel Company, a J. P. Morgan enterprise.

This firm, in the course of its monopoly, tried to take over

a competitor in the wke rope field, a practice supposedly

forbidden under the stringent terms of the Sherman Anti-Trust

Act. It seemed that a federal judge. Judge Albert W. Johnson,

would uphold the decision against Bethlehem Steel. However,

Johnson, wishing to appear a reasonable man, let it be known

 

 

 

94 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

that for a token payment of $250,000 (the equivalent of five

million dollars in 1989 funds), he could be persuaded to with-

draw his objections to the takeover. In later testimony before

a Congressional committee, Counsellor Moore stated that ' 'this

amount is not excessive and not objectionable." Payment

was delivered forthwith. Despite his public acknowledgement

that he had committed the crime of bribing a federal judge,

Hoyt Augustus Moore continued his distinguished legal career

for some twenty-five years after the event. In 1959, he retired

at the age of 88. Not only did the New York Bar Association

ignore his admission of a crime; Judge Johnson was later

elected president of his bar association! He later was indicted

for bribery and conspiracy, but he won acquittal, after his

co-conspirators refused to testify in the case.

 

In September of 1 978 , Mahlon Perkins Jr. , the senior partner

of another sacrosanct Wall Street law firm, Donovan Leisure

(it had been founded by General Wild Bill Donovan, a World

War I hero who later organized the OflBce of Strategic Services

under British auspices during World War II, later reorganized

as the present Central Intelligence Agency) pleaded guilty to

lying under oath when he stated that he had previously de-

stroyed certain documents that his opponent in an antitrust

lawsuit had obtained court orders that he produce. Not only

did Perkins lose the case; a verdict of $81.5 million was

rendered against his firm. Perkins was sentenced to serve

one month in prison, but the bar association refused to take

any action against him. If the bar associations can ignore

crimes of this gravity, how could anyone believe that they

would take action on the complaint of a private citizen?

 

Indictments against leading members of the legal profession

could be cited for many pages; these will suffice to make

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 95

 

the point. The fact remains, however, that the greatest damage

they have inflicted has been the betrayal of the nation through

their activities in international conspiracies. We have cited

John Foster Dulles; although he is the most notorious of the

conspirators, he has not lacked for emulators on many lesser

levels. The Wall Street Journal has noted that his firm, Sullivan

and Cromwell, seems to have lost much of its clout, and its

important clients, in recent years. No doubt it requires a partner

capable of similar intrigues before its enormous fees are re-

newed.

 

Present legal practice, in the experience of the present writer,

consists almost entirely of the game known as "Let's Make

a Deal." The result of this practice is that few lawyers today

have a working knowledge of legal strategy, or even of the

requirements of writing a simple motion. Early on, in my

appearances in our courts, I discovered that I was creating

consternation in the ranks of these "nonpractising lawyers,"

because of the scope and length of my legal briefs. Because

of my many years of training and practice as a researcher

and writer, I had no objection to spending many hours reading

such legal tomes as the United States Code or the Corpus

Juris Secundum, books which my opponents rarely opened.

As a result, the judges were hardput to deny my motions in

the face of the feeble efforts of their distinguished colleagues.

However, this never prevented them from doing so. Their

only hope was that after persistent rejection on every level

of the courts, I would run out of funds, or I would become

discouraged and go away. In fact, I stayed on to see just

how corrupt the system actually was. It was a fascinating

experience.

 

The most tried and true technique of exhausting the opposi-

 

 

 

96 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

tion, that is, by wiping out their financial resources, did not

work in my case. I was not paying the expense of a large

law firm, or of a single lawyer, to handle my work. My

greatest expense was typing paper and ribbons, perhaps ten

dollars a month. This expenditure enabled me to keep six or

eight cases going in state and federal courts. However, my

best efforts were usually torpedoed through the legal technique

of "discovery." Briefly stated, discovery entails an order

from the court that you turn over all documents and evidence

of your case to your opponent, so that he will then have the

weapons to fight you. The opposing lawyers sift through all

of your documentation, extract all the evidence favorable to

you, and have the judge declare it "inadmissible." At the

same time, all evidence favorable to their side will automati-

cally be ruled "admissible" by the judge. In forty years of

court practice, I never saw this practice overlooked, nor did

I ever see it fail to produce a decision against me.

 

Discovery also requires prolonged appearances in pre-trial

depositions, providing answers to lengthy questionnaires,

known as Written Interrogatories, and answers to Requests

for Admission. If these procedures fail to destroy you, the

court then goes to Order for Production of Documents. Usually,

this means that the court orders you to produce your great

grandfather's passport and similar papers which have not been

seen by anyone for many years. Failure to do so results in

immediate court sanctions, including indefinite jail sentences

until the documents are produced. The discovery techniques,

on which present legal practice depends, constitute, first of

all, a trial of the case by the opposing lawyer without benefit

of judge or jury, and second, a bill of attainder against the

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 97

 

party who is ordered to appear. Bills of attainder are strictly

prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, yet every

judge to whom I made this notice ignored it. At that time, I

did not understand that the admiralty law of England has

superseded the Constitution in American courts. Bills of attain-

der are not prohibited in admiralty law.

 

Roy Cohn, reputed to be a fierce opponent in a courtroom,

writes in his autobiography, "In a Hall of Fame example of

the tail wagging the dog, discovery has become the be all

and end all of trial practice. Years are spent in 'discovering'

the other fellow's case, in the privacy of conference rooms

in brilliantly decorated law offices paid for by clients who

are supposed to be getting a fair shake for their money and

instead are all too often getting a shakedown by lawyers who

would not know how to try a case before a jury if their lives

depended on it. Depositions, it's called, and all it does is

finally support incompetents who are afraid to show up in

court."

 

Cohn glosses over the fact that discovery is more often

employed to destroy the opponent before trial, through pro-

tracted expense and abuse. The Wall Street Journal noted

that by September, 1988, the Wall Street firm of Drexel,

Burham and Lambert had spent some $140 million to defend

itself against charges of violations of securities laws, a cost

which included $40 million for copying one and a half million

pages of documents. The firm finally settled out of court,

agreeing to pay $650 million in fines for charges which it

might have been able to disprove in court, after paying legal

costs of double the amount of the fine. The Department of

Justice case against the giant American Telephone and Tele-

 

 

 

98 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

graph Company was also a lawyer's dream, involving the

payment of hundreds of millions of dollars in legal costs,

which you, gentle reader, wound up paying through increases

in your telephone bills. As you may have suspected, the Depart-

ment of Justice, the largest law firm in the world, specializes

in creating such lawsuits for the benefit of lawyers everywhere.

This explains F. Lee Bailey's cryptic comment on "the cold

fear associated with being a defendant in an American court. ' '

M & N Associates, in a poll taken in 1968, found that 68%

of American citizens did not believe they could obtain a fair

trial in any American court. The famed lawyer, Gerry Spence,

in his most recent book, "With Justice for None" writes

that "The truth is that there is no justice in any court for

the American people."

 

Libel suits also remain a fertile field for lawyers, as the

judgments and legal expenses have no limits. When two liberal

writers of the New York school, Lillian Hellman and Mary

McCarthy, went to court against each other, the results were

disastrous for both. Hellman had a long record as an habitual

liar. After she married Hollywood script writer Dashiell Ham-

mett, she took all the income from his work, refusing to

allow his children by a previous marriage to receive any funds.

However, it was her reputation as the most outrageous liar

in a profession not noted for its dedication to the truth, which

caused her fellow liberal, Mary McCarthy, to speak in exasper-

ation during a nationally broadcast interview on the Dick Cavett

show, characterizing Hellman as "a holdover . . . tremen-

dously overrated, a bad writer and a dishonest writer." She

followed this denunciation of Hellman, which might be ex-

cused as legitimate literary criticism, with an actionable state-

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 99

 

ment when she concluded, "Every word she writes is a lie,

including and and the . "

 

After brooding over McCarthy's statement for a few mo-

ments, Hellman called her lawyers. In February, 1980, Mary

McCarthy had to defend herself in a libel suit. Despite the

fact that she had long been a darling of the literati, and had

had many best sellers, she soon found her savings decimated

by legal expenses. Her New York attorneys charged her

$35,000 for filing one motion in this case. (I sometimes filed

three and four motions in a single day, but I had no comparable

expenses). The case dragged on, as cases do when one has

expensive New York lawyers. Lillian Hellman died in 1984,

before the case came to trial, a considerable relief to Mary

McCarthy. It is a truism of the legal profession that one never

can predict what a jury might do; the usual award in libel

cases of this type is one dollar, but punitive damages, which

are aptly named, and which are pure admiralty law, can amount

to millions of dollars.

 

The famed unpredictability of juries has now given rise to

a new art, the art of jury selection. It is an art, because the

final framing of the painting depends entirely on which jurors

the lawyers have selected. One might call this the fine art of

stacking the jury; although jury stacking is theoretically illegal,

this has never prevented anyone from trying it. Members of

a jury usually base their final decisions on factors of race

and sex, or on the way a defendant, if she is a woman,

does her hak. This is understandable when we consider that

after days or months of listening to conflicting testimony,

most jury members have not the faintest clue as to which

party is in the right. In recent decades, juries made up entirely

 

 

 

100 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

of poor, black Democrats in District of Columbia criminal

cases have routinely voted for the conviction of white, middle

class Republican White House staff members in political show

trials. The Watergate trials were the apogee of this process,

which reached a new wave with the conviction of most of

Ronald Reagan's White House staff in recent years. Reagan's

closest associates, among them Michael Deaver and Lynn

Nofziger, were found guilty on vague charges by black juries,

who were perhaps expressing thek resentment at having had

to endure three hundred years of slavery in the United States.

At any rate, the crimes of which they were accused were

beyond the scope of these jurors, whose daily lives were

filled with the necessity of surviving in a murderous, drug-

saturated environment. The Moscow show trial of Colonel

Oliver North continued this brave tradition. Even the Washing-

ton Post was driven to comment on the possibility of injustice

because "the entire jury was composed of another race."

Even the Washington Post forbore to mention "the race that

dare not speak its name" — the reader was left to conjecture

whether Col. North was being tried before a jury of Chinese,

or perhaps Indians.

 

Our legal system is usually described as "the adversary

system." The two opposing clients come before the court

for an impartial judgment by either a judge or a jury, or by

both. In practice, the court room adversarial system creates

rancor and hostility on both sides. It precludes processes and

solutions which are potentially satisfactory to both litigants,

because it is more profitable for the attorney to keep them at

each other's throats. Each attorney assures his client that he

is certain to win, therefore the case must be prosecuted all

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 101

 

the way through the court. Instead of arbitration, or dispute

resolution, which would be much cheaper and more satisfactory

to the litigants, they are deluded into going for a total victory.

The lawyer gains everything and loses nothing by urging this

path. If his client loses, he will try to persuade him to appeal

this ' 'unjust' ' decision. The result is more fees for the attorneys

and for the courts.

 

Early in my legal experience, I was astounded when a

lawyer with whom I was then associated gave me one of the

keys to a successful legal practice — an attorney will often

lose your case on purpose, so that you can then be persuaded

to file an appeal. We were in court when I noticed that the

defendant's attorney had failed to call a key witness to testify.

This witness's testimony would have won the case, which

was then lost. "Why didn't the lawyer call that witness?" I

asked my associate. "Oh, that's routine," he assured me.

"He wanted the guy to lose the case, so that he could file

an appeal. It's only business."

 

This was my first revelation about how our legal system

really works. I have never forgotten it. Perhaps this was what

Oliver Wendell Holmes, the patron saint of modem lawyers,

meant when he said, "The law has nothing to do with justice,

under a trial by battle system in which the goal is victory —

not justice." He went on to say that the lawyer can permissibly

employ a host of stratagems and tricks to obscure the truth,

manipulate witnesses, and pander to the jury and the judge

on the basest motions. The philosophical justification for the

adversary system is the claim that the opponents are "evenly

matched." This is never true, but it remains the favorite myth

of the adversary system. In 1906, the legal authority, Roscoe

 

 

 

102 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Pound, described it as "the sporting theory of justice." Jerome

Frank declared that "Of all the possible ways to get at the

falsity or truth of testimony, none could be conceived that

would be more ineffective than trial by jury. The client and

the counsel have different personal agenda."

 

Frank strikes at the root of the matter when he notes that

client and counsel have different stakes in the trial. The client

wishes to preserve his property and his liberty. The counsel

wishes to keep the cash flow coming into his office.

 

Dr. Richard Gardner noted in a letter to the New York

Times, June 18, 1989, that "After 25 years of experience

working primarily as a court appointed impartial examiner

(primarily in custody litigation but more recently in child

sex-abuse litigation), I am convinced that the adversary system

is not only an inefficient way to ascertain the truth, but is

the cause of significant psychiatric disturbance in all those

unfortunate enough to be subjected to its procedures."

 

Trial by jury, which was demanded as a right in our Declara-

tion of Independence, and which is now guaranteed by our

Constitution, is now threatened, not as a principle, but as a

method which has been corrupted by the machinations of

our legal system. Jury trial has been diminished by the tactics

of the "adversarial" lawyers, and also by the carefully loaded

"instructions" which the judge delivers to the juries. As I

pointed out earlier, all evidence favorable to my case was

routinely ruled inadmissible by judges, while all evidence

against me was routinely admitted. How can any jury be

expected to reach a fair decision under such circumstances?

Even if I had been allowed to present the evidence in my

favor, the judge would have neutered it by his loaded instruc-

tions to the jury.

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 103

 

Since the courts prevent anyone from adequately represent-

ing himself in litigation, we return to the important factor of

the quality of one's legal representation, when a citizen em-

ploys an attorney. The late Roy Cohn, who died of AIDS,

became the nation's most renowned lawyer on the strength

of his political and ethnic affiliations. He represented such

important clients as the Mafia, the Catholic Church, and mem-

bers of the nation's wealthiest families. These clients were

attracted to him, not merely by his legal abilities, but by his

reputation for ruthlessness. His underworld clients included

such notorious gang leaders as Sam (the Plumber) Cavalcante,

Carmine Galanto, Tom and Joe Gambino, and Fat Tony Sal-

erno. However, in a revealing study of Cohn's legal abilities,

Nicholas von Hoffman states that Cohn's clients seldom re-

ceived the legal quality they were paying for. He turned over

most of his legal work to a cadre of poorly paid law students

and recent graduates. Cohn himself had little time for the

dreary work of preparing legal briefs, because he spent most

of his hours in a mad search for pleasure. He "flung roses

riotously, riotously, with the throng." He paid for as many

as a half-dozen five hundred dollar a night callboys to accom-

pany him on his yacht on a single outing. All of these "ex-

penses" were charged against his legal fees, on which he

paid no taxes. To maintain his alternative lifestyle, he often

charged outrageous fees in cases which were nothing more

than legal shakedowns. In August of 1978, he sued Henry

Ford II, claiming that Ford had looted the company of $750,000

in tribute extorted from a food concessionaire. The information

had come to Cohn from a disgruntled former Ford employee.

The charge was thrown out because Cohn had neglected to

file it in the proper jurisdiction. When he threatened to refile

 

 

 

104 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

the case, Ford gave him $100,000 in "legal fees" to drop

the case. Cohn was later disbarred for taking $100,000 in

"loans" from a wealthy client. He continued to flit from

night club to night club in his Rolls Royce, maintaining his

headquarters in a luxurious Manhattan townhouse.

 

During these years, most of Cohn's legal abilities were

squandered in efforts to survive special task forces from the

New York U.S. Attorney, Henry Morgenthau, task forces

from the Department of Justice in Washington, and task forces

from the Internal Revenue Service. The wasting of many mil-

lions of dollars in taxpayers' funds in the prosecution of Cohn

was not based on moral objections, because of his homosexual-

ity and his reputation as a "Mafia mouthpiece," nor was it

based upon the fact that he was Jewish, because many of

his opponents from government agencies were themselves Jew-

ish, notoriously Henry Morgenthau. The battle against Cohn

was waged because he had early on taken a turn to the right,

unlike most of his Jewish colleagues. He played a crucial

role in the prosecutions of atomic spies Julius and Eshel Rosen-

berg, and in the prosecution of Alger Hiss. He also became

Senator Joe McCarthy's chief of staff in McCarthy's short-

lived and doomed anti-Communist crusade.

 

Cohn represented the "neoconservative" group among

American Jews, who were headquartered in the Trotskyite

group, the League for Industrial Democracy, a Rockefeller

sponsored operation. These Jews were vociferously anti-Mos-

cow, because of Stalin's murder of Leon Trotsky in Mexico

City, and they were unanimously in support of the State of

Israel. Cohn was adopted by such rabid "anti-Communists"

as George Sokolsky and columnist Walter Winchell, and fie-

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 105

 

quently dined with them at their reserved table at Table Fifty

in Manhattan's Stork Club. Other favored visitors to this table

were J. Edgar Hoover and his consort, Clyde Tolson, and

Frank Costello, then head of the New York Mafia families.

It was the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg which

caused the diehard Stalinist Communists in the U.S. govern-

ment to vow revenge against Roy Cohn. Special "Get Cohn

Squads" routinely sallied forth from the Department of Justice,

the Internal Revenue Service, andvarious state U.S. Attorney's

offices. Much of the ensuing harassment and publicity suc-

ceeded only in bringing additional clients and fees to Cohn's

offices. Prospective clients concluded that with all that govern-

ment opposition against him, Cohn couldn't be all bad. Cohn

was able to get away with these practices for many years,

because he had early learned the precepts of surviving in

this nation under our present legal system, that is, the difference

between de jure, a confession which carried the force of law,

and de facto, or mere gossip. Most of the charges against

Cohn were based on mere gossip , the FBI ' 'raw files' ' obtained

from informants who in every instance had a special interest

in "getting Cohn." The FBI files were replete with items

about the altar boys and handsome young priests whom his

close friend. Cardinal Spellman, brought to the nightly outings

on Cohn's yacht. In his frantic efforts to destroy Cohn, U.S.

Attorney Morgenthau subpoenaed many of Cohn's clients be-

fore grand juries. The Department of Justice routinely offered

special deals to criminals who would testify against Cohn,

bargaining to have criminal charges against them dropped if

they would aid the Department to "get Cohn. ' ' These witnesses

usually refused to cooperate, because they were more afraid

 

 

 

106 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

of Cohn and his associates than of the Department of Justice.

 

Roy Cohn was an exception in the present legal profession

because he was theoretically of the right, whereas most attor-

neys are pronouncedly loyal to the left. On July 22, 1988,

the National Review noted that Queens President Claire Shul-

man had refused to deliver her scheduled address to the graduat-

ing class of the City University of New York Law School,

because they insisted on the playing of the Communist anthem,

"The Internationale," as the theme of the ceremonies. The

school authorities had simultaneously banned the playing of

the American anthem, "The Star Spangled Banner," and the

display of the United States flag at the school ceremonies,

because they would be "a distracting influence." Indeed,

their display might have caused a riot among the fiercely

Stalinist Communist law students. Notwithstanding the official

ban, a few students risked their future careers and their diplo-

mas by waving small American flags during the ceremonies,

thereby guaranteeing they would not be hired by the Depart-

ment of Justice or any other government agency.

 

The fact that many American attorneys are dedicated Marx-

ists of the Stalinist Communist persuasion, as opposed to

the Trotskyite Tel Aviv Communist faction, does not prevent,

but rather encourages them, to charge their clients as much

as possible. As individual venture capitalists who are actually

Marxists, they delight in charging their middle class conserva-

tive American clients, who are usually businessmen, the only

group of Americans who can actually afford to hire an attorney,

tremendous fees for relatively little work of dubious value.

The political allegiance of these attorneys has been epitomized

in a new philosophical program of legal studies called ' 'Critical

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 107

 

Legal Studies." This philosophy of revolution claims that

all current American law is ' 'the instrument of capitalist oppres-

sion," and that it must be "deconstructed" by a Stalinist

conspiracy within the legal profession. This philosophy had

found its apogee in the Legal Services Corporation set up

by the U.S. government under the Stalinist Democratic Party.

Its funds were promptly cut from $321,000,000 to $241,-

000,000 in 1981, when the Reagan counter-revolution, led

by the Trotskyite faction of the Conmiimist Party, swept into

office in Washington. The Legal Services Corporation had

been set up with the objective of providing legal aid to families

too poor to afford an attorney, a group which encompassed

most of the population of the United States. However, the

young lawyers hired by the LSC foimd family legal matters

such as divorce and custody too boring and too far removed

from their Stalinist Conununist loyalties. They began to con-

centrate on suing other government agencies, on housing and

welfare disagreements.

 

Critical legal studies found its natural home in the halls

of Harvard Law School, which has been traditionally Marxist

since its dominance by a Viennese inrniigrant, Felix Frank-

furter, early in this century. Frankfurter was publicly de-

nounced by President Theodore Roosevelt as "a dangerous

revolutionary," a recommendation which caused his cousin,

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, to appoint him to the Supreme

Court. Today, Frankfurter's heirs at Harvard Law School are

engaged in a bitter internecine struggle, in which two groups

of diehard Marxists, outspoken enemies of the American Re-

public one and all, have engaged in a civil war. The Marxists

who are attempting to do away with traditional legal studies

 

 

 

108 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

and replace them with the Critical Legal Studies program,

in a campaign to do away with "bourgeois law," are opposed

by the old line Marxists who have dominated the school since

the days of Felix Frankfurter. The CLS advocates claim that

the present legal system must be "liberated," so that it will

no longer operate on behalf of property owners, but only on

behalf of the "oppressed," with its goal as the ultimate "redis-

tribution" of all privately owned property. The "Crits" argue

that law professors should exchange their jobs every six months

with janitors, a basic goal of the Maoist Communist philoso-

phy. Jeffrey Hart characterizes the goals of the Crits as "the

ministrations of vermin," although they offer eloquent testi-

mony to the present insanity of the American legal system,

and may thereby serve a useful cause.

 

The extreme pro-Marxist bias of the American legal profes-

sion may be explained by simple business necessities. A Marx-

ist state which inflicts endless 1984 decisions on the people

requires frequent hiring of lawyers in efforts to survive the

diktat of the State power, and to defend one's person, one's

liberty and one's property from Marxist seizure by the govern-

ment. Once the state has become totally Communist, the need

for personal representation apparently vanishes. This is made

obvious by the fact that in the entire Soviet Union, there are

only 27,000 professional lawyers, as compared to some

675,000 in the U.S. Communist lawyers in the Soviet Union

are members of the privileged classes, with membership in

the Communist Party, and living as members of the Nomenkla-

tura, the special class which enjoys a lavish life style while

most of their Russian subjects live in misery and poverty.

These "advocatura' ' are organized under statutes of the USSR,

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 109

 

whereas, according to the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, "In

bourgeois states, lawyers join professional organizations only

to defend their own private interests." This definition ingenu-

ously ignores the fact that Soviet lawyers are also preeminently

concerned with their private interests.

 

The Nomenklatura classification of American lawyers is

most evident in the District of Columbia, where one in every

seventeen residents is an attorney. In contrast, the state which

has the most lawyers, Massachusetts, has only one lawyer

for 212 residents; in more rural states, the figure drops to

one in six hundred residents. The high ratio of lawyers in

the District population is explained by the fact that the national

government offers easy pickings for the parasitic greed of

the legal profession. Arriving in the District as a Congressman,

a lawyer may later be defeated for office, but this will be

but the beginning of a more prosperous career as a lobbyist,

or as a highly paid government bureaucrat whose decisions

will involve billions of dollars. Current lobbyists in Washing-

ton earn about $700,000 per year, with another $500,000 in

perks such as chauffeured limousines, two hundred dollar din-

ners, and a choice of expensive male or female prostitutes.

The current American Medical Association lobbyist and a

few other pleaders for special interests are paid about one

million dollars a year, with an equal amount in personal ex-

penses. The Internal Revenue Service chooses to look the

other way at these events taking place on its own doorstep,

preferring to reserve its most dure punishments for newspaper-

boys, scrubwomen and waitresses. Those in the upper echelons

of remuneration usually have little to fear from the IRS. When

billionaire Ross Perot was advised to hire former IRS Commis-

 

 

 

1 10 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

sioner Sheldon Cohen, he was able to save fifteen million

dollars in taxes on his stock profits. Cohen lobbied a special

tax bill through Congress for Perot, as is frequently done,

and Perot laughed all the way to the bank.

 

Because of their relative affluence, one might expect that

American lawyers would be stolid, middle class conservatives.

However, their incomes are largely dependent upon the exis-

tence of a ruthless Marxist state power in Washington and

in the various State capitals, as evidenced by the Critical

Legal Studies group at Harvard, and by the bias of the younger

lawyers hired at the Department of Justice in Washington.

The Legal Services Corporation diverted most of its funds

to such leftist groups as the American Civil Liberties Union

and its favorite projects, among them Planned Parenthood,

Safe Sex, the Sonoma County Sanctuary Movement, and other

approved Marxist organizations. In September, 1988, the Legal

Services Corporation mounted a well-financed campaign to

force HUD to turn over foreclosed homes to the homeless.

The resulting forced delays in sales cost taxpayers more than

five hundred thousand dollars, and opened the door to wide-

spread corruption in HUD. The chaos created by the LSC

agitation created opportunities for many sellers of foreclosed

HUD homes to bank the proceeds in their own bank accounts;

most of it will never be traced, although a few HUD officials

admit to embezzling millions of dollars, much of which they

claim they turned over to the "poor," although they acquired

yachts, expensive homes and other assets in the process.

 

The Legal Services Corporation, like so many of the govern-

mental aberrations which plague the nation, was the personal

project of a single member of Congress, Senator Warren Rud-

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 1 1 1

 

man of Vermont, in whose view the agency could do no

wrong. A current critic of the agency, Clark Durant, insists

that the agency should fulfill its designated mission of helping

the poor, and that it should cease to fund leftwing think tanks

to do away with laws on monogamy, lobby for a negative

income tax, that is, government payments to those who pay

no tax, and prompting the socialization of housing. Durant

also outraged the American legal profession when he proposed

that the Legal Services Corporation could stretch its budget

by hiring paralegals to do much of the work performed by

its staff of lawyers, such as the writing of wills, deeds, and

leases.

 

The headquarters of the Marxist bias among American law-

yers has been for many years the American Civil Liberties

Union, whose existence and exposure played a dominant role

in the 1988 campaign for the Presidency of the United States.

The goals of the ACLU are succinctly stated in "The Red

Network"; "it is directed by Communist and Socialist revolu-

tionary leaders ... it works untiringly to further and legally

protect the interests of the Red movement in all of its

branches — ^Red strikes. Atheism, sex freedom, disarmament,

seditious 'academic freedom,' and 'freedom of speech' for

Communists only . ' ' Although it was an outgrowth of the Amer-

ican Association for the Advancement of Atheism," and thus

continuously battles any religious symbolism in any aspect

of American life, it has always been first and foremost an

agency of the Communist Party. The U.S. Fish Report notes

that the ACLU had provided bail for Conmiunist defendants

in a strike in Gastonia, N.C. during which the chief of police

was murdered. 'The Civil Liberties Union was active from

 

 

 

1 12 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

the beginning of the trouble in the cases both at Marion and

Gastonia.' The N.Y. State Lusk Report says: 'The American

Civil Liberties Union, in the last analysis, is a supporter of

all subversive movements; its propaganda is detrimental to

the State. It attempts not only to protect crime but to encourage

attacks upon our institutions in every form.' The U.S. Fish

Committee report officially stated, Jan. 1931, 'The A.C.L.U.

is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United

States, and fully 90% of its efforts are on behalf of communists

who have come into conflict with the law. ... the main

function of the A.C.L.U. is to attempt to protect the conmiu-

nists in their advocacy of force and violence to overthrow

the government, replacing the American flag by a red flag

and erecting a Soviet Government in place of the republican

form of government guaranteed to each State by the Federal

Constitution.' Among its most active members are the afore-

named Felix Frankfurter and George Foster Peabody. A direc-

tor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Peabody exem-

plified the close affiliation of some bankers with the most

violent aims of the Bolshevik movement.

 

A recent issue of the ACLU's 576 page Policy Guide lays

down the party line to be followed in specific context; Policy

318, "it opposes work requirements at government-assigned

tasks as a condition of eligibility for welfare on the grounds

of fairness, dignity and privacy." However, the ACLU offers

no objection to the excesses of the Internal Revenue Service

when it breaks into homes and offices to seize assets from

private citizens in order to finance the "welfare state." As a

proponent of "redistribution of income," the ACLU cheers

when ruthless government agents seize the private assets of

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 1 13

 

American citizens to finance its Marxist state. On foreign

policy, the ACLU is succinct but undeviating, "Abolish all

covert operations." The fact that most of the CIA's covert

operations throughout the world have been on behalf of left-

wing groups, rather than in opposition to them, carries no

weight with the A.C.L.U., whose policies are generally

adopted word for word by the Stalinist fanatics of the Demo-

cratic Party. A.C.L.U. members quail at the mention of the

horrible phrase, "national security," because national security

is the antithesis of the A.C.L.U. program for a world Commu-

nist government. Its members are often found engaged in

active acts of treason, whether turning over secrets to foreign

governments, or destroying the living standards which make

Hfe bearable within the geographical limits of the United States.

Policy No. 92 states that "the ACLU opposes tax exemptions

for religious bodies," a policy which originated in its other

incarnation as the American Association for the Advancement

of Atheism. However, the A.C.L.U. does not oppose the

large tax exempt foundations which contribute millions of

dollars to the A.C.L.U. budget. Policy No. 242 urges that

"all criminals except those guilty of such crimes as murder

and treason, be given a suspended sentence . . . and sent

back to the community." In fact, the A.C.L.U. actively inter-

venes on behalf of murderers and those accused of treason,

furnishing legal and financial assistance. Policy No. 242 has

become the guideline for most American judges today; they

routinely hand out suspended sentences, and return the most

violent criminals to the community for "work release" and

"community service" programs. Policy No. 210 calls for

legalization of all narcotics, including 'crack' and 'angel dust,'

 

 

 

1 14 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

contending that "the introduction of substances into one's

own body" is an inalienable civil liberty.

 

Despite its historic agenda, the ACLU Policy Book remains

unknown to most Americans, even to those taxpayers who

continue to be assessed many millions of dollars each year

to pay for the frivolous and destructive lawsuits brought against

communities by the A.C.L.U. Their target is often local gov-

ernment bodies, thus avoiding the better-financed federal agen-

cies. It was the rumored existence of this agenda which torpe-

doed the Presidential campaign of Michael Dukakis in 1988.

Dukakis seemingly had a clear road to the White House — ^he

had a weak opponent, a fanatically supportive media coverage,

the support of the entire government and academic bodies,

and absolute support from all minorities, including the home-

less and the homosexuals. His campaign was sunk by one

photograph of a convicted rapist, Willie Horton, and by the

A.C.L.U. agenda which had brought about the release of

Horton. Dukakis proudly proclaimed that he was a card-carry-

ing member of the A.C.L.U. , thus identifying himself irrevoca-

bly in the public mind widi Willie Horton. At no time did

he ever repudiate the Communist origins of the A.C.L.U.,

which had its original incarnation on Dec. 18, 1914, as the

American League to Limit Armaments, a spinoff from the

Emergency Peace Foundation, headed by Communist propa-

gandist Louis Lochner. Its other founders were Jane Addams,

of Hull House, later revealed to be a secret member of the

Communist Party; John Haynes Holmes, a prominent Commu-

nist activist; Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, a rabid Communist apolo-

gist; Morris Hillquit, a founder of the Socialist Party and a

paid agent of the Soviet Government; and George Foster Pea-

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 1 15

 

body, a "capitalist" who sought to implement Lenin's de-

mands for a nationalized bank and "confiscation of assets"

for the "crime" of "concealing income," which became the

official program of the IRS. It was Peabody who had rescued

the tottering Soviet government in 1918 with ready infusions

of cash, aided by his fellow directors of the Federal Reserve

Bank of New York, William Laurence Saunders, deputy chair-

man of the bank, who wrote to President Wilson on October

17, 1918, "I am in sympathy with the Soviet form of govern-

ment as the best suited for the Russian people," and William

Boyce Thompson, a financier who announced that he was

personally donating one million dollars to promote Bolshevik

propaganda in the United States!

 

Without funds from these bankers, Conmiunism, which

has never won an election anywhere in the world, would

have died an early death. Every Communist government has

been installed by military takeover, a fact which the A.C.L.U.

never mentions in its copious socialist propaganda.

 

The A.C.L.U. continued to be liberally supported by the

bankers, because of its dedication to their Soviet ideals. In

1920, it took the name American Civil Liberties Union, under

the leadership of Roger Baldwin, an Anarchist Socialist who

had akeady spent a year in jail because of his revolutionary

work. Its National Committee now consisted of Baldwin, Eliza-

beth Gurley Flynn, and William Z. Foster. Both Flynn and

Foster later became chakmen of the Communist Party of the

United States. A 1943 Report of the California Fact Finding

Committee on Un-American Activities concluded that "The

ACLU may be definitely classed as a Communist front. At

least 90% of its efforts are expended on behalf of Communists

 

 

 

1 16 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

who come into conflict with the law." This conclusion was

repeated verbatim in a 1931 judgment of a Special House

Committee to Investigate Communist Activities in the United

States. A Barron's weekly story, August 26, 1968 by Shirley

Scheibla concluded that "Careful study of ACLU cases . . .

reveals that nearly all the causes it has taken up tend to weaken

law and order and the ability of society to defend itself. Some

landmark cases give Communists more freedom to destroy

the nation from within. Those involving the draft code erode

the state's ability to defend itself against armed attack. Other

significant ALCU cases diminish the authority of schools and

police and the influence of religion."

 

Typical of A.C.L.U. operations is the New York Student

Rights Project. Its director, Alan Levine, told assembled stu-

dents, "Oppressive institutions give you no right at all to

say why you go there, how long you go there, and what

you do while you're there. Indeed, you can not exercise the

rights the courts have told you you have without disrupting

the system." The already demoralized school system faces

interminable lawsuits seeking "students' rights." Another

A.C.L.U. operation, its National Prisoner Project, was defined

in the A.C.L.U. national newspaper. Civil Liberties, issue

of March, 1973, "First, get the prisoners out. Next, protection

of prisoners' First Amendment activities. Next, reform of

pretrial facilities." The A.C.L.U. Women's Rights Projects

sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment, a lawyers' dream

which would have resulted in every woman in the United

States suing every man for her "rights." The A.C.L.U. Death

Penalty Project worked to abolish capital punishment in the

United States, a goal which was won and then relinquished

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 1 17

 

as the death penalty was reintroduced to stem the rapidly

mounting crime toll throughout the country. A.C.L.U. also

is the leader in the national campaign for gun control, more

properly called "gun seizure." It has long been a truism in

Washington that only the possession of some five hundred

million guns by American citizens has postponed the Commu-

nist seizure of power in the United States. In the Soviet Union,

only trusted members of the Communist Party are allowed

to own guns. The Massachusetts A.C.L.U. Newspaper, The

Docket, stated in its April, 1974 issue on Civil Liberties,

"The Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts favors all bills

that seek to control ownership of guns. Where firearms are

widely owned, there is a threat to free expression of ideas."

The truth is that free expression of ideas is prohibited where

private ownership of guns is prohibited, as in the Communist

countries.

 

The A.C.L.U. continues to work tirelessly against all forms

of piety and religious observance throughout the United States,

such as the singing of ' 'Silent Night' ' during Christmas celebra-

tions in public schools, the posting of the Ten Commandments

in the schools, and the installment of Nativity scenes on public

property. A.C.L.U. leaders demand the removal of the words,

"In God We Trust" from our coinage, and the phrase, "under

God' ' from the Pledge of Allegiance, although the entire Pledge

of Allegiance remains a favorite target of the A.C.L.U.

 

For years, the A.C.L.U. claimed to be against all forms

of racial discrimination. In 1963, the organization suddenly

reversed its longstanding policy, coming out for racial quotas

in every field of American life. It abandoned its cry for ' 'equal

opportunity," replacing it with "preferential treatment" for

 

 

 

118 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

its favored minorities. When columnist Pat Buchanan wrote

a column exposing some of the A.C.L.U. treachery, its execu-

tive director, Ira Glasser, wrote him a vehement letter, accusing

him of "McCarthyism, terrorism and slime." How Glasser

or anyone else could be terrorized by a mere newspaper column

was not explained.

 

In 1988, the A.C.L.U. finally involved itself in a situation

about which the present writer had been complaining for many

years, in letters to the press, articles, and books. This is the

infamous section of the statutes which establishes severe penal-

ties for anyone who reveals any information of complaints

about a judge. A columnist had written about this statute on

the editorial page of the Washington Post in 1977, suggesting

that it was probably unconstitutional, as indeed it is. In 1978,

the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, decreeing that

the state could not prosecute reporters for reporting "secret

judicial investigations." The state Judicial Inquiry and Review

Commission routinely received complaints from the public

against judges, which were promptiy buried. Its director finally

admitted that in some fifteen years, only one or two complaints

had actually been investigated. Nevertheless, the director of

the commission continued to warn all complainants that it

was a criminal offense for anyone to talk about his complaint,

and that he would be prosecuted!

 

The A.C.L.U. filed suit on the grounds that both the state

code and the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission violate

the First and Fourteenth Amendments protecting free speech

and due process. The complaint stated that the law enables

concealment of "evidence of substantial misconduct by

judges." It took the A.C.L.U. seventy years to discover a

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 1 19

 

statute about which citizens had been complaining for decades.

 

Because of the numerous lawsuits which it generates, the

A.C.L.U. functions as the godfather of the American legal

profession. Most of these suits are intended to weaken the

institutions of the nation, such as schools and churches, but

many are so trivial in origin as to create new markets for

lawyers where none previously existed. The flood of "job

discrimination" and "sexual harassment" lawsuits which en-

gulf our major companies have seriously weakened our ability

to compete in the world economy. Thus the A.C.L.U. has

actively worked to promote the rise of Japan, Korea and West

Germany in their domination of our auto and appliance mar-

kets, while simultaneously encouraging the wave of "mergers

and acquisitions," promoting the giant monopolies which the

Sherman Anti-Trust Act claimed to have outlawed.

 

The professional organization by which the lawyers have

become the Nomenklatura, or ruling, elite, in the United States

is the American Bar Association. This organization selects,

and for all practical purposes, elects judges to our courts. It

not only ' 'recommends' ' judges, but also passes on their quali-

fications, labelling them "able," "mediocre," or "not recom-

mended." The reasons for the latter unfavourable designation

remain shrouded in secrecy, but are always based upon political

or ethnic prejudices. Rarely does it have any bearing on the

character, the training, or the ability of the designate, "not

recommended" simply means that the elitists of the American

Bar Association have decided to blackball someone who does

not fit into their narrow categorization. Such unfavorable deci-

sion is always spared anyone who has the necessary qualifica-

tions, the most important being membership in a Masonic

 

 

 

120 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

lodge. The ABA system ensures that a small, dedicated group,

existing in an atmosphere of conspiracy and secret goals,

can dominate the selection of all judges in the United States.

Like most invasions of our rights, the inspiration for the

American Bar Association invasion came directly from En-

gland. Our Constitution guarantees our citizens equal rights

under the law; the British Secret Service has sought to under-

mine this guarantee by decreeing that the laws of the United

States shall be administered by persons who want unequal

rights, or special licenses. The Constitution tried to prevent

this by expressly outlawing grants of special privilege. The

American Bar Association had its inception at a meeting in

the summer of 1878 of some seventy-five lawyers from eleven

states. The guiding force of the group was Simeon E. Baldwin,

a descendant of Roger Sherman, a Governor of Connecticut,

and a Justice of the state's Supreme Court. The ABA subse-

quently underwent three periods in its history: from 1878 to

1902, it was a strictly professional organization dedicated to

improving the practice of law; from 1902 to 1936 was its

era of national expansion, when it became a genuinely national

organization; and from 1936 to 1950, when it became a truly

elitist organization, which sought to extend its control over

other aspects of American life. It was in 1936 that the ABA

adopted a federalized constitution, creating a monolithic orga-

nization which was tightly controlled by a small group of

elitists. It also founded the National Association of Law

Schools in 1900, giving it control of the crucial field of accredi-

tation, and the National Conference of Commissioners of Uni-

form State Laws, giving it access to the statutes of every

state.

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 121

 

The appearance of the ABA as a genuine national force

first came in 1909, when a group of British lawyers arrived

in Chicago to set up a monolithic organization. They were

actively assisted by John D. Rockefeller, who was then setting

up the University of Chicago to promote the principles of

British Fabian Socialism, with a gift of fifty million dollars.

The Illinois legislature then passed a statute that only members

of the legal union, the ABA, would be allowed to practice

law within that state. With this act, the State of Illinois, for

all practical purposes, seceded from the constitutional union

of states, by granting special privileges in violation of the

Constitution. This statute also set up a class system in the

United States. Other states were persuaded to adopt the Illinois

statute, California in 1927, and the other states in the 1930s,

until the ABA had achieved its goal of national power.

 

Yale law professor Fred Rodell characterizes the union mem-

bers of the ABA, the duly licensed and chartered "lawyers"

as "purveyors of streamlined voodoo and chromium-plated

theology," whose "weird and wordy mental gymnastics"

enable them to carry on a "highclass racket." There are now

some 180 "approved" law schools in the United States, li-

censed by the ABA to turn out "approved" lawyers. On

graduation, these lawyers are still mere apprentices, because

they have been taught little or nothing about how the legal

system actually operates, or what a lawyer must do to earn

his fees. They are not taught the classics of the law, such as

the works of Coke and Blackstone, but they endure months

of semantic quibbling about the law of contracts or the meaning

of a household. This is to prepare them for the practice of

the law merchant.

 

 

 

122 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

During some forty years of research into the problems plagu-

ing this nation, the present writer dug down to the strata of

a common plateau, which revealed the simultaneous origins

of the various forms of criminality infesting the land. It had

begun with a small fraternity of international bankers who

first fastened their central banking system onto the nations

of Europe, and later, in a secret meeting at Jekyl Island,

Georgia in 1910, conspired to create a "Federal Reserve Sys-

tem" (which was not federal, had no reserves, and was not

a system, but a syndicate). In "The World Order," I revealed

the tentacles of the financiers which manipulated the govern-

ments of the world. I proved that the three professions which

were doing the most damage were the bankers, the lawyers,

and the doctors. Educators came in a strong fourth. In "Murder

by Injection," I exposed the medical profession, and in the

present work, I expose the legal profession, despite its function

as a legal octopus whose fierce squirting of black ink confuses

and subdues its prey.

 

In all of these works, I have found myself dealing with

essentially the same families and the same groups, both within

the United States and abroad. A recent television expose of

a Dr. James Burt, who had for years performed strange sexual

operations on his women patients with the knowledge of his

peers, carried the official disclaimer of the medical profession

from a prominent physician, "Of course the other doctors

knew what he was doing, but they wouldn't dare expose him.

He might sue them, and no one wants to get involved in

that horror which is our legal system." The lush profits from

malpractice suits have made the medical field easy pickings

for the legal vultures, while discouraging conscientious doctors

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 123

 

from adequately treating their patients. The result is intended

to be the final socializing of all medical practice in the United

States, under the total control of the government.

 

The ABA carries considerable weight in the operation of

the legislative process. The Resolution of the 74th Congress,

on Aug. 27, 1935, of the Joint Resolution Consenting to an

Interstate Oil Compact to Conserve Oil and Gas, would not

have been possible without the ABA, whose members drafted

a Federal Oil and Gas Conservation Act in 1935, subsequently

passed as a state law in South Dakota in 1955 and later in

other oil-producing states. This drive for "conservation" was

intended solely to protect the oil monopoly of the Rockefeller

interests and their many subsidiaries. It forbade newcomers

from drilling so as to control production and maintain high

price levels. This program was originally formulated at the

ABA annual meeting in Seattle in July of 1928. An act was

written which removed the major oil companies from the con-

trol of the anti-trust laws (vol. 53, pp. 72-89). In 1934, the

Governor of Texas, who just happened to be the president

of Humble Oil, one of Rockefeller's main acquisitions, used

this ABA act to call out the National Guard, stopping further

drilling by independent producers. Congress was then ordered

to draft national approval of this act by the Joint Resolution

of 1935.

 

The ABA maintains a number of active subcommissions

which constantly review and redraft laws controlling the daily

lives of all Americans. Their recommendations, like their "ap-

provals" of candidates for judgeships, are always accepted

by the pertinent Congressional committees as worthy of being

drafted into law without changing so much as a comma, yet

 

 

 

124 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

no citizen has ever elected any member of an ABA commission

to national office. Typical of these secret commissions is the

ABA'S Section on Patent, Trademark and Copyright Law,

which was exposed in the Senate Judiciary Hearings of Febru-

ary 3, 1974 under the title, "The Organized Bar: Self-Serving

or Serving the Public?"

 

The Committee found that the incoming chairman of this

influential ABA section was Theodore Bowes, a member of

a secret ABA operation known as "the Tuesday Group."

Bowes was a former General Patent Counsel for the Westing-

house Corp., and a prominent Washington lobbyist in the

field of patent law. The "Tuesday Group" was a clique of

lawyers which drafted the Scott Amendments, proposals which

would exempt many presently illegal patent practices from

the antitrust laws. The "Tuesday Group" then persuaded Sena-

tor Hugh Scott to introduce them on the Hill. Scott was a

Washington politician who enjoyed many of the perks of a

prominent political figure. He was able to indulge his penchant

for collecting priceless Chinese antiques, a hobby which was

beyond the means of most of his colleagues on Capitol Hill.

 

The Judiciary Committee found that other ABA Sections

were headed by lobbyists from leading corporations; the chair-

man of the Environmental Controls Committee of the ABA

comes from a large Richmond, Virginia law firm representing

Humble Oil, three power companies, three raikoads, General

Motors, a gas pipeline company and a chemical corporation.

He seemed an ideal choice to draft regulations on pollution.

The Judiciary Committee further stated, ' 'The Coal Committee

(of the ABA) is headed by a lawyer from Consolidation Coal

Co; his vice chairman is the lawyer for the National Coal

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 125

 

Association; the Oil Committee chairman, the General Counsel

of Cities Service and his vice chairman is General Counsel

for Humble Oil; the Forest Resources Committee (of the ABA)

has a chairman whose law firm represents Georgia-Pacific

and Moore Oregon Lumber; the vice chairman's law firm

represents U.S. Plywood, Champion Paper etc."

 

The entire Senate Judiciary Committee report is a fascinating

expose of the intrigues in which lawyers engage to protect

the profits of their clients, while these firms defraud and injure

the American public. The ABA also takes strong public posi-

tions on many political issues; the entire organization unhesitat-

ingly endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment in the confident

expectation of generating billions of dollars in extremely profit-

able lawsuits . Indeed, it was the fear of an avalanche of lawsuits

which finally caused the ERA to be defeated. This one amend-

ment would have paralyzed an ateady overburdened court

system.

 

Much like the American Medical Association (which is

also headquartered in Chicago), the enormous influence exer-

cised by the American Bar Association lies in its monopolistic

practices. It controls the means of entering the profession by

controlling the accreditation of law schools, just as the AMA

controls the accreditation of medical schools and hospitals.

In all but two states, Georgia and California, the wouldbe

lawyer must attend an "accredited law school," that is, accred-

ited by the ABA, before permission is granted to take the

state bar examination, which is also prepared under the supervi-

sion of the ABA. Legislation is now under way in California

to end the opportunity for non-accredited students to take

the bar exam in that state. The bar exam prevents anyone

 

 

 

126 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

from practicing law, even though Robert H. O'Brien, chairman

of the California Committee of Bar Examiners, admits that

the bar exam does not accurately predict the ability of future

attorneys. Those who pass are then admitted to the "inte-

grated" bar association, the state monopoly, which has the

power to punish any attorney who fails to conform to its

stringent controls. For years the state bar associations have

operated in open defiance of anti-trust laws, conspiring to

fix fees, prohibiting advertising by attorneys, and prosecuting

anyone accused of unauthorized practice of law. Competence

is not an issue. The bar monopoly can and does prosecute

highly skilled legal practitioners, such as paralegals, trust offi-

cers, and others whose skills and experience more than qualify

them to practice law.

 

The ABA particularly frowns upon anyone who is labelled

a "tax protestor" by the vigilant agents of the IRS, or who

criticizes any person or institution of the EstabUshment. Al-

though the ABA tries to present a public figure of a stem

moral entity which prosecutes and punishes any attorney sus-

pected of "moral turpitude," judges publicly known to have

accepted bribes have been elected presidents of bar associa-

tions. An ABA panel commissioned to look into the disci-

plinary situation among lawyers in 1970 summed up its findings

in one word , " scandalous . ' '

 

Although few Americans are aware of the ABA and its

sinister machinations, its conspiracies afTect the daily cost of

living for every American. The ABA strongly urges the exten-

sion of state powers over the lives and property of every

American. Whether one wishes to call this Marxism, or 1984,

or Communism, it most definitely is not American, nor is it

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 127

 

the Republic for which we stand. For this reason, there is

now rising opposition to the ABA and the monopoly which

it exercises over the practice of law. In Austin, Texas, Daniel

Madison has filed a suit against the ABA, the Texas Supreme

Court, the University of Texas Law School, and the Law

Schools council for violation of the antitrust laws, and for

conspiracy to keep power from nonlawyers. Madison explains

his suit with these words, "If you're rich, you can have all

the justice you want, but if you are a working class citizen,

you may get little or none. That is the system in America."

The precipitous decline in American production and export

income has been ascribed to many factors, such as poor Ameri-

can workmanship, the strength of the dollar, and other factors.

However, only one scholar, Peter Ruber, has dared to put

the blame where it most plainly lies. In his fully documented

work, "Liability: The Legal Revolution and Its Conse-

quences," he tells us that "Tort law was set in place in the

60s and 70s by a new generation of lawyers and judges . . .

Some grew famous and more grew rich by selling their services

to enforce the rights they themselves had invented." Although

a few Americans may have been pleased by the enormous

settlements won for them by their lawyers against American

manufacturers, the overall result has been devastating. More

than thirty billion dollars a year is now spent on such lawsuits,

according to recent studies by the Rand Corp., with more

than half of this sum going to attorneys as fees. Huber says

that the industrial havoc wrought by this practice "accounts

for 30% of the price of a stepladder and 90% of the price of

childhood vaccines. ' ' He writes that an amorphous new jumble

of contract and tort law, called "contort law" overrules our

 

 

 

128 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

most important economic freedom, the freedom to make ad-

vance commitments and to arrange deals on terms mutually

agreeable." Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 28,

1988, Huber cites the reluctance of insurance companies to

write liability coverage at any price, with a concurrent decline

in overall safety as new technologies are withheld from the

market, and the decline of American competitiveness in foreign

markets." He says, "U.S. contort law gives foreign manufac-

turers an important competitive edge." Huber has found that

tort law costs the American consumer $300 billion a year!

The overall verdict of Huber' s book is that there has indeed

been a revolution in liability cases, with the result that in

the past thirty years tort law, the law of accident and personal

injury cases, has been altered by judges and law professors

to make the law "more compassionate," and more anti-busi-

ness, a logical result of the growing Marxism of the American

bench. The results may be seen on every hand; in the rapid

obsolescence of the "Rust Belt"; the growing deficit of the

U.S. balance of trade, and in the growing foreign investment

in the United States. In 1988 it had grown to $304 billion,

which included 33% of chemicals, 12% of all manufacturing

in the U.S., 12% of printing and publishing, and 10% of

fiber and textile manufacturing. Huber is not the only one to

attribute this tragic decline in American assets to the malignant

depredations of our legal profession.

 

Huber recommends as a first step the repeal of the judge-

invented coUateral-soiu-ce rule, thus relying on direct insurance

of goods and services. It is unlikely that the judges will back

down from the dilemma which they themselves have created,

or that the insurance companies could afford the vast amounts

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 129

 

required for direct insurance coverage. Whatever the outcome,

the situation can be traced all the way back to Starkey's apt

observation during the reign of King Henry the Eighth, ' 'Every-

one that can color reason maketh a stop to the best law that

is beforetime devised."

 

The excesses of tort law are the consequence of earlier

abuses by lawyers in the early years of this century. Lawyers

usually acted as claim agents for companies facing a damage

suit, using their talents to persuade the victim to sign a release

on payment of minimal damages. This practice backfired when

the lawyers realized that they could make much more money

by representing the victim against the companies, extracting

huge settlements, of which they took one-third in contingency

fees, plus untold "expenses." The practice was little more

than ambulance chasing, but it proved very lucrative.

 

The red lights of the ambulances still prove to be an irresist-

ible attraction to the legal profession. The Wall Street Journal

headlined on Sept. 1, 1988, "Texas Bar Rushes to Crash

Site to Protect Victims from Certain Lawyers," "Attempting

to protect victims' families from solicitations by unscrupulous

lawyers, the State Bar of Texas rushed its own lawyers to

the site of the Delta Airlines crash at Dallas International

Airport." The article noted that "solicitation by lawyers is

a crime, usually a misdemeanor, known as barratry."

 

On Feb. 16, 1989, the Wall Street Journal memorialized

"the dozens of lawyers who raced to Bhopal in the days

after the accident and later brought the victims' cases into

U.S. courts." The mad, mad world aspect of the lawyers'

rush to Bhopal was occasioned by the tempting prospect of

thousands of clients, when the Union Carbide plant at Bhopal

 

 

 

130 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

had a gas leak in 1984. The lawyers actually signed up thou-

sands of clients, but were thwarted when the Indian government

assumed control of the litigation in 1986. Union Carbide agreed

to a $470 million settlement, with payment to the registrar

of the India Supreme Court. This apparently left the American

lawyers in limbo, as they would have no access to the funds.

In tort action, it is axiomatic that the lawyer takes his payments

off the top. It is unlikely that India's biureaucracy will be

willing to share the loot, most of which will probably never

reach the victims. For the "Bhopal flyers" it may be a bitter

pill.

 

Louis Vuitton, the French leather goods manufacturer, de-

veloped another new angle on the attorney problem. Instead

of continuing to hire lawyers to battle against counterfeiters

who illegally put the Vuitton name on their products, Vuitton

has now prosecuted more than fifty cases in New York by

having judges appoint corporate counsels as special prosecu-

tors. These counsels then launch criminal contempt proceed-

ings against offenders who violate court injunctions against

counterfeiting. Because such counterfeiting is now a $5.5

billion a year problem, other manufacturers have followed

suit. They have shifted their costs onto the shoulders of a

public prosecutor, because they have notified him of the com-

mission of a crime. It is then his duty to prosecute it. However,

when the present writer has done this in the past, the govern-

ment agencies have refused to prosecute. No action has ever

been taken on notification of serious violations of law.

 

The legal profession continues to make its fees from public

misfortunes. When the A. H. Robins Co. of Richmond, Va.

marketed a faulty intrauterine device, the Dalkon Shield, some

 

 

 

A PLAGUE OF LAWYERS 131

 

195,000 women who were injured by it filed claims for their

injuries. The firm sought protection under the Federal Bank-

ruptcy Act, but eventually set up a $2.4 billion fund to settle

the flood of personal injury lawsuits. In Sept. 1988, a confiden-

tial report concluded that a major Wall Street law firm, Cadwa-

lader, Wickersham and Taft (as in President Taft), violated

conflict of interest laws in an "impermissible appearance of

impropriety" by simultaneously representing a conmiittee of

Robins' plaintiffs and the five trustees who will be disbursing

the billions in settlements. The Cadwalader firm was said to

have played the principle role in nominating four of the five

trustees. Millions of dollars of potential revenue for the Cadwa-

lader firm are at stake.

 

The national crisis among the savings and loans banks has

been explained by the involvement of lawyers in the longstand-

ing campaign to "deregulate" them. Those same lawyers

are now stepping in to write proposals for "resolving" the

problems. The Wall Street Journal noted on Jan. 31, 1989

that Thomas Vartanian, the former general counsel for the

Federal Home Loan Bank Board, wrote the laws which deregu-

lated the thrift banks. After they went bankrupt as a result

of that deregulation, he joined the New York powerhouse

law firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and Jacobson. The

firm earned some twelve million dollars in 1988 by handling

55 thrift mergers. Vartanian's deputy at the FHLBB, Patrick

Doyle, also has built up a thriving savings and loan business,

at the Washington law firm of Arnold and Porter.

 

Washington remains the preeminent home base for the law-

yer lobbyist, some eleven thousand now holding court there.

The dean of Washington tax lobbyists is Charles Walker,

 

 

 

132 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

whose CEW Associates represents a powerful corporate base,

known as the Group of 14. These 14 major corporations include

Alcoa, ATT, Bechtel, Champion, Dresser, DuPont, IBM and

others, with aggregate sales of $260 billion a year, and employ-

ing two million workers. They depend on CEW to handle

tax code changes which will affect their profits. Walker came

to Washington as the protege of Robert Anderson, Secretary

of the Treasury from 1957-1960. Walker became overseer

of Congressional relations for the Treasury Dept. , later writing

the Tax Reform Act of 1969. He earned a valuable reputation

as the man to see if you wanted something done in Washington

in the tax field. His firm now makes millions per year. His

mentor, Robert Anderson, was not so fortunate. Although

he later became president of the American Bankers Associa-

tion, he was disbarred in New York on Jan. 11, 1989, after

conviction on tax evasion of $240,000 from 1983-84, and

having operated an illegal bank which cost investors some

$4.4 million.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4

 

 

 

Judge Not

 

 

 

The origin of the word "judge" is found in "juden," or,

in Spanish, "juez." In the United States, the judge sees him-

self, first of all, as the guardian of the present legal system.

While carefully cultivating his public image as the epitome

of impartiality, he succeeds in letting interested inquirers know

that his impartiality may be swayed by certain considerations.

For this reason, it is crucial that a citizen entering an American

court as a litigant should discard the assiduously cultivated

myth of "judicial impartiality." If you are a farmer, a small

business operator, or a wage earner in any type of business,

you are akeady "beyond the pale," as far as the judge is

concerned. You have been consigned to the never never land

of the hoi poUoi — the judge will not let anyone leave his

court without being convinced that he is an elitist.

 

During a national campaign to increase judges' salaries in

1989, it was found that judges, whose salaries range from

$89,500 to $115,000 a year, reported average extra earnings

from $16,624 to $39,500. An Associated Press survey found

 

 

 

133

 

 

 

134 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

that the median 1987 income for a federal judge was from

$108,000 to $130,300. In pleading for the pay raise, Robert

McWilliams of the 10th U.S. Circuit CT in Colorado, stated

that 'Judges' salaries, rather than being geared to the income

of the average taxpayer, should be geared to the average of

practicing lawyers." However, the Associated Press survey

showed that median income for America's 707,000 lawyers

and judges was only $45,069, (Census reports). McWilUams

apparently was unaware that judges' median income was al-

ready more than double the median income for American

lawyers. The demand for ever higher salaries is part of the

judges' elitist drive. The judge has attended a university, his

family had sufficient funds for him to go on to graduate law

school and to become a professional man; and he later became

a judge because he attracted the favorable attention of even

more powerful elitists, who concluded that he would serve

to protect their interests in the court. The judge resides in

an upper income suburb, owning a home of considerable value

in an area of other elitists. He belongs to a country club

whose members are strictly limited to elitists. He maintains

unadvertised affiliations in one or more religious, fraternal

and political groups. Preeminent among such groups is the

Masonic fraternal organization. The majority of Masonic mem-

bers never go beyond the three degrees of the Blue Lodge.

They are never informed that the higher degrees are forbidden,

under pain of death, to disclose any of the machinations of

the higher degrees to any member of the Blue Lodge. This

does not mean that members of the Blue Lodge reap no advan-

tages from their membership. On the contrary, they continually

receive favorable treatment in the banks, in the courts, and

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 135

 

from other businessmen. The courts are preponderantly exten-

sions of the Masonic brotherhood. Most lawyers and judges

are fellow lodge members. Preferential treatment is extended

to all members of the brotherhood who come before the court.

In our larger cities, most judges are also Zionist collabora-

tors; if inactive Zionists, they have been screened by a Zionist

organization and have been found satisfactory. A judge is

almost always a member in good standing of one of the major

political parties; he is almost never a member of an "indepen-

dent" political movement. He is usually a member of an

established church, if Protestant, usually Episcopalian, al-

though more than half of the judges in the United States are

Roman Catholic. He may even belong to some "extremist"

organization, as Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black had long

been a member in good standing of the Ku Klux Klan. After

he had been appointed to the Supreme Court by President

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Black admitted his Klan member-

ship. The leak had come from a Communist ideologue, during

the heyday of the capture of the national Democratic Party

by the fanatical Stalinist wing of the Communist Party. Klan

membership was anathema to these ideologues; only Nazi

affiliation carried a greater stigma. Black humbly promised

never to go to another Klan meeting, and served on the Court

for many years. Political realists in Washington knew that

Black's political career had been built on his Klan membership

in Alabama. Without it, he could not have been elected to

the Senate. Once in Washington, he became a loyal supporter

of FDR's most socialist policies, and was rewarded by the

Supreme Court appointment. With the Klan affiliation hanging

over his head. Black became an ardent supporter of every

 

 

 

136 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

violation of the Constitution, as a member of the FDR court.

The Black episode illustrates the necessity of a judge having

powerful political support. Conversely, he need know little

or nothing about legal problems or the actual practice of law.

He is expected to show unwavering loyalty to the prevalent

party line during his service as a judge. Those judges who

at some point begin to believe that they are a power in them-

selves, and who substitute their personal views for the exigen-

cies of the current party line (which varies from day to day,

as any practical political stance must do), are the judges whom

you read about in the press. They are judges who are impeached

for high crimes and misdemeanours, stripped of their office,

and sent to prison. This is a very rare occurrence, as the

sitting judge is never allowed to forget where his real allegiance

lies. The judge exercises supreme power over the parties who

stand before him in civil litigation or in criminal actions. He

has equal power over the lawyers who stand before him,

and he never allows anyone to forget that power. In this

regard, the judge is not actually an employee of the city,

state or nation which pays his salary. He is the tool of the

secret entities who control all aspects of American life from

behind the scenes. The servile press has made it fashionable

to sneer at anyone who speaks of a "conspiracy," with the

implication that anyone who believes there are conspirators

is probably mentally ill, and should be secluded for the safety

of society. We are often reminded that persons who claimed

to have some knowledge of the inner workings of ' 'the conspir-

acy" have been promptly spirited off to an asylum, where

the continuous administration of mind-altering drugs soon con-

vinces him that he was mistaken in his charges . The ' ' agitator' '

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 137

 

is soon reduced to a helpless, drooling inmate who, whenever

he shows signs of recovering his wits, is immediately given

a stronger dose of Thorazine, a la KGB.

 

The fallacy of judicial impartiality could be denied by any

practicing attorney. In our larger cities, the practice of "judge-

shopping" among scheduled members of the bench is a daily

occurrence. A lawyer will use any stratagem, not the least

of which is the employment of carefully cultivated relationships

with clerks of the court, to have a case moved from a judge

known to be hostile either to the defendant, or to the type

of crime he has committed, or to the lawyer himself. Through-

out the legal profession, it is common knowledge that most

judges with years of service on the bench are almost universally

hostile to anyone who comes into a court without an attorney,

and declares his intention of representing himself. The judges

are also very hostile to women lawyers, and to blacks and

other minorities.

 

Judge Susan M. Skinner of Lee County, Florida, recently

resigned her judgeship, citing sexism and "petty politics"

in the judicial system as reason for resigning the judgeship

she has held since 1984. She made her letter of resignation

public, stating that "I have come to the conclusion that there

is more to life than remaining as a part of this judicial system!

I cannot envision myself emulating a number of the present

judges with their infighting, envy, and dispassionate processing

of their cases, nor can I further tolerate the total domination

our current court administrator is allowed to exercise over

the judiciary." Ft. Myers Fla. News Press, June 16, 1989.

 

Judge Skirmer had caused a community uproar when she

learned that a defendant had AIDS. She ordered him from

 

 

 

138 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

her courtroom, saying that she was insulted by his audacity

in appearing in court, and she feared he would spread the

disease to others in the courtroom. A national public outcry

was raised by the powerful homosexual community, and she

realized that she would no longer be able to carry out her

judicial duties in the atmosphere of harassment and intimida-

tion.

 

Liberal elements in Washington had sought to replace the

older members of the judiciary with blacks and women, a

process hastened by President Jimmy Carter, who replaced

some three hundred members of the federal judiciary. Some

of them have since been indicted, while others have resigned.

 

In 1717, Bishop Benjamin Hoadley informed the King of

England, "Whoever hath an absolute authority to interpret

any written laws is truly the lawgiver to all intents and purposes,

and not the person who wrote them."

 

Thus it is the judge, rather than the person who wrote the

laws, who has been transformed from an impartial referee

of the statutes into the creator of the statutes. Judges are

now handing out excessive punishments, with little or no

restraint on their decisions. The Wall Street Journal noted

April 28, 1989 that federal judge Richard Owen had given

some defendants one hundred years in a criminal case, and

fifteen years in a tax fraud case, which was at least five times

more severe than most attorneys thought appropriate. A federal

judge ruled June 5, 1980 that the city of Parma, Ohio must

provide three hundred units of low income housing annually.

This was described as "the first federal takeover of a city."

 

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled May 10, 1989 that District

of Columbia Superior Court Judge Tim C. Murphy should

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 139

 

have withdrawn from an assault case which had been brought

by federal prosecutors, because at that very time, he was

applying for a position with the Department of Justice. It

was ruled a clearcut violation of ethical rules, although Judge

Murphy defended his action by pointing out that "I taught

judicial ethics for years."

 

The overweening power of the judge in the American legal

system has increased inversely to the decline of Constitutional

guarantees of individual rights, and the concurrent rise of

equity law. Equity originates from the Latin Aequitas, meaning

equality of justice. Equity is defined by Sir Henry Maine in

"Ancient Law" as "any body of rules existing beside the

existing original or civil law, founded on distinct principles,

and claiming incidentally to supersede the civil law in virtue

of a superior sanctity inherent in those principles, principles

stemming from praetor edicts." This is a reference to the

annual proclamation on administrative law which was added

to each year by the praetor, who corresponded to the lord

high chancellor in English law. Equitable jurisdiction had

been established in England by the reign of Edward HI. Equity

has exclusive jurisdiction where it recognizes rights unknown

to the common law, such as trusts; equity has concurrent

jurisdiction where the law recognized the right but did not

give adequate relief; and auxiliary jurisdiction when the ma-

chinery of the courts of law was unable to procure the new

evidence."

 

Maine goes on to deplore the evils of this double system

of judicature. The present writer found early on that when

his opponents realized that they could not destroy him in the

civil courts, they moved to have the case heard in the equity

 

 

 

140 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

or chancery courts. At first, I was mystified by this move,

although I was soon convinced of its purpose. I doggedly

hung on, and was finally able to settle the case on my own

terms. The existence of this double system of judicature is a

powerful secret weapon, which both judges and lawyers use

against the public, giving them a decisive tactic which they

can deploy, just when the citizen believes that at last he will

finally receive justice in the court.

 

The abuses of our legal system are the more ironic when

we learn that the traditional meaning of the scales of justice

is that all things should be in harmony, weighed and establish-

ing an equilibrium between warring opponents. Libra, the

sign of the scales, is the seventh sign of the Zodiac, and is

ruled by Venus; its jewel is the emerald, which represents

the divine blend of colors, the blue of heaven with the gold

of the sun. In tarot, the Justice card is represented by a seated

and crowned Lord, who is the enthronement of the imperial

dispenser of justice. King Solomon, The designation of the

scales as the sign of justice was intended to decree that all

worlds, and all forms of human nature, should attain a balance.

 

In practice, this ideal has not been achieved. The scales

of justice, rather than weighing the evidence presented by

the opposing forces, until preponderance occurs on one side

or the other, allow the adversary system to force the scales

down on one side, justifying a decision in favor of that party.

Thus the idea of balance has been abandoned, not only because

of the adversary system, but also because the scales of justice,

instead of signifying harmony, have been converted into the

scales of commerce, in which commodities are weighed to

determine their price before the sale. Equity law was a tremen-

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 141

 

dous move in this direction, allowing first the admiralty courts,

and then the law merchant, to supersede the common law

and in the United States, our Constitutional law. In the law

merchant, all law is concerned merely with the handling of

economic disputes, and the scales of justice have become

the scales of the trader, or the broker.

 

Because of this development, the office of judge itself be-

came an item of trade, to be auctioned off to the highest

bidder. Just as the scales of justice are used to weigh the

relative power, influence and finances of the parties, so the

judicial robe became a saleable property. Although it is still

ofifered in outlying areas of the nation as a bid for those

who hold the reins of power, in the larger cities, it has been

reduced to the sole element of price. This can be verified in

our most reputable publications, such as the New York Times,

Oct. 2, 1988. This newspaper featured a lengthy interview

with Matthew Troy, who was formerly a pillar of the "system"

as a New York City councilman, and a Queens Democratic

Party leader. Troy served short prison sentences in 1980,

after pleading guilty to filing false income tax returns. He

now lectures at universities on the realities of our judicial

and political system. Troy says that the public has an idea

that politicians are crooked, "and usually they are right."

He states that he swapped State Assembly votes for judgeships,

that visitors came to his office with briefcases bulging with

cash, and that he routinely turned down bribes from reporters

and developers. One reporter offered to run favorable newspa-

per stories about him for a mere $500 a week.

 

Troy's most important revelation is his recounting of the

current price lists for the purchase of a judgeship. "The usual

 

 

 

142 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

price for a judgeship on the Supreme Court of New York

was $75,000, with lower court posts going for $15,000. That

was common knowledge that I grew up with." He continues,

"A man came to see me, and he put a briefcase on my desk,

loaded, absolutely loaded with cash. And he said to me, 'I'd

like to be a judge.' I asked him, 'Are you a lawyer?' "

 

Although money remains the ruling factor, the guiding prin-

ciple of the legal system remains its allegiance to the Masonic

order. In many areas, the local bench is merely a chapter of

the Masonic Lodge. Because of the great secrecy maintained

by the lodges, no accurate figures can be given as to the

number of American lawyers and judges who are members

of a Masonic lodge. Of the current total of 707,000 American

judges and lawyers, it seems a good estimate that at least

500,000 are lodge members. It could be as high as 90%.

Figures have been established for England, in Stephen Knight's

best selling book, "The Brotherhood." Shortly after publish-

ing this book, which immediately became a best seller. Knight,

who was a young man, died suddenly. Interested persons

have been unable to obtain any details of his death. Knight

states that "the Law Society (the English equivalent of our

Bar Association) is one of the most masonic instimtions in

the world. Ninety per cent of its members are Masons." He

points out that this situation itself creates grave inequities,

because the Law Society is the final arbiter as to who will

receive legal aid and who will be denied it. In practice, a

non-Mason has no chance of receiving legal aid in a suit

against a Mason.

 

Knight says that fifty to seventy per cent of all English

judges are Masons. This figure is probably close to that in

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 143

 

the United States. Lawyers soon become aware that if they

expect to have any clients, and if they wish to win cases in

court, they must join the Masons, because of most of their

client referrals will come from this source. Knight cites the

Unlawful Societies Act of 1799 requiring that secret societies

could hold meetings only if the names of then: members were

submitted to the local Clerks of the Peace. He notes that

although this law has been on the books for almost two centu-

ries, the Freemasons have never complied with it. However,

he failed to consult the text of the Act, which specifically

exempts the Freemasons, because the English Royal Family

was and continues to be the official patron of English Freema-

sonry. The lodges were brought to England in 1717 as the

result of a conspiracy of many years, which placed the Hanover

family on the throne of England. They have been consistently

active in and faithful to their Masonic origins ever since that

date.

 

Americans who become involved in the legal mazes of

our courts are often astounded by the strange decisions which

are handed down by the judges. In nearly every instance,

the strange outcome of the case can be explained by the omni-

present Masonic influence. Thus, citizens have no way of

knowing that they have been subjected to the arrant assump-

tions of an Oriental despotism, masquerading under color of

law. How can genuine justice be administered if the judge

has taken an oath under penalty of death that he must always

rule in favor of his brother Masons?

 

The Masonic Handbook command is as follows (p. 183-

184), "Whenever you see any of our signs made by a brother

Mason, and especially the grand hailing sign of distress, you

 

 

 

144 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

must always be sure to obey them, even at the risk of your

own life. If you are on a jury, and the defendant is a Mason,

and makes the grand hailing sign, you must obey it; you

must disagree with your brother jurors, if necessary, but you

must be sure not to bring the Mason in as guilty, for that

would bring disgrace upon our Order."

 

The Handbook continues, "You must conceal all crimes

of your brother Masons. . . . except murder and treason,

and these only at your own option, and should you be sum-

moned as a witness against a brother Mason, be always sure

to shield him. Prevaricate, don't tell the truth in this case,

keep his secrets, forget the important points. It may be perjury

to do this, it is true, but you are keeping your obligations."

 

It is also important to note that the use of the word "obliga-

tions" is a key ingredient of the Masonic code. Most persons,

in referring to a moral problem, would use the word "duty,"

as did the Founders of our Republic; however, a Mason is

certain to use the word "obligation" as a code warning to

other Masons who may be present that they are now under

an overriding order to carry out their obligation to the brother-

hood. This obligation means that he must commit perjury in

court, he must rule as a jury member in favor of a brother

Mason, despite any evidence presented against him, and, as

a judge, he must rule for the Mason. As a clerk of the court,

or any other court official, he is obligated to alter, steal or

destroy any official public records or documents which might

compromise a brother Mason. This writer has frequently sent

written complaints against Masonic judges and lawyers to

U.S. Attorneys. In every instance, the Department of Justice

has replied to documented charges of blackmail, theft and

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 145

 

extortion, "You should hire a private attorney," meaning

that you must find yourself a Masonic attorney and hope that

he will handle your case against his brother Masons.

 

The Masonic Handbook further commands that "If you

cheat, wrong or defraud any other society or individual, it is

entirely your business. If you cheat government even. Masonry

cannot and will not touch you; but be very careful not to

cheat, wrong or defraud a brother Mason or Lodge. Who

ever else you may defraud, live up to your (Masonic) obliga-

tions."

 

It is impossible for anyone to understand the depths of

such depravity unless one understands the very origins of

the Masonic brotherhood (see The Curse of Canaan, by Eustace

MuUins). Its morality is dictated by the basic authority, the

Will of Canaan: "Five things did Canaan charge his sons;

"love one another (of the tribe), love robbery, love lewdness,

hate your masters, and do not speak the truth."

 

Canaan had lived out his earthly existence under the Curse

of Canaan, a sentence of slavery which was fastened onto

all of his descendants. The command to love one another

referred only to these dkect descendants; it also gave the

implied command that they were to hate all other occupants

of the earth. They were further commanded to seek out their

living by committing robbery, by promoting sexual vice

through love of lewdness, and to hate their masters, because

they had been condemned to live on earth as slaves. Finally,

they were not to speak the truth, a command which launched

the tidal wave of perjury which has now inundated our courts.

 

The fact that Masonry stems from Biblical times is shown

by its secret password, "Tubal Cain," which memorializes

 

 

 

146 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

the line of Cain. Cain committed the first murder on earth,

when he slew his brother, Abel. Cain's descendant, Nimrod,

a demonic power, became the first ruler of the world. His

reign was marked by sex orgies and child sacrifice, outrages

which caused Shem, the son of Noah, to behead him, and

to cut his body into pieces, as a warning to other malefactors.

These pieces were sent to Nimrod' s priests as a warning to

desist from their vile practices and demonic orgies. Instead,

the priests treasured the remains as objects of worship. They

were concealed in groves, in rural areas, as the Shrines of

the first "Mysteries." Albert Pike, the theoretician of the

Masonic movement, notes in his definitive work, "Morals

and Dogma" that all Masonic rites originated in these Myster-

ies.

 

The priests became the Gnostics, the knowing ones, that

is, those who knew where the body, or the relics of Nimrod,

were hidden in the groves. Throughout history, these relics,

or later copies, have persisted as the symbols of the Canaanite

resolve to "hate your masters" and to destroy them in such

orgies as the French Revolution and the Communist Revolu-

tion. Their final objective is to seize by force all the riches

of the world and return them to the rebuilt Temple of King

Solomon. Although perjury and abuse of the legal system

remain crucial elements of the Masonic drive for control of

the world, murder and assassination continue to be the final

symbol of their operations.

 

Thus a citizen of the United States has no idea, when he

enters an American court, that he is now entering an arena

in which furtive conspiracy is the dominant factor, where

perjury and assassination are considered to be routine methods

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 147

 

of operation. If he could be informed of this reality, he would

be able to cite numerous precedents denying the judge's qualifi-

cations on the grounds of bias. Equal protection to all is the

basic principle on which rests justice under the law. Pierrer

V. State of Ln. 59 S.Ct 536, 306 U.S. 354, 83 L.Ed. 757.

' 'Prejudice of or bias on the part of the trial judge may constitute

a denial of equal protection of the laws." Osborne v. Purdome,

250 S.W. 2d 159.

 

In a trial situation, the judge faces two imperatives; first,

he must conceal the existence of his Masonic allegiance; sec-

ond, he must impose by imperial decree his commands upon

all who come before his court. There are many decisions

which reflect these imperatives, such as U.S. Judge Thomas

MacBride's decision in Case #9909, May 2, 1967, under

Lx)rd Coke's ruling of 1608 in Peter vs. The Crown, that

"no Officer of the Crown could be charged with a crime,

even if he were guilty.' Judge M. L. Schwartz dismissed

Case S 83-699 -MLS, April 11, 1984, under the Magna Carta

of 215, that we had no right to file charges against public

officials or members of the Bar because the Constitution of

the United States did not apply in the jurisdiction of the federal

courts. Judge R. A. Ramirez dismissed Case # 84-03 0503-

RRAR July 23, 1984, under Bell v. Hood, which was also

based on Lord Coke's ruling of 1608, citing the Magna Carta's

stand that persons of a lower caste cannot present charges

against members of the titled peerage class.

 

These rulings in our federal courts ignore the first statute

ever passed by the U.S. Congress in its first session, 1791.

This statute concerned the punishment of judges and other

public officials who failed to enforce the law. The statute

 

 

 

148 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

commanded that the people be guaranteed the citizens' rights.

The failure to do so was termed Insurrection.

 

Sydney Smith, in his "Fallacies of Anti-reformers," noted

that "if the law be good, it will support itself; if bad, it

should not be supported by irrevocable theory, which is never

resorted to but as the veil of abuses. All living men must

possess the supreme power over their own happiness at every

particular period. When a law is considered immutable, instead

of being repealed, it is clandestinely avoided, or openly vio-

lated; and thus the authority of the law is weakened."

 

Sir Francis Bacon noted in his "Judicature," "Judges ought

to remember that their office is jus decere, and not jus dare;

to interpret law, and not to make law, or to give law. Judicius

ofificium est, ut res, ita tempora rerum. A judge must have

regard to the time as well as to the matter."

 

Ralph Waldo Emerson, in "Worship," states that "We owe

to the Hindoo Scriptures a definition of Law which compares

well with any in the Western books; Law it is, which is

without name, or color, or hands, or feet; which is the smallest

of the least, or largest of the large; all, and knowing all things;

which hears without ears, sees without eyes, moves without

feet, and seizes without hands."

 

Of Emerson's definition, the one most readily applicable

in experiences with our court system is that it does indeed

seize without hands. Seizure is always its prime moving force.

 

Adam Smith notes in his "Wealth of Nations," "Justice,

however, was never in reality administered gratis in any coun-

try. ... In order to increase their payment, the attomies

and clerks have contrived to multiply words beyond all neces-

sity, and to corrupt the law with language."

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 149

 

Robert Ringer notes in his ' ' Looking Out For Number One , ' '

"The practical consequences of government are that it uses

the threat of violence either to force you to stop doing some-

thing you want to do or to force you to do something you

don't want to do, or to force you to give up something that

is rightfully yours."

 

Daniel Webster stated on March 10, 1831 in New York

City, "The judicial power comes home to every man. If the

legislature passes incorrect or unjust general laws, its members

bear the evil as well as others. But juridicature acts on individu-

als. It touches every private right, every private interest, and

almost every private feeling. What we possess is hardly fit

to be called our own, unless we feel secure in its possession,

and this security, this perfect system, cannot exist under a

wicked or even a weak and ignorant administration of the

laws.' There is no happiness, there is no liberty, there is no

enjoyment of life, unless a man can say when he arises in

the morning, 'I shall be subject to the decision of no unjust

judge today.' "

 

In retrospect, when Daniel Webster made this statement,

the powers of the judiciary were almost nonexistent, compared

to the powers which they exercise today. What would he

say if he were now alive, and confronted with the dictatorial

powers which the judicial system has assumed over every

aspect of American life? We have seen the seizure of the

schools, the decision as to how our earnings shall be spent,

what sort of neighborhoods we are to live in, and a judicial

system on which the government agencies depend to enforce

their decrees.

 

A defense filed by Alan Stuart in Arkansas on July 3,

 

 

 

150 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

1978 noted that a Hearsay Substitute had filed the complaint

against him, in violation of the United States Constitution,

and that a Hearsay Substitute was his accuser, whereas he

had the right to face his accuser. Stuart pointed out that the

District Attorney served both as an "Officer of the Court"

under the judiciary, and as a law enforcement official under

the executive department, which placed him in flagrant viola-

tion of the doctrine of separation of 4)owers, and the system

of checks and balances set up by the Constitution. Stuart

also pointed out that the title, "Officer of the Court" is an

unconstitutional title of nobility, that all lawyers are automati-

cally a part of the Judicial Branch of the Government, whether

elected, hired, or appointed. Article 1, Sec. 9 and 10 forbid

Titles of Nobility. With the Hearsay Substitute being a lawyer,

and the judge also a lawyer, a Conflict of Interest exists by

having lawyers, or Officers of the Court, representing both

sides. Stuart deposed that all lawyer judges have to disqualify

themselves because of conflict of interest, which prevents

them from presiding over a fair trial. This would seem to

provide a useful alternative to the present abuses committed

by judges who claim to be operating under "due process of

law."

 

Dr. Felix Cohen wrote in the Columbia Law Review, June,

1935, "due process of law' means nothing in the light of

recent judicial decisions that it is a metaphysical coverup phrase

(another ubiquitous justification of judicial tyranny is the much

abused phrase 'having your day in court,' which means that

merely by allowing you to set foot in his hallowed precincts,

the judge is giving you access to more justice than you are

due, and upon extending this gracious privilege, the judge is

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 151

 

then free to render whatever horrendous decision he pleases.

ED NOTE.)

 

Dr. Cohen continues, "Legal concepts (for example, corpo-

rations or property rights) are supernatural entities which do

not have a verifiable existence except to the eyes of faith.

Rules of Law, which refer to these legal concepts, are not

descriptions of empirival social facts but are rather theorems

in an individual system. Jurisprudence. . . . is a special branch

of the science of transcendental nonsense." Thus Dr. Cohen,

who has labored for many years in the field of jurisprudence,

comes to the inescapable conclusion that his lengthy experience

has really been in the realm of fantasyland. Few Americans

realize that while they are sitting in court listening to their

paid counsel "defend" them and their interests, the judges

are hard put to keep from grinning at the nonsense they are

paid to Usten to. As Alan Stuart points out in his complaint,

everyone and everything that is taking place in the court is

Hearsay and Substitute, which is actually governed by abstruse

concepts from the Kabbalah or from other mystical formulae

which the citizen is never aware of. The present writer has

heard much ' 'transcendental nonsense' ' in our courts, precisely

what Dr. Cohen describes, and was finally able to define its

origin in "The Curse of Canaan" as the modem day presenta-

tion of the ancient Cult of Baal, as refined in the Kabbalah

and the present statutes. It is not accidental that this "transcen-

dental nonsense" is overseen by a judge who wears black

robes. This itself in legal terminology is referred to the "cult

of the Robe." Since man's beginnings, the garb of justice

has traditionally been white. We have never asked ourselves

when or how the robes of justice suddenly became black.

 

 

 

152 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

but at that moment, the rape of justice began. Instead of the

color of unsullied purity, we now have the black robe as the

sign of Babylonian justice, of the Canaanite precepts originated

by Nimrod, presented against the backdrop of the sexual orgies

and the madness of child sacrifice which were the hallmarks

of the "religious" rites of Baal and Ashtoreth. However,

we must admit that there is no attempt to deceive anyone.

The judge appears before us in his robe of Babylonian black,

as the high priest of the rites of Nimrod. It is we who offer

no objection, or ask the judge whatever became of his white

robe. The dome of the courthouse itself is another symbol

of Babylonian law, and is purposefully designed to confirm

that we are now entering the jurisdiction of Babylonian justice,

which is inflicted upon us by a Byzantine maze of secret

intrigue and worldwide conspiracies.

 

The character of those who put on the black robe is amply

documented by public records. Time magazine reported July

18, 1977 on the exploits of Associate Justice Yarbrough of

the Texas Supreme Court. "Yarbrough was taped making a

statement about a man who had testified against him, "I want

Kemp wiped away ... the best thing would be to do it

myself if I had a gun and silencer. ' ' ' Yarbrough was referring

to a 1974 fraud scheme, in which Kemp had testified against

Yarbrough and his associate, John Rothkopf, after they had

received a $30,000 payment for a collection of rare coins,

which they never delivered. Yarbrough then used his judicial

position to obtain forged papers and a new identity for Roth-

kopf, who hid out as a fugitive in Louisiana and Texas for

several years. Yarbrough was subsequently indicted by an

Austin Texas grand jury for soliciting murder, forgery, obstruc-

tion of justice, and perjury.

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 153

 

The Texas Supreme Court has been much in the news for

the procedure by which its members are chosen. They cam-

paign like any other politician for election to office, and must

spend millions of dollars on their campaigns. Traditionally,

most of their campaign funds are provided as donations from

the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, with individual lawyers

contributing as much as $25,000 to the campaign of a single

candidate. Chief Justice Thomas Phillips, although running

unopposed, managed to raise a $1.1 million campaign fund

from some 4500 donors. The record-breaking $10.5 billion

judgment which Pennzoil won against Texaco was followed

by public consternation, when it was revealed that the lawyers

who represented Pennzoil had contributed more than $355,000

to the nine Texas Supreme Court justices from 1984 to 1987,

preceding the announcement by the court that it would refuse

a hearing to review the $10.5 billion judgment against Texaco.

Three of the justices then resigned from the court, although

a present candidate for the court has also raised $1.1 million

in campaign funds, nearly all of it donated by lawyers who

will subsequently argue cases before this same judge, if he

wins the election. If not, they will argue before another judge

to whom they have also contributed substantial amounts in

campaign funds.

 

Since the end of World War 11 , there has been increasing

public criticism of judges, for abuse of power, corruption,

and their arbitrary decisions, but little has occurred which

improves the situation. The dirty secret of the judiciary is

that their appointments always come from politicians, and

that the moral or intellectual backgrounds of neither the judges

nor the politicians is ever taken into consideration. Thus Presi-

dent Harry Truman was described by poet Ezra Pound in

 

 

 

154 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

"The Cantos," "Truman was loyal to his kind, the under-

world." This was a direct quote from longtime Washington

journalist Rex Lampman, whom I had taken to visit Pound.

However, Pound was merely restating what most Americans

already knew. Truman remained loyal throughout his career

to Boss Pendergast, who was sent to prison for a multi-million

dollar insurance scam. The New Republic noted March 10,

1952 that Truman's appointment of some one hundred and

twenty-five federal judges "has weakened the federal judiciary

and lowered its prestige. The political handshake gained its

greatest triumph when Tom Clark was appointed to the Su-

preme Court of the United States." Clark was described in

the New Republic as an oil lobbyist from the Texas State

Legislature, and a protege of Senator Tom Connally. In retro-

spect, the cronies whom Truman appointed to the federal

bench probably were no worse than the dreary procession of

legal hacks and lobbyists, wardheelers and bondsmen, who

have been named to the bench by subsequent Presidents. Presi-

dent Carter probably sunk the prestige of the bench to a new

low with his naming of some three hundred political activists

from the ranks of feminists and minority class agitators, a

club of lunatics which turned the federal courthouses into

asylums.

 

In Harpers, Sept. 1934, Mitchell Dawson wrote, "Judging

the Judges," "His Honor and his confreres on the bench have

authority to rule upon the rights, duties, privileges, and immu-

nities of everybody and everything within their respective

bailiwicks. The aggregate power and responsibilities thus resid-

ing in the judiciary are appalling." Dawson went on to com-

ment upon the moral attributes of such power. He noted that

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 155

 

three judges were noted among the pallbearers of Big Jim

Colosimo, "the first of the big shots in the liquor trade and

bootlegging." Big Jim was the protege of Edward G. Robin-

son's characterization of the gangster, Rico, in his famous

picture, "Little Caesar." Two judges and an ex-judge joined

the cortege of city and state officials who followed the solid

silver casket containing the body of Angelo Genna, the noted

convict and killer. The Chicago Crime Conrniission said, 'A

certain municipal judge was familiarly known to the criminal

trade as 'cash register.' One magistrate was removed from

office for accepting a 'loan' of $19,600 from Arnold Rothstein,

the noted gambler. Evidence showed that the fixing of cases

in the magistrates courts was an established business."

 

So much for the judicial situation in 1934. The American

Law JoiuTial noted in its issue of February, 1988 that a Wiscon-

sin trial court judge and the senior partner of the state's largest

law firm, the 278 lawyer firm of Foley and Larder, now faced

sanctions for holding ex parte discussions in the fall of 1986.

As we have pointed out, ex parte discussions, in which oppos-

ing lawyers and/or judges, hold secret conferences to discuss

cases without the parties being present, constitute one of the

gravest problems of a legal system which pits the lawyers

against the rest of the citizens. In Texas, a judge was severely

criticized because he had given a relatively light sentence to

a criminal who shot two men. The judge responded with

surprise, ' 'But they were only queers. ' ' This brought a national

protest from the powerful homosexual lobby. In Seattle, Judge

Gary Little, judge of the King County Superior Court, shot

himself after learning that a Seattle newspaper planned to

run an expose of his twenty year sexual abuse of male defen-

 

 

 

156 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

dants who came before his court. The local media had deliber-

ately suppressed the story for decades. A reporter finally admit-

ted that he had opened the door of Little's office in the state

attorney general's offices, in 1968, and found Liftle kissing

a blond, blue-eyed male student. Taped accounts had been

available for years from juveniles who complained that Little

had molested them while their cases were being deliberated

in his court. Some of them were invited to stay overnight in

his Seattle home, or at his weekend cottage on an island.

 

In New York, a sensational trial of former Miss America

Bess Myerson dragged on for weeks, before her acquittal.

Myerson, who called herself "the Queen of the Jews" had

faced sentences of up to thirty years on charges of obstruction

of justice, mail fraud, bribery-related charges, and conspiracy.

She and her lover, a contractor, had involved Judge Hortense

Gabel in her lover's divorce proceedings. The chief witness

against the judge was her own daughter, whom the press

described as "eccentric" and suffering from depression.

 

The politically influential State Supreme Court of New York

Justice Louis Fusco Jr., who was under investigation by U.S.

Attorney Rudolph W. GuiUani on accusations that he had

improperly directed business to an insurance company operated

by a friend, announced that he would not seek renomination.

The president of the insurance company in question was known

as a longtime friend of the judge, whose nephew was named

vice president of the company. Another prominent Bronx

judge, former Surrogate Bertram Gelfand, was ousted last

year for misconduct.

 

On Aug. 24, 1986, the Las Vegas Sun warned of "the

ominous implication that federal judges — or any other citi-

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 157

 

zen — will remain a subject to malicious prosecution for merely

speaking out against injustice." The matter under discussion

was the malignant persecution of Federal Judge Harry Clai-

borne, which finally wound up before Congress. Congress

then voted for his impeachment. What was behind this case?

The Nevada High Court had already rendered a decision,

State Bar of Nevada v. Claiborne, 756 P2d 464 (1988) that

Claiborne had been guilty of nothing more than "mere negli-

gence." Judge Claiborne, the bearer of a proud Southern

name, had served with distinction in the U.S. Air Force during

World War II. He later became one of the most respected

defense lawyers in the West, devoting more than thirty per

cent of his time to pro bono (without payment) cases for the

public good, probably a higher percentage then than any other

lawyer in the United States. After being named to the judge-

ship, Claiborne continued to come down hard on the side of

the public. He excoriated both FBI agents and IRS agents

who brought cases before his court with fantastic, poorly pre-

pared charges, which were usually based solely on information

provided by their paid informants. In the paid informant busi-

ness if you don't come up with something damaging against

the subject, you don't get paid. This provides a constant stimu-

lant to the imagination.

 

Department of Justice agents launched a concerted campaign

to block Claiborne's nomination to the federal bench in Septem-

ber, 1978. Failing in their objective, they then began a cam-

paign to destroy him. An editorial in the Reno Gazette Journal

was quoted with approval by Justice Steffen, "The Justice

Department and the FBI were so incensed at Judge Claiborne

that the need for revenge blinded them to everything but one

 

 

 

158 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

burning desire. The federal government could not rest after

Claiborne denounced its strike force lawyers as 'rotten bas-

tards' and 'crooks and liars.' It could not bear Claiborne's

insinuations without retaliating."

 

The retaliation of the federal agents was balked when they

could find no bases for bringing any charges against him.

They were forced to dredge up one of the nation's sleaziest

characters, Joe Conforte, the world's most famous brothel

keeper. For thirty years, Conforte had operated the famous

Mustang Ranch, which never had any mustangs. In May 1976,

a wellknown Argentine boxer was shot and killed outside of

Conforte's Mustang Ranch. Three Reno Gazette Journal edito-

rial writers won Pulitzer prizes for their stories exposing Con-

forte's operations. In 1977, both he and his wife were indicted

for income tax evasion. He then fled the country to escape

tax jeopardy assessments of more than twenty-six million dol-

lars, as well as two lawsuits filed after the Argentina boxer's

death. IRS agents realized that Joe Conforte would be the

ideal vehicle to get Judge Claiborne. They offered him a deal

to testify about alleged ' 'bribes' ' to Judge Claiborne. In return,

he would be allowed to return to the United States, all but

three and a half million of the twenty-six million dollar assess-

ment would be forgiven, he would be guaranteed that he

serve no more than one year in a country club type of prison,

and all other charges against him would be dismissed. It was

an offer he could not refuse. The fact that IRS agents would

be willing to forgive over twenty-two million dollars in overdue

taxes proves that they are not serious about collecting taxes;

it is much more important that they maintain the legal dictator-

ship over American citizens, invoking Lenin's 1917 rule.

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 159

 

"confiscation of all assets as punishment for concealing in-

come." In effect, federal agents were paying Conforte more

than twenty million dollars in a conspiracy to commit perjury

and to obstruct justice — standard procedure in our "legal sys-

tem." In fact, Conforte's testimony against Judge Claiborne

was subsequently documented as being perjured. Nevertheless,

Judge Claiborne was indicted, convicted, and impeached by

Congress. He served a short prison term, and is once again

practicing law in the State of Nevada, despite threats from

federal agents that they will "get" him again. The point had

been made. The federal government had sent a message from

the District of Columbia to judges in every state — cooperate

with Washington, or else.

 

Establishment judges have been treated much more kindly

in prosecution, notably Judge James M. Landis. A former

law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, the leader

of the Zionist movement, Landis later was named dean of

the Harvard Law School, the private preserve of Viennese

revolutionary Felix Frankfurter. Landis became one of the

original Brain Trust in FDR's New Deal. He was named

chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission, and became

the eminence grise of President John F. Kennedy. Like many

prominent Washington officials, he did not bother to pay in-

come taxes. As a member of our "Nomenklatura," he saw

no need to conform to the standards enforced against the

peasants and the hoi poUoi. It was revealed that he had paid

no income taxes for the years from 1956 through 1960. The

press hastened to defend him as "a longtime crusader for

ethics in government." While being charged with five years'

delinquency in paying taxes, he was also named corespondent

 

 

 

160 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

in a Washington divorce suit. Landis pleaded guilty to the

tax charges, and paid back taxes on income of $410,000.

 

In the Chicago court system, which was still in the hands

of the remnants of the Capone mob, a sting operation netted

ten judges in a ring of some sixty officials, who were convicted

of comiption. A Cook County judge. Earl Strayhom, was

accused in 1974 of not filing federal income tax forms for

1966 through 1968, failing to declare $49,000 in income,

and failing to pay $26,000 in taxes and penalties. He resolved

the charges with a bargain payment of $11,000.

 

In Austin, Texas, an AP release dated Nov. 6, 1988 noted

that a Texas judge had been reprimanded by the State Commis-

sion on Judicial Conduct for ' 'allowing her child to run around

her courtroom during proceedings." She also called litigants

and others "pure trash," and threatened to shoot a lawyer.

She finally left the bench, crying and shouting threats at attor-

neys. She told one lawyer that she had a gun, and that she

could shoot two holes in his back before he could leave the

courtroom. The Commission sternly noted that, "The com-

ments of Judge Anthony are not consistent with the tempera-

ment required of a member of the judiciary."

 

During this same period, Mariposa County, Ca. District

Attorney J. Bruce Eckerson was reported to have resigned

under pressure of continued lawsuits and criminal allegations

of corruption and misconduct; the chancery clerk in Rankin

Cy., Ms. faced nine counts of embezzlement, and Middlebury

Vt. county prosecutor Robert Andres was charged $400 for

"kicking man in face." Meanwhile, Dr. Elizabeth Morgan

piled up twenty-one months in jail after being jailed by District

Court Superior Judge Herbert Dixon on contempt of court

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 161

 

charges. Dixon is black; Dr. Morgan is white. Dixon had

ordered her to turn over her six year old daughter Hilary to

her ex-husband, whom Dr. Morgan claimed had been sexually

abusing the child since she was two. Testimony from doctors

and psychiatrists that the child had been abused had been

ruled "inadmissible." Dr. Morgan has spent her time writing

children's books, and becoming engaged to a Circuit Court

Judge.

 

One avenue open to Dr. Morgan would be habeas corpus.

Kent's Commentaries points out, I, 619, "Every restraint

upon aman's liberty is, in the eyes of the law, an imprisonment,

whatever may be the place or whatever may be the manner

in which the restraint is effected." Kent hardly expected that

a woman could be locked up for almost two years without

conviction.

 

Corpus Juris Secundum 39A HC 159 states that a petitioner

for habeas corpus has the right to represent himself in prosecut-

ing the proceedings; the presence of the petitioner in court

is not necessary to argue issues of law, but the presence of

the petitioner is necessary where questions of fact are to be

litigated. In the federal courts, habeas corpus provides a remedy

for jurisdictional errors without limit of time. Dr. Morgan

could cite CJS 39A, sec. 163, "A person whose detention

is illegal, or a third person on his behalf, generally may present

an application of habeas corpus; since it is intended for all

who may be deprived of their liberty without sufficient cause

and such person having standing to question their detention

or deprivation of other rights." The writ must be brought

against the proper person, generally whoever has actual custody

of the prisoner. The title is Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus .

 

 

 

162 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

The writ should state some reason for granting the writ, usually

that "Adequate relief is unavailable from other courts or in

other forms; government intrusion upon petitioner's First

Amendment rights to political expression, invalidating the

prosecution and resultant confinement; that petitioners Fifth

Amendment right to due process is denied by his confinement.

WHEREFORE your petitioner prays that the Court issue an

order that the respondents show cause why this Petition should

not be granted and the petitioner discharged; that the Court

set out in the order a return of three days. That the Court

set the matter down for hearing within five days after the

return; that the Court hear and determine this matter, and

upon final hearing issue Writ of Habeas Corpus and an order

directing the respondents to discharge the petitioner from their

custody."

 

Because the law has established that any "restraint" is

grounds for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, not merely

physical restraint or imprisonment of the petitioner, but any

governmental oppression or "restraint" is similarly grounds

for a writ of habeas corpus, the respondent named being the

government agents who are responsible for such restraint.

Thus a writ of habeas corpus may be filed against any federal

agent, whether IRS, FBI, BATF, CIA or UN, who is imposing

stress upon any citizen of this nation, whether it be extortion,

intimidation, or threats against one's occupation of family

members. Section 17 IB, CJS 39 A states that the writ must

be made before the proper inferior court or judge; sec. 172B

states the writ must be issued, or the court must show cause

why it is not being issued. Sec. 179 states "The writ of

habeas corpus is paramount authority over all other writs.

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 163

 

Idaho; in re Dodd, 241 P 2d. Under a federal statute, state

court proceedings pending proceedings in a federal court for

a writ of habeas corpus will be null and void. ' ' Thus , a prisoner

who applies for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, in

theory, can halt state court proceedings against him.

 

CJS 39A notes that habeas corpus is a prerogative common

law writ of ancient origins directed to a person detaining

another, commanding him to produce the body of the desig-

nated prisoner at a designated time and place, to do, submit

to, and receive whatever the court shall consider in that behalf;

it is called 'the great writ' and is a 'civil remedy.' The term

derives from the Latin, "You have the body."

 

CJS 41 notes that "A person imprisoned for committing

an act that does not constitute any offense may be released

on habeas corpus. Hill v. Sanford, CCA. Ga. 131 F 2d

417. This also applies to a person detained under an unconstitu-

tional or invalid statute or ordinance; this is grounds for a

writ of habeas corpus."

 

Thus we find that any unconstitutional oppression or pressure

against any American citizen is grounds for a writ of habeas

corpus, that is, an order to relieve such pressure and to cease

and desist. Habeas corpus is enshrined in the Constitution,

Article 9, and cannot be suspended for any reason.

 

CJS 39 A sec 37 states "Habeas corpus may be allowed

where there has been a deprivation of fundamental or constitu-

tional rights. It has been held that questions decided by court

having jurisdiction thereof may not be considered in habeas

corpus proceedings in another court, whether or not constitu-

tional principles are involved. Craig v. U.S., C.A., CCA.

Cal. 89 F 2d 980."

 

 

 

164 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

CJS 39A sec 39, "The writ of habeas corpus is designed

to give a person whose liberty is restrained an immediate

hearing to determine the legality of the detention. Walker v.

Wainwright, Fla. 88, S.Ct 962, 390 US 335, L.Ed. 2d 1215.

Habeas corpus provides a prompt and speedy remedy or adjudi-

cation of a person's right to liberation from illegal restraint,

or to be free of whatever society determines to be intolerable

restraint." Bland v. Rodgers, D.C. 332 F.Supp. 989.

 

Thus the widespread impression that the writ of habeas

corpus applies only to persons detained in prison is merely

one application of the writ. It can and should be used to

apply to every instance of illegal and unconstitutional oppres-

sion by any government agent against any American citizen,

' 'whatever society determines to be intolerable restraint. ' ' Note

that it does not say "whatever the court determines." The

people have the final jurisdiction and determination in the

matter of "intolerable restraint," and they must exercise their

jurisdiction in determining that restraint. It applies not only

to the forcible and illegal detention of a person's body, but

it also offers an immediate legal remedy for any undue restraint

upon any citizen of the United States in his pursuit of life,

liberty and property. For the first time, our citizens now have

a weapon which enables them to take action against any act

of oppression by government agents, or power-crazed federal

officials, many of whom are secretly in the pay of foreign

powers. FREEDOM NOW! This is the message which the

writ of habeas corpus brings to us. If any federal, state or

local agent is acting to oppress you, now is the time to file

a notice with the proper court, naming that person, the nature

of the restraint, and requesting a writ of habeas corpus which

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 165

 

will free you from that restraint. If the judge responds to

your plea by dismissing it on the grounds that you are not

actually being held in detention, you must refile the writ,

stating the exact nature of the writ, and noting that the statutes

do not require that you are being held in actual physical deten-

tion. The writ may be issued upon receipt of any governmental

order which restrains you from any legal act or which attempts

to deprive you of your personal property. The income tax

functions as the primary restraint upon all citizens of this

nation, because it sets up a primary lien upon all of our income

and personal property, at the behest of the Federal Reserve

System, which is the secondary lien upon all income and

personal property in the United States. Thus the writ may

be filed against the IRS or against the Federal Reserve System,

or both; its ramifications may be extended to each and every

restraint imposed upon us by King George and the Bank of

 

England. The writ should state that , acting

 

in his capacity of agent for , has willfully and

 

intentionally sought to deprive you of your Constitutional liber-

ties, and has thereby restrained you from exercising your privi-

leges of citizenship in the United States (of the states)." The

judge must then allow you to argue in his court the nature

of your restraint; he must then decide if it is a restraint, which,

in the light of the facts presented, would be difficult to deny.

If so, he has no recourse but to grant you the writ of habeas

corpus.

 

The Genocide Convention adopted by our Congress also

offers opportunities for our citizens to seek relief under its

provisions. For instance, the present writer was prevented

from marrying or raising a family by the malicious acts of

 

 

 

166 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

federal agents, who continuously had me discharged from

gainful employment, thus effectively ending my line, and fur-

ther sought to have me detained in an insane asylum, which

they were unable to effect. This clearly constitutes an act of

genocide under the terms of the Convention, because the ac-

tions taken against me by these federal agents were solely

inspired by my presence by act of birth as one of a group of

American citizens singled out for punitive action and eventual

extermination by said federal agents, as part of the federal

goal to conunit genocide against my racial grouping. The

Genocide Convention was actually drafted after World War

II to protect Zionists and Zionists only; it has never been

invoked for any other group. The Zionists sought to use it

to punish, outlaw and exterminate all of their present and

potential enemies, which encompassed all other groups in

the world. However, the language of the Convention could

not be written expressly to limit to the Zionist conspirators,

thereby opening the door for anyone to invoke it in protection

of other groups.

 

In Dec. 1948, the United Nations advised the convention

on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,

the resultant legislation then being sent by President Truman

to the Senate for ratification in the Senate, Senator Percy of

Illinois led the fight to ratify the Genocide Convention. Hear-

ings were held in 1950, 1970, 1971, 1977 and 1981. It was

officially ratified by the American Bar Association in 1976.

The British Parliament ratified it as the Genocide Act of 1%9.

Canada then followed suit.

 

Act II of the Act states that "In the present convention,

genocide means any of the following acts committed with

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 167

 

intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national ethnic, racial

or religious group, as such: a. killing members of the group;

b. causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the

group; c. deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of

life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole

or in part; d. imposing measures intended to prevent births

within the group. 3. forcibly transferring children of the group

to another group."

 

The last provision was designed solely to bring about the

recovery of any Jewish children adopted by gentile families

during World War II to save them, sec. 3 being intended to

force these families to return the children to the Jewish group.

However the other four provisions of the Act do apply to

the present writer's experience, as documented in "A Writ

for Martyrs," which reproduces 120 pages of my FBI file,

and which establishes by official government documents that

said acts of genocide were committed against my person.

The Genocide Convention states unequivocably that intent

to destroy any part of the group, that is, any single member

of the group, is the same as the intent to destroy the entire

group. Thus, sec. d is proven by government documents in

my case, as are sec. a, b, and c.

 

The term "genocide" was coined by a Zionist propagandist

named Rafael Lemkin, who intended, in his book, "Axis

Rule in Occupied Europe," that genocide should be used

solely as a term referring to the conditions of Jews under

Nazi occupation during the Second World War. Thus it could

have no application to any other racial group, and theoretically

would no longer be valid at the conclusion of this war. It

was a temporal designation for a specific historical situation.

 

 

 

168 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

and was never intended to be applied for anyone else's benefit.

Zionist collaborators encysted all over the world then conceived

the idea of a worldwide prohibition against ' ' genocide, ' ' which

was intended to stifle any criticism of their subversive activi-

ties, and to enact dictatorial measures to eliminate any future

criticism. Because no nation could possibly enact a measure

which stated it was solely to protect Zionists, the wording

had to be broadened to apply to all people. It now covers

any group whose future existence is threatened by genocidal

government measures, the most threatened target today being

the middle class citizens of the United States, who have as

yet undertaken no measures in their self-defense.

 

As it was ratified by the United States, the Genocide Conven-

tion states, "Whoever, being a national of the United States

or otherwise under the jurisdiction of the United States, will-

fully without justifiable cause, commits within or without the

territory of the United States in time of peace or in time of

war, any of the following acts with the intent to destroy by

means of the commission of that act, or with the intent to

carry out a plot to destroy, the whole or a substantial part of

a national ethnic, or racial or religious group, shall be guilty

of genocide."

 

Note that the Act establishes jurisdiction throughout the

world, "within or without the territory of the United States,"

thus extending the authority of the District of Columbia to

the entire world. The American Journal of International Law

notes that substantial questions are raised about implementing

legislation. However, a complaint charging genocide can be

charged in any federal court, and those questions of implemen-

tation can then be addressed.

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 169

 

In recent years, there have been increasing charges that

the personal involvement of judges in the cases which they

are hearing, the classic dilemma of "conflict of interest,"

are being ignored. The Wall Street Journal noted, Aug. 3,

1988, that "A federal judge refused to disqualify himself in

an important patent case against Hewlett-Packard even though

his son is employed by the computer giant. ' ' The suit, involving

patent rights, had been brought by Apple Computer against

Hewlett-Packard.

 

A case involving much greater stakes surfaced when the

investment firm of Drexel, Bumham and Lambert requested

that Judge Milton Pollack remove himself from the trial of

securities fraud which originated with the SEC (Wall St Journal

Oct 18, 1988). Drexel alleged that Judge Pollack would be

unable to rule impartially because his wife. Moselle Pollack,

stood to gain about $30 million from a leveraged buyout of

her family firm, Palais Royal, which Drexel was financing.

They claimed that Judge Pollack might be biased as a result

of his family interests. Mrs. Pollack was selling her inherited

interest to Bain & Co., with Drexel placing the securities.

 

A feature article in the American Lawyer, the trade publica-

tion, disclosed that Drexel dreaded an appearance before Judge

Pollack because of his reputation as overwhelmingly "pro-

government," as are practically all judges in the United States,

with the exception of the ill-fated Judge Claiborne. American

Lawyer quoted descriptions of Judge Pollack as "prosecutors'

favorite judge," who conducts a ' 'kangaroo court. ' ' The article

went on to say "he chooses sides early. . . . Pollack almost

always chooses the government's side; once he does, even-

handedness all but vanishes . ' ' There were accounts of Pollack' s

 

 

 

170 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

calling in the U.S. attorneys and discussing pending cases

with them ex parte (which is strictly forbidden by law) and

' 'even advising them on how to handle the case. ' ' Does anyone

consider this "impartiality"? The devastating American Law-

yer critique continued, "Pollack is known as a judge who

holds grudges. His wife Moselle will gain thirty million dollars

if Bain Venture Capital of Boston buys Palais Royal from

Mrs. Pollack, who, under the law of judicial conflicts, is

considered to be the same person as her husband."

 

After Drexel filed a writ of mandamus requesting that Pollack

disqualify himself, the Securities Exchange Conmiission

launched a vicious smear attack against Drexel's lawyers, in

which they strongly defended Judge Pollack. In so many words,

this government agency stated, "We want this judge because

he is our judge." Likewise Drexel wanted Pollack off the

case because of his reputation as the government's judge.

American Lawyer concluded, "The system will have been

disgraced by the charade played out in this case. ... in

which government lawyers have smeared other lawyers, mis-

stated the facts, taken legal positions (on judicial conflicts)

. . . fallen all over themselves to hang onto a judge who

promises to provide anything but the justice these lawyers

are being paid for."

 

Realizing that their ship had been sunk at the dock, Drexel

gave up any hope of an impartial trial under Pollack, and

caved in, agreeing to pay some $650 million in fines and

penalties, which probably had been the goal of the SEC all

along, to force Drexel into payment without trial, knowing

that they could not win before Judge Pollack.

 

The Wall Street Journal ran another front page story about

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 171

 

another famous federal judge, Feb. 16, 1989, "hot-tempered

79 year old David Edelstein" who presided over the federal

government's landmark case against IBM in the 1970s. IBM's

lawyers were the aforementioned firm of Cravath, Swaine

and Moore. The Journal took note of the "enmities among

the judge, IBM, and Mr. Barr's pugnacious New York law

firm, Cravath, Swaine and Moore. The enmities are deep.

In the thirteen year anti-trust case, one of the most bureaucratic

legal quagmires ever. Judge Edelstein became famous for

raging against Cravath lawyers. Cravath twice sought to re-

move the judge from the antitrust case, a drastic step that

rarely succeeds in any court." In fact, a request that a judge

remove himself from a case for prejudice is a kamikaze move,

because prejudiced judges are the norm in our courts, and is

a suicidal move for both the lawyer and his client. Not only

does the judge refuse to remove himself, as occurred in this

case, but he now has even more reason for his deeply rooted

prejudice. Cravath declared in its brief, "Judge Edelstein's

mind is bent against IBM. No court has ever had before it

such a long and consistent record of bias as that of Judge

Edelstein's conduct." Cravath then backed its brief with two

cartons of documents detailing its grievances, contending that

Edelstein, among other things, "routinely abused " IBM wit-

nesses, helped the government conduct its cross examinations,

and secretly altered the trial transcript in the earlier antitrust

case. ' ' Is this bias? Are government judges routinely prejudiced

in favor of the government and against anyone who dares to

question the tyrannical acts of government agencies and their

agents? Is the sky blue? And more importantly, does justice

exist in the United States? Famed lawyer Gerry Spence replies

 

 

 

172 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

in his latest book, Absolutely not! Early in this work, the

present writer noted that lawyers and judges routinely conspire

to obstruct justice by altering transcripts, deleting documents,

and suborning perjury, as IBM has found, to its dismay.

 

The Journal notes that ' 'Judge Edelstein, a wry New Yorker,

has long been considered an irascible and impatient force in

the courtroom. Appointed by Harry Truman, he is entering

his thirty-eighth year on the federal bench." The Journal also

notes that "Judges normally can only be removed for their

conduct outside the courtroom."

 

Thus Judge Edelstein is one of those judges whom the

New Republic pointed out March 10, 1952 had by Truman's

appointment "weakened the federal judiciary and lowered

its prestige." Yet there he is, some 38 years later, one of

the Zionist judges whom Truman appointed as part of his

re-election compact in 1948 to recognize and support the State

of Israel. The Masonic B'Nai B'Rith nominated these judges,

and Truman routinely appointed them as a burden which the

entire nation must bear. Edelstein is merely one of the many

choleric, acerbic and biased judges serving in New York and

many other states because of their political and fraternal associ-

ations. The Zionist connection governs their choice because

of the overriding Masonic connection. It has long been a

truism on New York that the Anti-Defamation League of B 'Nai

B'Rith, the terrorist arm of this organization, nominates and

passes on ALL CANDIDATES for judgeships in New York

and all other metropolitan areas of the United States. So feared

is the ADL that no American politician dares do anything

which might be interpreted as offensive by its omnipresent

and ever vigilant agents, who have fastened like leeches onto

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 173

 

every aspect of American life. The fury exhibited by most

judges in the United States when any citizen appears before

them charged with being a "tax protester" or who is affiliated

with any group suspected of patriotism, is aroused because

the presence of any such American in his court is a direct

affront to the Zionist and Masonic affiliations of the judge.

In most cases, the American is unaware that he has offended

the judge, or of the violent prejudice which will be shown

against him. He is even more unaware that if he is a non-

Mason, he is to be given as short shrift before the court as

possible. No force in America dares to challenge the ADL

domination of our process of judicial selection, which is then

given even more routine approval by the selection committee

of the ABA, after their assurance that the candidate meets

with the approval of the ADL. The glittering career of the

late Roy Cohn, whose meteoric rise was cut short by AIDS,

contacted from one of his many $500 a night call-boys, was

based solely on the fact that his father was a prime mover

in the New York ADL, and was himself appointed a judge.

With this family sponsorship, Roy Cohn could do no wrong,

despite his many years of tax evasion, drug use and sexual

promiscuity, none of which ever tainted the unabashed admira-

tion which his friend, CIA propagandist William Buckley,

exhibited for him in the pages of his organ, the National

Review.

 

Because the secret bias and behind the scenes loyalties

created by the furtive conspiratorial affiliations of the ADL

and Freemasons has now poisoned the entire judicial system

of America, we have become inured to the most despotic

acts of our judges. Much of the pernicious influence exercised

 

 

 

174 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

by the judiciary can be traced to the career of Oliver Wendell

Holmes, a scion of the New England banking and Abolitionist

One World conspirators. Holmes was responsible for the new

direction in American jurisprudence, the growth of an icono-

clastic liberal movement which challenged the traditional con-

cept of judicial impartiality. Holmes' revolutionary doctrine

was expressed when he wrote, "It appears to me that it has

not always been sufficiently borne in mind that the same- thing

may be a consideration or not, as it is dealt with by both

parties." Note that this is a direct contradiction of the tradi-

tional concept that "law" is a fixed concept. Holmes is saying

that there is no genuine basis for deciding whether anything

in a legal matter is a consideration or not; this opens the

door for all sorts of deviations, as well as making the way

clear for the concepts of admiralty law, the law merchant,

in which individual rights are no longer of concern. The damag-

ing effect of Holmes' dictum may be seen in the erosion of

the traditional sanctity of the law of contracts. Presser and

Zwineldon's definitive work, "Law and American History"

states that "the classical theory of contract has ended." Other

authorities write of "the death of contract." But how is this

possible, if the law merchant has been enshrined in our courts?

Surely the law of contract is basic to the law merchant. Not

at all; the law merchant ignores individual rights and responsi-

bilities in favor of dedicated service to the greater influence

and the greater power. Any contract can and will be overridden,

if a party can bring enough money and influence to bear in

his support.

 

Holmes also states, "The life of the law has not been logic;

it has been experience." This opposes Lord Coke's definition

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 175

 

of the law as reason, and justifies the constantly changing

court decisions of our era, in which courts first rule in favor

of something, and a short time later, deny its own precedent

by ruling against it. In effect the rule of law has ended, because

the concept of the law as a fixed force has been superseded

by the Holmesian doctrine that there are no fixed principles

or ethics in law; there is only "experience."

 

"Experience" has opened the door for the Pollacks and

Edelsteins to seize control of our courts; for the principles

of the American Revolution to be superseded by the blood-

soaked aims of the French Revolution, in which the courts

become kangaroo courts for a brief stop on the way to the

guillotine; for Revolutionary Tribunals to try Americans, not

for any legal offense, but because they have opposed the

dictatorship of the Committee of Public Safety. Jacques Bain-

ville has written that to write an exact history of the Third

Republic of France, it would be necessary to know the official

minutes of the Masonic assemblies. This necessity also applies

to the history of such organizations as the League of Nations

and its presentday successor, the United Nations. M. Leon

de Poncins published a full review of the Corps of Freemasons

Congress of the allied and neutral countries which was held

in Paris, June 28 through 30, 1917, which resulted in the

League of Nations proposal being inserted en blanc into the

conditions of peace agreed upon at the Versailles Peace Confer-

ence.

 

A director of a great New York bank was asked how it

was possible for high finance to protect Bolshevism, a system

hostile to that movable property whose existence is necessary

to the banking industry, and also to those riches which are

 

 

 

176 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

represented by land and buildings, not less a necessity for

hanks. The banker replied, "Those who are astonished at

our alliance with the Soviets forget that the nation of Israel

is the most nationalist of all peoples, for it is the most ancient,

the most united, and the most exclusive. But its eyes are

turned to the future rather than to the past, and its kingdom

is not of this world. First comes this sentence; like the papacy,

it is ecumenical and spiritual. But then, you will say that

Marxism is the antithesis of capitalism, which is equally sacred

to us. It is precisely for this reason that they are direct opposites

to one another, that this puts into our hands the two poles

of the planet and allows us to be its axis. We are kings that

the prophecies may be fulfilled, and we are prophets that we

may not cease to be kings. They take us for birds of prey,

but we are carrion birds. Israel is the microcosm and the

germ of the City of the Future."

 

The arrogance of our judges stems from their assurance

that they represent a higher power than the lawful government

of the United States. No wonder they sneer at the Constitution

and revile any citizen who comes before them citing the protec-

tion of the Constitution. The Masonic arrogance of these judges

is epitomized by the name of Judge Irving Cooper. Time

Magazine noted March 30, 1962 that Congressman Manny

Celler, whose political career reeked with corruption and dou-

ble dealing, had sent the name of his old friend and ally.

Judge Irving Cooper, ADL approved, as federal judge for

the prestigious South Side District of New York. Cooper had

been bom in London, the son of Max and Ruth Shimansky.

Celler anticipated an easy confirmation of his friend, and was

stunned when many witnesses came in to give page after

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 177

 

page of damning testimony against him. One witness testified

that when she used the word "we" in her testimony before

Judge Cooper, he screamed "we! we! we!" about five times,

meaning that "I had dared to put myself in his class. How

dare you say we? Then he started to rave. His eyes started

popping. His face turned purple; he looked like a reincarnation

of the devil, or something." Many other witnesses testified

that Judge Cooper excoriated and publicly humiliated lawyers

and others who appeared before him. "He turned his back

on us and berated the group.' Many other potential witnesses

feared to testify about his notorious behaviour, for good reason.

Despite this overwhelming testimony against him. Cooper

was unanimously confirmed as a federal judge. Twenty-five

years later. Who's Who still Usts him as the federal judge

for the Southern District of New York.

 

The fact that a judge could win confirmation after such

damaging testimony is proof that the Masonic influence over-

rides all other considerations in naming a judge to the bench.

The press has carried hundreds of stories about apoplectic,

cursing, and obscene judges who abuse anyone unfortunate

enough to come into their court, but nothing is done. There

is the constant fear engendered in their subjects by these tyran-

nical judges; there is the myth of "judicial immunity" which

has no Constitutional basis; and most important of all, there

is the terrible hidden Masonic power behind the bench.

 

The stranglehold which B'Nai B'Rith maintains over our

courts leads to extreme financial abuses, a continual extending

of bribes, favors, and undue influence, which the practitioners

of the Will of Canaan exercise against all who come before

them: The New York State Chamber of Commerce analyzed

 

 

 

178 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

3500 foreclosure cases, and found that 75% of the receivers

who were paid fees of over $2500 were "either active political

workers or personal friends or relatives of judges" Reader's

Digest, Nov. 1948.

 

Of the courts which produce a steady stream of revenue

for its inimates, none is more notorious than the probate court,

of which the king is the notorious Surrogate Court of Suffolk,

New York. The scene of many historic family battles, this

court probates the wills of the nation's wealthiest families.

The fees run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. This

writer attended sessions in this court concerning a will which

the lawyer prolonged over eight years, merely because he

wished to maintain the case in his books. At these conferences,

I was often supposed to be an attorney, and was taken aside

by attorneys for some of the nation's largest firms, who deli-

cately hinted they would "appreciate" any help I could offer

in bringing the case to a conclusion. I could hardly admit

that we maintained the case so that we would have an excuse

for daily drives to the beach, a much less sinister reason

than the determination of most lawyers to squeeze the last

dollar from their clients.

 

When one enters a notorious court such as the Suffolk Pro-

bate, one can only smile at Plato's naive statement, "Justice

is the supreme virtue, which harmonizes with all other vir-

tues." The administration of justice in America warns us

that the most idealistic system can in a short time become a

nightmare. Jeremy Bentham denounced "the most grinding

of all grievances — ^the tyranny of judge-made law." The out-

cries of the people against legal abuses resounds throughout

history. Magna Carta xiv promised that "We will not make

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 179

 

any justiciaries, constables, sheriffs or bailiffs but from those

who understand the law of the realm and are well disposed

to observe it." Amos 5:7 criticizes those who abuse the pro-

cess, "Ye who turn judgments into wormwood." One of

the underlying causes of the French Revolution was a plethora

of lawsuits, dragging on for generation after generation, and

impoverishing everyone but the lawyers. Alas, the people

exchanged these oppressive coiuts for the summary justice

of the Revolutionary Tribunals. Charles Dickens was moved

to write about the terrible ordeals endured by Englishmen

embroiled in lawsuits for many generations in his famous

case of Jamdyce v. Jamdyce, which was based on actual

occurrences in EngUsh courts. Although Dickens' rendition

of the behaviour of lawyers and judges was written as satire,

it can be observed in any American court today.

 

Lord Campbell complained in his lives of the Chief Justices

of the eighteenth century, that the bench was occupied by

"legal monks, utterly ignorant of himian nature and of the

affairs of men." The decisions of these legal monks show

not so much ignorance of human nature, as unalterable opposi-

tion to it, because their decisions are dictated by their secret

allegiances and their hidden agenda.

 

A respected American judge, Judge Learned Hand, was

never nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court, despite

the general acknowledgement that he was our most distin-

guished jurist. In his memoir, "Fifty Years of Service" he

says "I confess when I look at my service it seems to have

been for the most part trivial ... As a litigant, I should

dread a lawsuit beyond almost anything else short of sickness

or death." Speech Aug. 10, 1959, U.S. Court of Appeals.

 

 

 

180 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Judge Samuel Rosenman, former adviser to President Frank-

lin D. Roosevelt, told the Bar of the City of N.Y., Oct.

1964, "Let us face this sad fact; that in many — in far too

many — ^instances, the benches of our courts in the United

States are occupied by mediocrities — ^men of small talent,

undistinguished in performance, technically deficient and in-

ept." Yet these are the men who continue to serve on the

bench, because no one can remove them. Chief Justice Arthur

Vanderbilt of New Jersey said, "In the eight centuries or

more in which the judicial office has evolved in the Anglo-

American system of law, three essentials stand out in the

definition of a true judge; these are impartiality, independence,

and inununity."

 

The 1961 Hardbook for Judges, (American Juridicative Soci-

ety, Chicago), cites Jud. Canon 3, "It is the duty of all judges

in the United States to support the federal constitution, and

that of the state whose laws they administer; in so doing,

they should fearlessly observe and apply fundamental limita-

tions and guarantees." This canon contrasts sharply with the

conduct of judges whose fiiry is aroused by a citizen pleading

his constitutional rights.

 

Jud. Canon 4 states "A judge should not allow his name

to be used for solicitation and charitable contributions." This

is the most abused of judicial canons. Not only do judges

constantly solicit (a synonym for prostitution), but they let it

be known that a contribution to their favored charity might

well affect their decision in some future litigation. The most

obvious perversion of this canon is the practice of judges to

sentence hardened criminals to "community service," to work

free in a charity personally chosen by the judge. This is in

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 181

 

itself both a solicitation and a contribution. A person who is

judged guilty of a crime is expected to go to prison, not to

become a social worker. Robert McFarlane, who was found

guilty of a political offense, was sentenced to 200 hours of

community service. Oliver North, also a political offender,

was sentenced to 1500 hours of such service. The idiocy of

this arrangement was lampooned by Ezra Pound more than

fifty years ago, in his book, "A Guide to Kulchur," "The

imbecility of America from 1900 onwards was loss of all

sense of borderline between public and private affairs." The

eradication of this line is a crucial goal of the Marxist State.

An earlier editorial by Pound in his magazine. The Exile

stated, "The republic, res publica, means, or ought to mean

'the public convenience': when it does not, it is an evil, to

be ameliorated or amended out of, or into, decent existence."

This definition of the republic should strike terror into the

hearts of all bureaucrats. The thought of doing something

for the public convenience would indeed amend them out of

existence.

Samuel West's Election Sermon, 1776, notes,

"But though I would recommend to all Christians, as part

of the duty that they owe to magistrates, to treat them with

proper honor and respect, none can reasonably suppose that

I mean that they ought to be flattered in their vices, or honored

and caressed while they are seeking to undermine and ruin

the state; for this would be wickedly betraying our just rights,

and we should be guilty of our own destruction. We ought

to persevere with firmness and fortitude in maintaining and

contending for all that liberty that the Deity has granted us."

An ancient legal adage says, "Blessed are the troublemak-

 

 

 

182 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

ers." An even more ancient one claims that if there is only

one lawyer in town, he will starve to death, but let a second

one arrive, and both will become wealthy. A Spanish proverb

says that ' 'a peasant between two lawyers is like a fish between

two cats."

 

De Tocqueville states that "In America there are no nobles

or literary men, and the people are apt to mistrust the wealthy:

lawyers consequently form the highest political class and the

most cultivated portion of society. If I were asked where I

place the American aristocracy, I should reply without hesi-

tance that it is not among the rich, who are united by no

common tie, but that it occupies the judicial bench and the

bar." (Democracy in America.")

 

One of the first precepts of an American judge is that he

will exercise all of his power to harass and disqualify the

bane of the legal profession, a citizen who refuses to hire a

lawyer, and who chooses to represent himself in court, as is

his Constitutional right. These mavericks, appearing as "attor-

ney pro se," or more recently, as "In Propria Personae"

cause consternation among lawyers and judges. A person who

appears as his own lawyer threatens the entire financial opera-

tion of our legal system, "Let's Make a Deal." A lawyer

cannot make a deal with a layman in litigation, because it

would scuttie the system. In some forty years of representing

myself, I have encountered every reaction from judges, ranging

from supercilious tolerance to outright hostility. Early on, I

was standing outside judge's chambers when I heard the judge

raising his voice for my benefit, "You can be sure of one

thing," he informed the opposing lawyer, "as long as I'm a

judge, you will never see a favorable opinion from me for

anyone who tries to represent himself in my court."

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 183

 

This judge, like his colleagues on the bench, remained

true to his resolve. I never obtained equal treatment in his

court. He seemed determined to teach me a lesson when I

appeared, and always was disappointed when I came back

for more. One lawyer actually tried to help me when I was

still unaware of legal dodges. I had no idea what was going

on when the judge asked me, ' 'Are you going to file a motion,

Mr. MuUins?" I didn't know what a motion was, and this

lawyer nudged me, "Tell him you'll file the motion." I let

the opportunity pass. This attorney, who was obviously not

cut out for the conspiratorial world of legal practice, soon

abandoned it for a political career. Philip Stem quotes the

edict of a professor at Harvard Law School when a student

questioned the fairness of legal techniques, "If you believe

in fairness and justice, you should be attending a divinity

school." Law professors notify their students that once they

have taken legal training, they will never be the same. Their

outlook on everything, from morals to social life, undergoes

a complete change, as they commit themselves for life to

legal monkhood and the cult of the black robe. They have

now joined the mystical world of Babylon, and have put aside

the decencies of normal life and American citizenship for a

stranger calling.

 

Both Philip Stem and Professor Fred Rodell of Yale Univer-

sity agree that the person acting as Pro Per has little chance

of ever having his case actually tried by a jury. Rule VH,

Sec. 2, U.S. Appellate Court states, "Briefs not signed by

counsel who are members of the bar of this court and fully

qualified under the provisions of this mle will not be considered

by this court." When I filed an appeal with the U.S. Court

of Appeals, the decision proved that it had not even been

 

 

 

184 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

read by the judges; a law clerk had probably notified them

that it didn't qualify, and they signed a pro forma denial of

the appeal. In 1977, Chief Justice Berger issued an order

that the U.S. Judiciary should not accept cases where the

plaintiffs had no legal standing under the rules of court.

 

The judge has two effective weapons against persons appear-

ing as attorney pro se; he can award attorney's fees against

them, which can be ruinous, or he can invoke Rule 1 1 , which

sets up a number of conditions, that a pleading be "well

grounded in fact," "warranted by existing law" and other

factors, which give the judge enormous leeway in invoking

Rule 1 1 against persons representing themselves. U.S. District

Judge Richard L. Williams invoked Rule 1 1 against a retired

professor, J. Carl Pomdexter, assessing him $11 ,202 for bring-

ing a case against Virginia officials on a tax matter. Poindexter

termed the sanctions "Soviet-style oppression," particularly

when government defendants are granted attorneys' fees from

citizens bringing a civil rights action. He stated, "Rule 11

violates the most essential of all civil rights — the right to

enforce one's civil rights through free access to the courts.

If lawyers are intimidated by this threat, they will not take

any case from civil rights defendants if there is a chance of

their being sanctioned."

 

The present writer sued a city and county for violation of

jury selection rules, which was dismissed in federal court

without argument, but not before the government attorney

had leaped to his feet three times, shouting for "attorneys

fees." In this case, they would have amounted to some

$25,000, a sum which I did not have. The judge refused to

grant attorneys' fees, because he had not adjudicated the case,

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 185

 

and ran the risk of a reversal if I appealed, as I would be

forced to do rather than pay $25,000 which I did not have.

 

Charles Ashman's excellent work, "The Finest Judges

Money Can Buy," cites hundreds of pages of documented

corraption among judges, beginning with Sir Francis Bacon's

statement while Lord Chancellor of England, "I usually accept

bribes from both sides so that tainted money can never influence

my decision."

 

Deuteronomy states that "Thou shalt not respect persons,

neither take a gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise,

and pervert the words of the righteous."

 

OnJune 11, 1973, the California Judicial Qualification Com-

mission recommended only censure of two Los Angeles judges

who had issued numerous blank, presigned release forms to

bondsmen friends. Judge Mitchell Schweitzer, who served

twenty-six years on the Court of General Sessions with the

support of both the Democratic and Liberal parties, was de-

scribed in these words, "Some lawyers regarded Schweitzer's

court as a circus. The judge shouts and he snorts and he

huffs and puffs and he cajoles frightened lawyers and their

clients to cop pleas to save time. But I must admit it's entertain-

mg.

 

In Congress, fixer Nathan Voloshen used Speaker of the

House John McCormack's office as his private headquarters

to fix income tax cases. Dr. Irving Helpert, a Dayton urologist,

gave him $300,000 to fix a case, and never heard from him

again. Helpert was convicted and fined. Abe Fortas graduated

from Yale Law School and became the protege of FDR cabinet

member Harold Ickes, who appointed Fortas Undersecretary

of the Interior. Fortas later became the confidant of Lyndon

 

 

 

186 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

B. Johnson, representing him in a Senatorial primary case

where Johnson had been ordered off the ballot. Fortas saved

Johnson's political career by winning the case, making possible

Johnson's later ascendancy to the Presidency. As President,

Johnson named Fortas to replace Arthur Goldberg on the tradi-

tional Jewish seat on the Supreme Court. Fortas, who was

to be named Chief Justice, accepted $15,000 from Troy Post

to lecture at American University, and then became involved

with wheeler dealer Louis Wolfson, who paid Fortas $20,000,

and put him on a life retainer of $20,000 a year. On May

14, 1%9, Fortas resigned from the Supreme Court.

 

Justice William Douglas of the Supreme Court married his

fourth wife at the age of 66 after his third wife divorced

him. Congressman Gross prepared articles of impeachment

against Douglas, who was being paid $12,000 a year from

the Parvin Foundation, a three million dollar foundation set

up by Parvin when he sold the mob-connected Flamingo Hotel

in Las Vegas; Parvin had been named as a co-conspirator

with Louis Wolfson. Congressman Gerald Ford also called

for Douglas' impeachment after he wrote an article for the

Evergreen Review which appeared in an issue of the magazine

replete with pornographic photos and articles. Unlike the earlier

case of Sir Francis Bacon, Douglas was never impeached.

Bacon was impeached after evidence that he had taken some

12,230 pounds in bribes, with twenty-eight charges against

him. The judgment was that "The Lord Chancellor hath given

way to great exactions by his servants, both in respect of

private seals, and otherwise for selling of injunctions."

 

The invoking of Rule 11 by federal judges is intended to

seal off the courts from redress by private citizens, and to

 

 

 

JUDGE NOT 187

 

allow their secret aristocracy, with its hidden agenda, to con-

tinue its practices of bribery and other corruption. Lysander

Spooner wrote in 1952,

 

"The legal effect of these constitutional recognitions of

the rights of individuals to defend their property, liberties

and lives, against the government, is to legalize resistance

to all injustice and oppression, of every name and nature

whatsoever, on the part of government. But for the right of

resistance, on the part of the people, all governments would

become tyrannical to a degree of which few people are aware.

Constitutions are utterly worthless to restrain the tyranny of

governments, unless it be understood that the people will,

by force, compel the government to keep within the constitu-

tional limits. Practically speaking, no government knows any

limits to its power, except the endurance of the people. . . .

Tyrants care nothing for discussions that are to end only in

discussion. Discussions, which do not interfere with the en-

forcement of their laws, are but idle wind to them. Suffrage

is equally powerless and unreliable."

 

 

 

 

Chapter 5

 

The Supreme Court

 

 

 

"The Germ of dissolution of our federal government is in

the constitution of the federal judiciary." Thomas Jefferson.

 

Whether the case may be made that the federal government

is in dissolution, or whether it has at last achieved supreme

power over the citizens of the United States, is a matter which

has not been resolved. Jefferson warned us,

 

"The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That

body, like gravity, ever-active with noiseless foot and unalarm-

ing advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what

it gains, is engulfing insidiously the (state) governments into

the jaws of that which feeds them." Writings of Thomas

Jefferson, v. 10: 189.

 

Jefferson also stated,

 

"It has long . . . been my opinion, and I have never shrunk

from its expression (although I do not choose to put it into a

newspaper, nor like Priam in armour offer myself its cham-

pion) — ^That the germ of dissolution of our federal government

is in the constitution of the federal judiciary: An irresponsible

 

188

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 189

 

body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like

gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a

little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief

over the field of our jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped

from the states, and the government of all consolidated into

one. To this I am opposed, because when all government,

domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be

drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render

powerless the checks provided of one government on another,

and will become as venal and oppressive as the government

from which we separated. It will be as in Europe, where

every man must be either pike or gudgeon, hammer or anvil.

Our functionaries and theirs are wares from the same workshop,

made of the same materials and by the same hand. If the

states look with apathy on this silent descent of their govern-

ment into the gulf which is to swallow all, we have only to

weep over the human character formed uncontrollable but

by a rod of iron, and the blasphemers of man, as incapable

of self-government, become his true historians." Writings

V. 15:331.

 

Jefferson continued (v. 15, p. 341), "Our government is now

taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will

pass to destruction, to wit, by consolidation first, and then

corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consoli-

dation will be the federal judiciary; the two other branches

the corrupted instruments."

 

He went on to say, "We already see the power, installed

for life, ... the foundations are already deeply laid for the

annihilation of constitutional state rights, and the removal of

every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of

 

 

 

190 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

which themselves are to make a sovereign part. If ever this

vast country is brought under a single government, it will

be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapa-

ble of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface.

This will not be borne, and you will have to choose between

reformation or revolution. If I know the spirit of this country,

the one or the other is inevitable. Before the canker is become

inveterate, before its venom has reached so much of the body

politic as to get beyond control, remedy should be applied."

Jefferson was not alone among the Founding Fathers to

warn us of the dangers represented by an unbridled judiciary.

Now the Supreme Court has come to represent everything

which they warned us against; excessive power, the destruction

of the system of governmental checks and balances, and the

annihilation of the principle of separation of powers. This

development has come about because of the systematic

"amending" of the Constitution, which was to guard the

citizens from excesses of governmental power and its conse-

quent abuses. To accomplish such amending, it was necessary

to engage the states in a civil war, or, more properly , a Constitu-

tional revolution, before this goal could be achieved. The

subsequent 13th, 14th and 15th amendments effectively re-

pealed the Constitutional guarantees which had been so pains-

takingly drawn up by the Founding Fathers. In place of the

original intent of the Constitution, we were now saddled with

the ruthless enforcement of the law merchant. The law mer-

chant respects no individual rights, does not afford trial by

jury, and renders useless the appellate process. The law mer-

chant has converted the appellate courts, including the Supreme

Court itself, into rubber stamps for the admiralty procedures

and decisions of the inferior courts.

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 191

 

The legal profession has carefully concealed from the Ameri-

can people the fact that we no longer have an appellate court

system, because the treadmill procedure of appeals continue

to provide billions of dollars in fees. The legal profession

continues to hold out the carrot on a stick, "We have excellent

grounds for an appeal. The court has committed reversible

error in numerous aspects of this case." Of course the court

has committed reversible error, and every error will be upheld

by the rubber stamp appellate court. Although American court

procedure remains a game of Russian roulette for the litigant,

an attorney knows exactly how much chance an appeal will

have. If the client has enough money for an appeal, he will

have an appeal.

 

Abraham Lincoln also expressed his concern about the judi-

ciary, on March 4, 1861,

 

' 'If the policy of the government upon vital questions affect-

ing the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions

of the Supreme Court. ... the people will have ceased to

be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned

their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

 

The Bill of Rights was affixed to the Constitution to assure

the American people that their newly won freedoms, the result

of a successful revolution, would not be abrogated by a later

tyrannical government. For more than a century, the Supreme

Court has been actively denying those rights. The present

era of judicial activism began when Oliver Wendell Holmes

inaugurated the era of "positivism" on the Supreme Court.

Holmes abrogated the rule of written law by his personal

view that the judge does not merely read and interpret the

law — ^he also writes the law. Holmes argued that law is not

based upon fundamental or universal truths (a denial of the

 

 

 

192 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

definition of law as a 'fixed power'), but rather on the more

psychological "felt necessities of the times."

 

During the 1920s, the Yale Law School continued Holmes'

legal revolution with the rise of "legal realism." This doctrine

claimed that the judge is the law. Meanwhile, Roscoe Pound

was teaching his doctrine of "sociological jurispradence" at

the Harvard Law School, which demanded "a pragmatic,

sociological legal science. " In effect, this was merely a restate-

ment of Karl Marx's theory of dialectical materialism. What

was imposed upon the Russian people by armed force was

to be fixed upon the American people by judicial fiat. When

Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed Felix Frankfurter to the

Supreme Court, Frankfurter's initial gleeful aside to Justice

WilliamO. Douglas was "If we can keep Chief Justice Hughes

on our side, there is no amount of rewriting of the Constitution

that we cannot do." This was the same Felix Frankfurter, a

Viennese immigrant and Socialist revolutionary, who was la-

belled by President Theodore Roosevelt as "the most danger-

ous man in America." Frankfurter saw his opportunity to

use the Supreme Court as the vehicle to impose a Socialist

tyranny upon all American citizens.

 

The Wall Street Journal has opened its editorial pages to

views critical of the Frankfurter legal system. On Feb. 7,

1989, Prof, of Law Stephen L. Carter warned that "The deci-

sions of the courts are the law of the land in the sense that

the parties to them are legally obligated to obey them. They

are not, however, the fundamental law of the land — not, at

least, in the sense that the Constitution itself is fundamental."

In fact, the decisions of the post-Frankfurter court are binding

upon the parties only through the law merchant, and not be-

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 193

 

cause of a Constitutional orientation. Carter concludes his

argument with the admonition that "Obedience to the courts

is obviously among the most fundamental of our traditions,

but surely obedience to the Constitution is even more so."

This flies in the face of the Holmes-Frankfurter brand of judicial

activism and the imposition of admiralty procedure upon the

American people. Its motto is "the Supreme Court decisions

are the law of the land," even though these decisions regularly

reverse themselves, to achieve the condition of national insta-

bility which the saboteurs have planned. Legal critic Walt

Mann tells us that the seal of the Supreme Court is not the

standard judicial seal of the blindfolded maiden and the scales

of justice; instead, it is a copy of the Seal of Office of the

President! Notes appearing in the U.S. Code, 28 USC 44 ad

and 28 USC 88, appendix 1 , indicate that the present Supreme

Court is not the true Supreme Court, but an impostor. The

original Supreme Court still exists in the District of Columbia,

but its name was changed during Roosevelt's presidency in

order to have a court which would support his National Recov-

ery Act, legislation which was copied directly from the corpo-

rate state of Mussolini by Gerard Swope, the president of

General Electric, and longtime vassal of Bernard Baruch.

 

The original Supreme Court is defined in the Constitution,

Art HI, and the 1789 U.S. Statutes at Large, the Judiciary

Act. Since Roosevelt superseded it, U.S. courts have lacked

all first instance trial prosecution and trial jiuisdiction. Thus

the U.S. Criminal Code does not contain specifications of

crimes, but specifications of overt acts, that is, criminal con-

tempts of violations of previous injunctive orders. The courts

rely on the injunctive process based on the violation of a

 

 

 

194 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

court order, rather than providing a legal trial under Constitu-

tional principles where evidence is argued and admitted or

denied, with a jury making the final decision. Under this

injunctive process, only the overt act of violation of the injunc-

tion itself need be proven to obtain a conviction. The "informa-

tion' ' which has taken the place of indictments for violations

of laws, has only to claim that a violation of the injunction

has taken place. The crime itself will never be prosecuted.

 

The U.S. Criminal Code itself was originally a civil code,

because the Criminal Code, Title 18, was included in the

Civil Judicial Code and the Aliens and Foreigners Control

Code, Title 8. The 14th amendment was then written in order

to provide the government authority to treat American citizens

as aliens and foreigners, as decided by Frost v. RC, 271 US

583, 596-7, which defined us as mere aliens, and Lehigh

RR. V. Russia, 21 F.2d 396, which ruled that the law enforce-

ment powers in America apply only to foreigners, foreign

relations, and international affairs.

 

The doctrine of federal judicial supremacy was fastened

onto the necks of the American people as an irrevocable yoke

because it was done insidiously, and under the cover of more

striking and dramatic events, such as the Civil War. After

the Second World War, the judicial activists, who had thor-

oughly cowed the leaders of our two political parties, imposed

a series of stunning decisions which, in effect, placed the

American people on notice that they now had no rights remain-

ing to them. This situation was dramatized by Gov. Orval

Faubus of Arkansas, in a speech to the Arkansas Legislature,

Aug. 26, 1958, in which he quoted extensively from the resolu-

tions passed by the Conference of Chief Justices of the State

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 195

 

Supreme Courts earlier that month, concluding with their find-

ing that "The Supreme Court has been usurping the rights

reserved to the states by the Constitution. . . . It is not merely

the final arbiter of the law; it is the maker of policy in many

major social and economic fields."

 

The activists' pretensions to judicial supremacy dates from

the historic case of Marbury v. Madison, 1803. The decision

was the work of Chief Justice John Marshall, who had been

appointed to the court by President John Adams, the leader

of the New England school of separatists. Marshall ruled that

the judiciary has the power to strike down any law or act of

Congress which violate the Constitution under Art. IE, sec.

2 par. 1, or "the supreme law of the land" clause. Art. VI,

sec. 2. However, Marbury v. Madison, rather than being a

sweeping review which established the court as the final arbiter

of government power, was actually a partisan political squabble

over the spoils of election victory. Congress had passed a

new Circuit Court bill Feb. 13, 1801 , which authorized sixteen

additional federal judges. Pres. Adams at once filled them

with Federalists, who were confirmed by the Senate March

2, and their appointments signed by President Adams and

sealed by Secretary of State John Madison on March 3. Mar-

bury V. Madison arose from a comparable situation, the passing

on Feb. 27, 1801 of the District of Columbia Organic Act,

provided for the appointment by the President of justices of

the peace for Washington and Alexandria within the District.

 

On March 2, the President nominated twenty-three justices

for Washington and nineteen for Alexandria and sealed by

the secretary before midnight of March 3, the famous "mid-

night justices of the peace. The conmiissions were delivered

 

 

 

196 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

that same night by Marshall's brother James. However, Wil-

liam Marbury of Washington did not have his commission

delivered, which became the subject of litigation in December

of 1801; the case was finally heard by the Supreme Court in

Feb. , 1803. John Marshall believed that the commissions were

valid when the Seal of the United States was affixed, rather

than when they were delivered. Today, the Supreme Court

has no file on the case or any of the papers relevant to it.

The only record is that made by reporter William Cranch.

The Court ruled that Marbury had a right to the commission

because of the power of the Court to adjudicate the validity

of an Act of Congress. However, the Court refused to issue

a writ of mandamus, thus deciding in favor of Madison (1

Cranch at p. 70). The Court stated that the Constitution forbade

the grant of power to issue the writ but that the Court did

have the power of judicial review. The Court ruled that the

Constitution was the superior and paramount law, unchange-

able by ordinary means, and the supreme law of the land.

Sec. 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 attempted to give the

Supreme Court power to issue a writ of mandamus in an

original proceeding against an officer of the United States,

including the Secretary of State; the Court concluded that

Art. Ill of the Constitution prohibited the grant of such power

by Congress to the Supreme Court.

 

Thus the original dilemma, that Secretary of State James

Madison had worked far into the night signing commissions

of justices of the peace for the Federalist Party, including

Marbury's commission, had had part of his work undone when

the incoming Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, seeing

the stack of signed commissions on the following morning,

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 197

 

decided that he would not allow them, and threw them into

the wastebasket. Marbury then sued to obtain the commission

he had been promised for his dedicated party service. In decid-

ing the case, Chief Justice Marshall, one of the leaders of

the Federalist Party, cleverly avoided the main issue before

the Court, that of partisan politics, and shifted the issue to

one of governmental powers, by deciding that the final arbiter

would henceforth be the Supreme Court.

 

Thomas Jefferson delivered his opinion on the Marbury v.

Madison decision, stating, "Nothing in the Constitution has

given them (the Supreme Court), a right to decide for the

Executive, more than for the Executive to decide for them.

The opinion. . . . would make the judiciary a despotic

branch." Jefferson further warned about judicial supremacy

in 1819, stating, "The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a

mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they

may twist and shape into any form they please." However,

the court was careful not to flaunt its newly assumed power.

Between 1803 and 1870, the Court declared as unconstitutional

only six acts of Congress, three of those being decided in

1870. From 1871 to 1899, it overruled Congress sixteen times,

a power which was increasingly used from 1900 to 1936,

during the period of Holmesian judicial activism. During that

period, the Court rendered fifty-one decisions against the Con-

gress.

 

The battle over an American central bank also spawned

landmark decisions by the Supreme Court. After the European

Rothschilds had commissioned Alexander Hamilton to set up

a central bank in the United States, immediately after the

American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson led the fight against

 

 

 

198 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

its adoption. In McCuUoch v. Madison, 1819, the Supreme

Court upheld the bank against the states. In Craig v. Missouri,

1830, the Supreme Court invoked the Constitutional ban on

state-issued currency to invalidate loan certificates issued by

a state, a decision which severely affected the growth of state

banks, and encouraged the demand for a central bank. A

longtime crusader against the central bank, Roger Taney, was

rewarded for his opposition by President Andrew Jackson,

who appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1836. In 1837,

the Taney Court reversed Craig v. Missouri in the decision

of Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, and upheld the state law

authorizing the issuance of bank notes by a state institution.

Lawrence Tribe comments on this decision, "The demise of

the central banking system and consequent disruption of the

nation's finances played a large part in triggering the devastat-

ing economic depression of 1837."

 

Although Tribe is a well-known legal scholar, he seems

less aware of the facts about monetary history. Henry Clews

stated, in his book, "Twenty-Eight Years in Wall Street,"

p. 157, "The Panic of 1837 was aggravated by the Bank of

England when it in one day threw out all the paper connected

with the United States." As the present writer pointed out

in "Secrets of the Federal Reserve," the order to refuse any

American securities, shares or loans came directly from Nathan

Mayer Rothschild, who thereby deliberately precipitated the

panic of 1837. The goal was to punish the United States for

refusing Rothschild's central bank, and to drive down the

prices of all shares in a financial panic, such shares then

being available for purchase by the Rothschilds at a much

lower price. Does Tribe known anything of these details? A

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 199

 

Harvard law professor since the age of twenty-seven, he is

described by Time magazine as one of the most powerful

lawyers in the United States. He has long been in the five

hundred dollar an hour fee range for consultation, and may

be relied upon to present an acceptable justification for Estab-

lishment programs.

 

With the advent of Zionist power on the Supreme Court

in 1916, the head of the World Zionist Organization, Louis

Brandeis, being appointed to the Court by President Woodrow

Wilson, the Court moved from its dedication to the enthrone-

ment of judicial supremacy, to a new program, the supremacy

of Zionist interests around the globe. Because Supreme Court

decisions are not binding upon other nations, this program

first succeeded in placing Zionist interests firmly in control

of the federal offices in Washington, where they were then

exported to the rest of the world as "American" interests.

President Wilson appointed Louis D. Brandeis to the Supreme

Court June 1, 1916; he served on the Court twenty-two years.

Another Zionist, Benjamin Cardozo was appointed Feb. 1,

1917, serving twenty-three years, until 1939; The Jewish seat

was then given to Felix Frankfiirther by Roosevelt in 1939.

Arthur Goldberg served on the Court for three years; Abe

Fortas was appointed Oct. 4, 1968, later resigning after charges

of involvement with wealthy Zionists who had matters before

the Court.

 

Brandeis' appointment to the Supreme Court has been ex-

plained as the result of a $50,000 contribution by Bernard

Baruch to Wilson's re-election campaign, and also as a black-

mailing effort by Zionist leaders who held Wilson hostage

for the Peck letters, a number of which purportedly established

 

 

 

200 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

a secret liaison between Wilson and a paramour. Brandeis'

appointment was affected by both elements. An indefatigable

social activist, he had aroused strong opposition for years

because of his controversial work, yet he was finally confirmed

by the Senate. He was known worldwide for his fanatical

leadership of the Zionist Organization of America; he fulfilled

a continuous round of Zionist meetings and policy sessions,

stating for the record that ' 'Zionist affairs are the only important

things now," a curious allegiance for a Justice of the Supreme

Court, who was supposedly "impartial." Wilson later ap-

pointed Brandeis' mentor, Bernard Baruch, as head of the

War Industries Board during World War I, and Baruch's part-

ner, Eugene Meyer, head of the War Finance Administration,

in charge of Liberty Loans. Baruch later boasted to Congress

that as economic czar of the United States, he daily exercised

more power than any other man in the nation. It was Baruch

who, with Brandeis and Wilson at the Versailles Peace Confer-

ence, wrote the impossibly punitive reparations assessments

against Germany, which made a Second World War inevitable.

A pivotal figure on the Supreme Court during the 1940s

and 1950s was Justice Hugo Black. Max Lemer's biography

of Black notes that he joined the Masons before he reached

the age of twenty-one. As the next step in his political career,

he then joined the Ku Klux Klan, even though the Klan's

charter expressly forbade the admitting of Jews, Masons or

Catholics. Black ran for the Senate with active Klan support,

and won. Black then supported Roosevelt's court-packing plan

in the Senate, and was himself appointed to the Court as a

reward. After he was sworn in, the story was leaked in Wash-

ington that Black had been an active Ku Klux Klan member

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 201

 

since 1927. Despite a firestorm of protest from the liberals

and Communists who made up Roosevelt's entourage, Black

refused to resign from the Court, and Roosevelt refused to

request his resignation. A deal was made, and Black became

known as one of the most liberal members of the Court. He

worked actively to offset the votes of "the Four Horsemen"

of the Hughes Court, the dedicated conservatives, Pierce But-

ler, Willis van Devanter, George Sutherland, and James

McReynolds. As the "judicial activist" leader of the Court,

Black led the writing of the decision against prayer in schools

in 1954 as an abolutist doctrine. In a 1962 prayer case. Black

claimed that by way of the 14th Amendment and the Bill of

Rights, restraints upon the states were incorporated into the

Constitution. This became the basis for the liberal wing of

the Court in future argument, although other Supreme Court

decisions refuted Black's claim. Justice Frankfurter ruled in

Adamson v. Cal., 1947, that "the notion that the Fourteenth

Amendment was a covert way of imposing upon the states

all the rules which it seemed important to eighteenth century

statesmen to write into the Federal Amendments was rejected

by judges who were themselves witnesses to of the process

by which the Fourteenth Amendment became part of the Con-

stitution."

 

In Engel et al v. Vitale et al, Steven Engle and other parents

of the New Hyde Park N. Y. v. Union Free District #8, plain-

tiflFs objected to a nondenominational prayer from the State

Board of Regents containing twenty-two words drawn from

the state constitution, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our

dependence upon Thee, and we beg thy blessings upon us,

our parents, our teachers and our country." This innocuous

 

 

 

202 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

prayer had been repeated at the beginning of each school

day, with the Pledge of Allegiance; there was no compulsion

of students to join in its recital. The Supreme Court itself

opened each day's sessions with the prayer, "God Save the

United States and This Honorable Court"; prayer was also

used at the opening of both Houses of Congress. However,

Justice Black claimed that the school prayer served to set up

a state religion, and thereby violated the establishment clause

of the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting

an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof. ' ' Black's argument that this clause forbade all religious

expression actually perverted it into a prohibition against the

free exercise of religion. The prayer issue continued to come

repeatedly before the Supreme Court; in 1984, the Court's

famous ' 'reindeer rule' ' held that nativity scenes and menorahs

could be permitted on public property only if they were accom-

panied by secular symbols such as reindeer, Santa Claus or

his elves. This decision has been condemned as "tortured

reasoning"; it is not reasoning at all, but rather, is a conscious

attempt to inhibit and finally destroy the exercise of religion

in the United States.

 

A succession of socialist activist decisions by the Court

changed the quality of life for all Americans. The Shelby v.

Kraemer decision, 433 USI 1984 1948, outlawed restrictive

real estate contracts, and changed the capital city of the United

States from a white middle class residential area to a largely

black, crime-ridden city which is now known as "the crime

capital of the world." Its mayor, Mayor Barry, is continually

criticized for his close associations with known drug peddlers,

some of whom have now been arrested. Barry formerly ran

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 203

 

a black organization called "Pride" which collected payment

from Jewish merchants on Seventh St. in Washington for

assurances that their stores would not be vandalized or set

on fire. After millions of dollars had vanished into Pride's

coffers, Mayor Barry had his wife take the rap for the sum

of $675,000, which had mysteriously vanished.

 

If an invading army had tried to destroy our nation's capital

city, as the British did during the War of 1812, it would

have met with armed resistance. However, when the Supreme

Court decision launched a wave of "white flight," and handed

the city over to blacks, not a protest was heard. Shelby v.

Kraemer, did not, as was widely but erroneously believed,

oudaw racial covenants in real estate contracts. It did take

on the language which was widely used in such contracts,

such as that quoted in Ringgold v. Denhardt, "That the house

on said lot now erected shall be used only as a dwelling

house, and the same shall not be given, sold, rented or sub-

leased to a negro or person of African or MongoUan descent. ' '

Many such racial covenants also excluded Jews or other groups,

in an effort to continue the ethnic makeup of particular neigh-

borhoods. The value of the real estate depended in large part

upon such restrictions. Once those restrictions were aban-

doned, the value of the real estate would plunge.

 

Instead of outlawing such contracts, the Supreme Court

did not face the issue squarely. To have done so would have

violated the Constitutional provision against the impairment

of contracts. The justices of the Supreme Court carried out

a flanking attack on their objective; while their cowardice

would not allow them to outlaw such contracts, they ruled

that the coiuts would no longer enforce such contracts by

 

 

 

204 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

legally upholding them. Their "rule of law" weaseled out

of a necessary stance by establishing that the provisions of

such a contract could not be enforced by the courts.

 

The famous interview with Philip Elman in the Harvard

Law Review, vol. 1987, p. 817, revealed that the Department

of Justice had intervened actively to secure the decision in

Shelley v. Kraemer, filing a 150 page amicus curiae brief

for the plaintiffs, which was later published as a book. Elman

states, "I had friends working in the NAACP, the ACLU,

the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Commit-

tee, and other organizations." Elman, as Felix Frankfurter's

"law clerk for life," and closest confidante, was working

for the plaintiffs as amicus curiae while his employer. Frank-

furter, was hearing the case in preparation for handing down

an ' 'impartial' ' opinion. Elman states that the Solicitor General

of the United States, Philip Perlman, had requested that he

prepare the amicus curiae brief, again an improper procedure,

because the clerk of a Justice cannot intervene on behalf of

either the plaintiffs or the defense. The brief finally appeared

with the names of five Jewish lawyers as its authors. Perlman

was disturbed by this, and demanded of Elman, "Can't you

find any gentiles to work on this thing?" Thus we find that

the same organizations which orchestrated the complaint of

Brown v. Board of Education also masterminded the Shelley

V. Kraemer decision which destroyed our nation's capital.

Their presence was illegal, conspiratorial, and constituted ob-

struction of justice.

 

The present writer was living in a pleasant home on Capitol

Hill when the Supreme Court decision was announced. Within

months, real estate speculators had begun the practice of bring-

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 205

 

ing in one black family per block, the famous practice of

"block-busting." At the sight of the black invasion, white

owners would immediately sell their homes for as little as

one-tenth of the amount they had invested in them. Fortunes

were made overnight, as Washington became a black city.

One Supreme Court decision changed a sleepy Southern white

city with a minority black population into one of the largest

black cities in the world, a crime-ridden, poverty-stricken

enclave surrounded by well-to-do white suburbs in Maryland

and Virginia.

 

Newspapers carried headlines such as "Fear Becomes Bil-

lion Dollar Industry ," as sales of locks , alarm systems , security

programs, and guns — yes, guns, soared. Many women found

that if they chose to live in the District of Columbia, they

must become proficient in the use of a handgun, the same

handguns which Senator Teddy Kennedy and other bleeding

hearts seek to deny to all Americans who are not criminals.

As robberies and murders of cab-drivers soared in the District,

many cab drivers stopped picking up black fares, and refused

to deliver passengers to high-crime areas. A group of yuppy

black lawyers recently sued several cab companies, because

they had repeatedly been passed by when they tried to hail a

cab. Mayor Barry had akeady forced a measure through City

Council automatically fining cab drivers $100 for refusing a

passenger. The Washington Post, in reporting on the yuppy

lawyers litigation, mentioned that ninety-seven per cent of

the cab drivers in the District of Columbia were black. The

black lawyers were suing their racial colleagues! The Post

also interviewed taxi driver Albert K. Acheampong, who said,

"I discriminate a lot. I'll pay the $100 fine. I'm not going

 

 

 

206 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

to put my life on the line." It is typical snobbery of black

leaders such as Mayor Barry, who are surrounded by armed

bodyguards and chauffeurs, that they wish to fine other blacks

$100 because they are fearful of being murdered in what the

press habitually refers to as "the crime capital of the world."

In Western cities, fake gunfights are staged for tourists; in

Washington, the gunfights taking place in Washington on Capi-

tol Hill are real. Nevertheless, Mayor Barry was recently

quoted in Newsweek as remarking that "The crime rate in

the District of Columbia, if you don't count the killings, is

lower than that in other major American cities."

 

In the case of Com. of Pa. v. Board of Directors of City

Trusts of Philadelphia, the Supreme Court ruled, in 353 US

230, 1957, that Stephen Girard, a patriot of the Revolutionary

period, who died in 1831, erred in leaving his large fortune

for "schools for poor white orphan boys." The funds, which

were used to found Girard College in 1848, could no longer

be spent for the purposes which Girard had devised, according

to the Supreme Court. Despite a lengthy record of previous

decisions which honored testamentary directives, the Court

ruled that Girard' s will, in the light of current sociological

requirements, was now found to be discriminatory; his money

could no longer be spent for the benefit of poor white orphan

boys.

 

A farmer was sued for raising grain in excess of Department

of Agriculture regulations and feeding the surplus to his cattle.

A lower court ruled that some powers are granted to Congress

by the Constitution, and others are later conferred by amend-

ment; Congress had originally no power to enact an income

tax or to prohibit the manufacture and sale of alcoholic bever-

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 207

 

ages; but no amendment to the Constitution granted to Congress

the power to regulate agriculture. The Supreme Court over-

turned this decision, ruling Per Curiam Feb. 24, 1949, "The

judgment is reversed. Wickard v. Filbum, 317 US 111."

The Court handed down no written decision, because its ruling

for an order of reversal had violated both the Ninth and the

Tenth Amendments.

 

Throughout our history, the qualifications for nomination

to the Supreme Court have remained the same — solid political

support. During the nineteenth century, nominees were fre-

quently rejected by the Senate on partisan political grounds.

In 1930, the Senate rejected an unusually distinguished nomi-

nee, Judge John J. Parker, because of his conservative views

on race relations and labor law. A concerted propaganda drive

by union political leaders persuaded the Senate to refuse him,

in a preview of the famous Bork Hearings of our era.

 

Because of such political impasses as the shocking rejection

of Judge Bork for the Supreme Court, Prof. Laurence Tribe

suggested a compromise solution; that the Supreme Court

should maintain a constant political balance of three liberals,

three moderates, and three conservatives; when any Justice

left the Court, he should be replaced by a successor chosen

from the category to which he belonged. Tribe's suggestion

was received with derision in Washington, because no one

today can say for certain who is a liberal and who is a conserva-

tive, while moderates no longer exist. Judge Bork had been

rejected by the Senate as too conservative, although during

most of his life he had been considered extremely liberal; he

had been married to a Jewish liberal, a socialist, and his

closest friend for years had been the wellknown leftwing Judge

 

 

 

208 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Abner Mikva, whose Congressional career had been marked

by his extreme pro-Communist views. From the time of Bran-

deis, there had been a traditional Jewish seat on the Supreme

Court, although no seat was ever reserved for anyone who

might be considered even remotely anti-Jewish. When Frank-

furter died, he was replaced by Artie Goldberg; when Goldberg

was asked to resign to defend Zionist interests at the United

Nations as the ambassador from the United States, he was

replaced by Abe Fortas. At that time, no one anticipated that

Fortas would have to resign because of his connections with

Las Vegas mob figures and with wheeler dealer Louis Wolfson,

who later went to prison. Fortas had signed an agreement

with Wolfson while on the Supreme Court that he would

receive $25,000 a year from Wolfson' s foundation for life.

The public outrage over this arrangement forced Fortas to

resign. His firm, Arnold, Fortas and Porter, had become the

most powerful Washington lobbyist. While Fortas was serving

on the Supreme Court, his wife took his place with the firm,

bringing in many large new accounts. The firm has since

dropped the Fortas name from its masthead.

 

As part of the growing federalization of the legal system,

the Supreme Court ruled that all state courts must now follow

Federal rules of evidence, whether they were in conflict with

state statutes or not. This placed much greater restrictions

on the crime-fighting power of state and local police, as well

as state courts. The Justices had reversed traditional police

procedxires. Henceforth, no evidence could be presented in

court if anyone in the police department had erred in any

way, no matter how trivial, in gathering the evidence, even

if it meant that an obviously guilty and dangerous criminal

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 209

 

would go free. A landmark reversal in the history of criminal

justice in the United States, the notorious "exclusionary rule"

was applied in the court's Mallory decision of 1957. Mallory's

seven and a half hours of detention before his arraignment

was held by the Supreme Court to have violated his Constitu-

tional right to be brought before a magistrate without "undue

delay."

 

In 1961, the Supreme Court invaded another realm of state

law by limiting the ability of local police agencies to conduct

searches in quest of incriminating evidence, a domain previ-

ously held to be within the domain of state law. In 1963,

the court's Gideon decision released a convicted criminal,

Gideon, on the grounds that every indigent such as Gideon

should have a lawyer provided and paid for by the state.

This decision, although doing nothing for the great majority

of law-abiding Americans, who still had to pay for their own

legal representation, proved to be a great boon for the legal

profession. Only one task yet remains for the Supreme Court,

to outlaw any citizen from representing himself in court, or

to appear without a lawyer, to continue the Supreme Court's

chosen role as the Santa Claus of the legal profession.

 

In 1964, the Supreme Court extended the exclusionary rule

by barring evidence seized during the search and seizure opera-

tions involving an automobile. In 1964, the Escobedo decision

freed a convicted murderer because he had not been allowed

to see counsel at the station house before he made a full

confession to the police. In 1966, the Supreme Court decided

four cases comprising Miranda v. Arizona. The court ruled

that the police could not question a suspect if he demurred,

and the service of a lawyer must be energetically pressed on

 

 

 

210 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

him and financed by the state if indigent. A further ruling

declared that the presence of a uniformed policeman in the

station house psychologically acted to coerce the defendant

and violated his Fifth Amendment rights. The implication of

this Supreme Court ruling was that whenever a criminal was

being brought into a police station, those policemen present

must either strip, or absent themselves.

 

Not only were these rulings ludicrous; they also reflected

the dedication of the social activist justices to the wellbeing

of the criminal. It also reflected their active dislike and distrust

of the police and for members of the law abiding public.

One might say that the Supreme Court no longer bothered

to conceal its commitment to the criminal, and its distaste

for the bourgeois property owners of society who had been

caricatured by Karl Marx and other Communists in their writ-

ings. They ruled that the police must now be handcuffed,

while criminals were being given carte blanche to carry on

their profession. Because of these decisions, as well as the

increasing concern of the Justices for Communists, public

reaction quickly surfaced in national campaigns to impeach

the more notorious liberal leaders of the Court, Chief Justice

Earl Warren and Justice William O. Douglas. Earl Warren

had not always been known as a liberal. As a young California

politician, he had a brilliant career until a family problem

threatened his reputation. His father, according to researches

by famed classical scholar Dr. Revilo Oliver, had been sexually

abusing a number of young women who were his tenants in

a shantytown in California. Several rape charges had been

filed against him, and Warren realized that he must act quickly.

He went to talk to his father, who was then found with his

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 21 1

 

head bashed in. Dr. Oliver states unequivocally that Warren

murdered his own father in order to protect his political career.

He was then elected Atty. Gen. of California, but made no

effort to find the murderer of his own father. The case was

closed.

 

As Atty. Gen. of California, Earl Warren showed few liberal

tendencies. He led the Committee of 100, a nativist California

group, in a campaign to have all Japanese small businessmen

and fanners interned after Pearl Harbor. Despite the assurances

of J. Edgar Hoover and other intelligence officials that these

merchants had been investigated and presented no threat, War-

ren and his cohorts insisted that Roosevelt intern the Japanese.

Their properties were then bought for a few cents on the

dollar by Warren and the members of his Committee. Land

which they obtained for a few cents an acre in 1942 is now

worth millions. The fortunes from this campaign not only

financed Warren's later career; it also provided the financial

backing for the successful Presidential campaigns of Richard

Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Later elected Governor of Califor-

nia, Warren went to the Republican convention in 1952 with

a California delegation which had been pledged to the party's

nominee, Robert Taft. At the convention, Warren was prom-

ised the post of Chief Justice if he would switch to Eisenhower.

It was an offer he could not refuse.

 

When he arrived in Washington, Warren was told that the

first case on the Court's docket was a very urgent one. It

was Brown v. Board of Education, the school desegregation

case. Hearings on this case had begun on Dec. 13, 1952.

Chief Justice Fred Vinson soon let it be known that he was

prepared to uphold the longstanding ruling of Plessy v. Fergu-

 

 

 

212 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

son, which had long ago established the "separate but equal"

principle for American education. Few Washington insiders

believed that the arguments in favor of Brown v. Board of

Education would bring any surprises. It was but one of a

series of cases which the National Association for the Advance-

ment of Colored People had routinely been bringing to the

Court. However, in this case, the NAACP had been given a

special fund of many millions of dollars, donated by wealthy

New York Jewish families such as the Spingams, who had

run the NAACP for many years. These funds enabled the

NAACP to hke many "experts," more than two hundred

such witnesses, at a cost of more than ten thousand dollars

a day. Other funds donated to the NAACP came from such

leftwing activist groups as the CIO Political Action Committee,

the majority of whose dues-paying members were white; the

Anti Defamation League of B'Nai B'Rith; the American Jewish

Committee and the American Jewish Congress; the American

Civil Liberties Union, and allied interests. In all, the NAACP

came to court for Brown v. Board of Education with a war

chest of ten million dollars. In contrast, the southern states

who argued against Brown had only a few thousand dollars

of expense funds to present their case.

 

Despite their massive expenditures, the NAACP millions,

after some months of argument, had made little impression

on the Justices. The Court had originally allotted two weeks

for the hearing of Brown v. Board of Education. As it dragged

on during the 1952-53 term of the Court, it became obvious

that the NAACP was desperately stalling for time. No one

could then envision the denouement for which the NAACP

had been told to wait. A plan had been put into effect which

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 213

 

was to change the composition of the Court, and thereby to

effect a favorable decision for Brown. The defending lawyer

for the states, John W. Davis, a former Presidential candidate,

sent a note to his associate, Robert Fig, "I have never read

a drearier lot of testimony than that furnished by the so-called

educational and psychological experts ... I think it is per-

fectly clear from interior evidence that the witness Clark drafted

the appendix which is signed by the worthy social scientists,

(typical). I can only say that if that sort of guff can move

any court, God save the state."

 

Davis was referring to the well-advertised "psychologist,"

Dr. Kenneth Clark, whose professor at Columbia University,

Dr. Henry Garrett, was the most respected psychologist in

America. Garrett stated that Clark had been none too bright

as a student. Now this student was testifying before the Su-

preme Court as the originator of the "doll tests." He had

shown both black and white dolls to a few black children,

and he claimed that they had picked the white dolls in prefer-

ence to the black ones. From these "tests," Clark deduced

that the Negro children were suffering from an inferiority

complex, because they had picked the white dolls, and that

this complex had been created in them because they could

not go to school with white children. No evidence was ever

presented to the Court which verified Clarks unsupported

claims. However, later court cases revealed that he had deliber-

ately falsified his testimony before the Court. He had conducted

earlier tests in some northern states, where the public schools

had long been integrated. It was in those integrated states

that the black children had picked the white dolls! In the

southern states which were not integrated, the black children

 

 

 

214 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

had picked the black dolls. Nevertheless, Clark succeeded

in placing his falsified findings before the Supreme Court.

 

This was not the most flagrant falsification presented to

the Court in Brown v. Board of Education. The presence of

the principal advocate for the plaintiff, the National Association

for the Advancement of Colored People, never intimated in

any way that this association was not a national association

of colored people. It had been founded in 1910 by a small

group of white people. Present at this meeting were John

Dewey, who was to revolutionize American education on So-

cialist lines; Jane Adams, a lifelong Socialist; Mary White

Ovington, only child of millionaire Theodore Ovington, from

a wellknown Abolitionist family; he owned Ovington's, the

most fashionable store on New York's Fifth Avenue. Mary

White Ovington was the epitome of the wealthy white liberal;

although she listed herself as a Socialist in Who's Who, she

resided for many years in a luxurious suite in Brooklyn's

St. George Hotel. She spent her later years living on the

fashionable Upper East Side of Manhattan. Also present at

the founding of the NAACP were Rabbi Emil Hirschberg,

Rabbi Stephen Wise, Dr. Henry Moskovitz, Lillian Wald,

and Florence Kelly, who had changed her name from Wes-

chnewetsky. Only one black was present at the founding of

the NAACP, William E. B. DuBois, a lifelong Communist

revolutionary who finally denounced the United States, gave

up his American citizenship, and went to live in Ghana, Africa.

For many years, no black was allowed to head the NAACP.

Mary White Ovington was chairman of the board after its

founding. Albert Spingam, of a wealthy Jewish family, was

president from 191 1 to 1940. He was succeeded by his brother,

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 215

 

Joel Spingam, a wealthy newspaper publisher who lived like

royalty in a huge mansion. He also founded the publishing

firm of Harcourt Brace. Joel became treasurer of the NAACP,

his brother Arthur serving as president from 1940 until his

death in 1971. The NAACP was the personal preserve of

the Spingam family from its inception until 1971. Even while

the NAACP was arguing Brown v. Board of Education before

the Supreme Court, the Justices never knew that no black

person had ever served as president of the NAACP.

 

Walter White, secretary of the NAACP from 1931 to 1955,

was described in Current Biography in 1942, "It is only

through his own insistence on his negro blood (estimated by

E. A. Hooten at about V64th) that anyone would ever take

him for a negro. He has fair skin, blue eyes, and blond hair."

 

The official report of the Communist Party's 4th national

convention stated that the Party had ' 'penetrated' ' the NAACP.

Florence Kelly, or Weschnewetsky, a personal friend of Engels

and Lenin, was on its board of directors, as was Felix Frank-

furter. The field secretary, William Pickens, also a Socialist

Party member, was active in Communist affairs.

 

The most interesting name among the founders of the

NAACP in 1910 was that of Dr. Henry Moskovitz. His wife,

Belle Moskovitz, was one of the most influential Democratic

Party leaders in New York. She also had been a secret director

of the Communist Party for years. "The Red Network" lists

a Dr. Moshewitz as Communist Party central committee; this

is believed to be another spelling for the name of Dr. Henry

Moskowitz. Belle Moskovitz ran Gov. Al Smith's office for

eight years, in alliance with Robert Moses and Judge Joseph

Proskauer, the president of the American Jewish Committee.

 

 

 

216 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Proskauer personally selected all judges in New York state

for years. Louis Howe, Franklin D. Roosevelt's press aide,

was envious of Proskauer; he said to him one day, "By God,

Joe, you've gone too far; there's not a single gentile judge

left in the state." Proskauer looked solemnly at him. "You

know, Lou," he said, "I didn't expect to reach this goal for

another five years."

 

Belle Moskovitz, bom Belle Lindner, had married a Charles

Israels; when he died, she married Dr. Henry Moskovitz.

Nathan Miller's biography of Roosevelt notes that on p. 200,

"Moskovitz and Proskauer felt that Roosevelt, as a cripple,

would be unable to interfere in their direction of the campaign.

Like Al Smith, they viewed the patrician in politics with

contempt, regarding Roosevelt as little more than a handsome

piece of window dressing." When Roosevelt succeeded Al

Smith as Governor of New York, Smith said to him, "Now

Franklin, you will want Mrs. Moskovitz, of course, and I

think the best thing you can do is appoint her the Governor's

secretary." Belle Moskovitz was a longtime social worker.

Communist Party worker, labor leader, Jewish leader, head

of the Council of Jewish Women, and the Conununist who

inducted atomic spy Julius Rosenberg into the Communist

Party. It was she who put together the liberal coalition of

Jews, Conmiunists, Socialists, and labor leaders which became

Roosevelt's unbeatable political base. As head of the Prog-

ressive Party, she had nominated Oscar Straus for Governor;

she was introduced to Al Smith through Abram Elkus, law

partner of Judge Proskauer, and became Smith's political alter

ego. She became director of publicity for the Democratic

National Committee, and was given credit for the political

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 217

 

careers of Newton Baker, Herbert Lehman, and Al Smith,

but her greatest achievement was making possible the election

of FDR to the Presidency. She was denied her moment of

glory when she fell down the stairs and was killed, a few

days before Roosevelt's inauguration. Four thousand people

came to her funeral at Temple Emanu-el in New York. Al

Smith described her as "his alter ego."

 

Neither then nor later did anyone ever challenge Felix Frank-

furter, a sitting justice during all of the argument on Brown

V. Board of Education before the Supreme Court, as to a

possible conflict of interest, because he had been a director

of the NAACP for eighteen years, and was now hearing a

case brought before the Supreme Court by the NAACP.

 

The ruling which the plaintiffs of Brown v. Board of Educa-

tion sought to overturn was a well established precedent, Plessy

V. Ferguson, which laid down a guideline observed since

1894.

 

"Laws permitting, or even requiring, their (racial) separa-

tion in places where they are liable to be brought into contact

do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the

other, and have been generally, if not universally, received

as written within the competency of the state legislatures in

the exercise of their state power."

 

Thus the overturning of Plessy v. Ferguson required testi-

mony and evidence which would justify the nullification of

the state power to control its education and its schools. No

such evidence was ever presented before the Supreme Court.

Instead, a furtive conspiracy between the plaintiffs and a Justice

of the Supreme Court, involving murder, resulted in the unani-

mous decision in favor of Brown. This conspiracy is docu-

 

 

 

218 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

mented in the authoritative publication, the Harvard Law Re-

view, 1987, pp. 817 et. seq. by Felix Frankfurter's longtime

law clerk and confidante, Philip Elman. In an interview about

Brown v. Board of Education, Elman stated,

 

"There's no question that the grand strategist in all this

inside the Court was Felix Frankfurter. To use the Yiddish

word that Frankfurter used at the time, he was the Kochleffel,

or cooking spoon, which kept things stirred up. Frankfurter

was in touch with the lawyers who won Brown, Jack Green-

berg, Thurgood Marshall, WilUam Coleman. It was a victory

that changed the whole course of race relations in the United

States."

 

Elman showed no remorse at the fact that this "victory"

was won by means of conspiracy, illicit contacts between a

Justice of the Supreme Court and the attorneys for the plaintiff,

in which Elman was the main go between. The interviewer

asked him about the obvious impropriety of this situation,

"Frankfurter was receiving a government briefing almost daily

from you, to which Davis (lawyer for the defense) never

had a chance to reply." ELMAN. "I regarded myself, in

the literal sense, as amicus curiae."

 

Because of his complicity in illegally participating in the

Brown decision. Frankfurter's later books, essays and articles

mention neither the case nor his association with the NAACP.

In an article on the Scottsboro boys, as well as in other civil

rights articles, he makes no mention of the fact that he was

legal counsel for the NAACP. His many biographies usually

omit such reference, as does his Who's Who listing. "Justice

Felix Frankfurter and Civil Liberties," by Clyde A. Jacobs,

Univ. Cal. 1961, omits any mention of Frankfurter's position

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 219

 

with the NAACP, or of Brown, although one would suppose

this would be central to the material from which the title

was derived. Philip Kurland's book, "Felix Frankfurter" also

"neglects" to mention the NAACP or Brown. Helen Shirley

Thomas book, "Felix Frankfurter" confines the association

to five words on p. 21, "Felix Frankfurter, legal adviser to

NAACP." Liva Baker's biography, "Felix Frankfurter," p.

310, notes that Frankfurter was "legal counsel for the

NAACP." Baker also makes the startling admission that

"There was no doubt about where Felix Frankfurter stood;

he had but one course to take on segregation."

 

Thus an "impartial" Justice hearing a case on segregation

left no doubt about where he stood. And what about the argu-

ments before the Court? How did they affect the decision?

Elman leaves us in no doubt about that. In his interview, he

states that the judges had already made up their mind. "Oral

argument made no difference in their decision. In Brown,

nothing that the lawyers said made a difference. Thurgood

Marshall could have stood up and recited "Mary had a little

lamb," and the result would have been exactly the same."

 

However, the principal evidence impeaching both Frank-

furter and the Court's decision in favor of Brown is the record

of Frankfurter's eighteen year association with the NAACP,

which both he and his biographers have tried to conceal. In

"The Brandeis-Frankfurter Connection: the Secret Political

Activities of Two Justices," Oxford 1982, B. A. Murphy

notes p. 201, "In 1930, Felix Frankfurter organized a crack

legal staff for the NAACP to litigate against segregation

throughout society." Although Frankfurter publicly resigned

all of his numerous political affiliations when he was appointed

 

 

 

220 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

to tiie Supreme Court by FDR in 1939, including the NAACP,

he continued to direct the legal staff of the NAACP from

behind the scenes, as he had done for many years. During

World War II, Frankfurter had one of his proteges, William

D. Hastie, the dean of Howard Law School in Washington,

appointed by Secretary of War Henry Stimson, a key member

of the Brotherhood of Death, as a special assistant on Negro

problems in the armed services. Frankfurter also had Stimson

appoint as his two special assistants in the War Department

two other Frankfurter proteges, Harvey Bundy and John J.

McCloy. Murphy states that this was done "to provide Frank-

furter with an indispensable means for influencing War Depart-

ment poHcy." Why would a Supreme Court Justice need to

influence War Dept. policy at the height of the Second World

War? Because Frankfurter, a Viennese inmiigrant who had

succeeded FDR's mentor, Bella Moscovitz, as commander

of the secret Harold Ware cell of Soviet agents in the govern-

ment in Washington, needed to direct our war strategy in

favor of its principal goal, the rescue of the Soviet Union

from attack by the German armies. Murphy states that Frank-

furter served as a constant intermediary between Stimson and

FDR throughout the war.

 

Throughout FDR's long regime, Frankfurter continuously

placed his proteges in key government positions. Secretary

of the Interior Ickes notes in his Diary, March 24, 1933 that

he had appointed Margold as Assistant Secretary of the Interior

"after advising with Dr. Felix Frankfurter." He explains that

Margold had been serving as "special counsel for the

NAACP."

 

It was necessary for Frankfurter to avoid any mention of

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 221

 

his eighteen year association with the NAACP during the

Court's hearing of Brown because he had personally organized,

selected and trained the lawyers who were arguing the case.

He had inaugurated the NAACP's campaign of litigation

against segregation; each of the lawyers appearing before him

was his personal protege; and another protege, Elman, was

secretly serving as amicus curiae for Brown. This documented

evidence proves that Brown was illegally decided through

improper contact with attorneys, conspiracy to obstruct justice,

and is invalid. As there is no statute of limitations on conspir-

acy, the Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education,

now stands invalid, returning the situation to the rule of Plessy

V. Ferguson, maintaining "separate but equal" schools. Every

racially integrated school in the United States, whether public

or private, is now operating illegally.

 

Elman 's Harvard Law Review interview also recounts the

exact wording of Frankfurter when Elman met him at Union

Station after the news of Vinson's heart attack. Elman says

that Frankfurter stated "happily" and "sarcastically," "I'm

in mourning. Phil, this is the first solid piece of evidence

I've ever had that there really is a God." Elman also reveals

that Frankfurter had code names for each of his fellow justices,

which demonstrate his utter contempt and hatred for them;

his private name for Justice Stanley Reed was Chamer, the

Yiddish word for "fool."

 

Elman also expresses distaste for Dr. Kenneth Clark's testi-

mony in Brown about his doll tests. "He trivialized the basic

truth and opened himself and the NAACP to ridicule. John

Davis was the lawyer for South Carolina. And he demolished

the doll test. He cited an article by Clark, 'Racial Identity

 

 

 

222 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

and Preference in Negro Culture,' 1947, in which Clark stated

they had given this test not only to black kids in southern

states, but also to black kids in northern states, and the strange

result was that the southern kids were significantly less likely

to reject the white doll than the northern kids."

 

Elman also attributes Warren's use of the phrase, "with

all deliberate speed" to integrate the schools in the Brown

decision to Frankfurter. He states that it was originally quoted

by Holmes from Francis Thompson's poem, "The Hound of

Heaven," and that Frankfurter liked it so much that he quoted

it in three of his decisions.

 

Thus we have a Supreme Court decision which changed

the educational system throughout the United States, arrived

at by the murder of one Chief Justice and his replacement

by Earl Warren, who placed himself totally in Frankfurter's

hands. We had an amicus curiae for Brown who was Frankfurt-

er's law clerk, advising a staff of lawyers arguing for Brown

who had been handpicked and trained by Frankfurter at the

NAACP "to litigate against segregation." No other case ever

heard by the Supreme Court so reeks of conspiracy, illegal

activities, improper contamination of a Supreme Court Justice,

and absolute nulUfication of the subsequent decision by these

documented factors.

 

The academic argument for Brown and the NAACP was

provided by a voluminous "scholarly" work, "The American

Dilemma," by a Swedish Socialist, Gunnar Myrdal. Botfi

Myrdal and his wife Alva were longtime Rockefeller Fellows.

She served as a member of the Swedish Parliament, was a

director of UNESCO, and a member of many United Nations

organizations. She and her husband had toured the United

States in 1929 and 1930 as Rockefeller Fellows, where they

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 223

 

developed a deep-rooted contempt for native American work-

ers. Gunnar Myrdal spent from 1938 to 1942 working on

"An American Dilemma"; he was funded by the Carnegie

Foundation, which was run by the Rockefeller interests as a

subsidiary of the Rockefeller Foundation. The book, some

1483 pages, was published in 1944 by Harper Bros. New

York. Carnegie had been headed for many years by Frederick

Keppel, a director of Equitable Life and Guaranty Trust, the

bank which had sought throughout the 1920s to increase Ameri-

can funding and recognition of the Soviet regime. Carnegie

had also funded Lord Hailey's "An African Survey" and

had given millions of dollars to Tuskegee and Hampton Insti-

tutes. Myrdal had also spent a year in the United States as a

Fellow of the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Fund. With Keppel

on the staff of Carnegie at this time were Ralph Bunche,

named as a Communist Party member; M. F. Ashley Mon-

tague, a tireless Communist propagandist; Eugene Horowitz;

Herbert Goldhamer; Melville Herskovitz; Edward Shils; and

Benjamin Malzberg.

 

"An American Dilemma," which was never read by any

of the Justices, reeked of Myrdal's contempt for native bom

Southern white citizens. On p. 563, we read, "The low level

of education and general culture in the white South is another

important background factor. . . . Another important back-

ground factor in the causation of lynching and other major

forms of violence is the isolation, the dullness of every day

life, and the general boredom of rural and small town life in

the South." Myrdal then excoriates the people as "narrow-

minded, intolerant, evangelistic." He writes with disapproval

of their "evangelistic religion."

 

On p. 565, Myrdal writes approvingly of "the growing

 

 

 

224 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Strength of Southern liberalism." On p. 582, he writes "there

is a great class of Southern whites who are also poor, unedu-

cated, coarse and dirty." One can envision the fastidious

Myrdal recoiling in horror from the ' 'dirty white Southerners. ' '

As an elitist and beneficiary of the Rockefeller billions, it

must have been an ordeal for him to travel for four years in

the South for his research on "the American Negro problem. "

The problem is not the Negro at all, but the coarse and dirty

white Southerners. On p. 597, he writes of "the lower class

whites in the South," but he never uses such terminology in

writing of the Negroes. He also followed the Communist Party

line by including several pages of vehement denunciations

of police statistics on Negro crime. One wonders what Myrdal

would make of the front page of the Washington Post, which

daily recounts the staggering incidence of Negro crime, which

has made our a nation's capital the crime capital of the world.

 

Had the Justices or the attorneys for the Southern school

systems ever bothered to glance at the 1483 pages of "An

American Dilemma," they would have been shocked at its

rabid bias against the South and its white citizens. Yet this

book was cited as a principal influence on the final decision

of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff in Brown v.

Board of Education! This evidence, which was never argued

before the Court, actually impeached its own goal. Why would

black children be improved by being forced to attend school

with "coarse and dirty Southern whites?" Perhaps it was a

subtle ploy to aid Southern whites by giving them the opportu-

nity to associate with immaculate, well-spoken and highly

intelligent and motivated black children.

 

The 1952-53 session of the Supreme Court closed with no

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 225

 

decision announced on Brown v. Board of Education. It was

then sclieduled to be carried over to the next session. However,

the anticipated outcome was never in doubt. Justice Reed

and others in the know stated that they expected Chief Justice

Vinson to uphold Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling against any racial

integration of the schools. John W. Davis, lawyer for the

defending Southern states, announced that there would be a

6-3 decision against Brown v. Board of Education. The ruling

was expected shortly after the opening of the fall term. On

June 5, 1953, the five segregation cases before the Court

were redocketed for Oct. 12, 1953 re-argument. Washington

observers expected a short hearing, and that Vinson would

then issue the 6-3 ruling against Brown. This had already

been established by internal memoranda of the Court.

 

This opinion was never issued; at 3:15 A.M. on Sept. 8,

1953, Chief Justice Vinson died suddenly of a heart attack

in his suite at the exclusive Wardman Park Hotel. Only 63

years old, and enjoying robust health, Vinson had shown no

sign of any health problems. It was but one more of those

strange "government heart attacks" which have played such

an important role in major policy decisions. Despite their

shock at his sudden death, Washington insiders saw no reason

to change their expectation that the NAACP would still lose

the segregation cases, perhaps on a 5-4 ruling instead of the

anticipated 6-3 . Nevertheless, a few of the protagonists greeted

the news of Vinson's death as "a day of liberation." Justice

Frankfurter, on being informed of his longtime colleague's

death, chortled gleefully, "This is the first indication I've

ever had that there really is a God." He was referring to the

Canaanite god, Baal, the agent of Lucifer, who apparently

 

 

 

226 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

had been summoned to dispose of Chief Justice Vinson. Years

passed before Frankfurter himself was revealed as the secret

head of the influential- Harold Ware Communist cell in Wash-

ington. At the death of Bella Moscovitz, Frankfurter had inher-

ited her leadership of the Communist agents in the Roosevelt

Administration. At the same time that Frankfurter was serving

on the Supreme Court, his brother, Otto Frankfurter, was

serving a long sentence in the Anamosa State Prison of Iowa.

On Oct. 5, 1953, President Eisenhower announced that

he had named Earl Warren to replace Justice Vinson as Chief

Justice. It was immediately noted that Warren, a newcomer

to Washington, had placed himself in Frankfurter's hands.

There was still no indication that the new appointment would

change the expected ruling on Brown. Arguments in the case

were desultorily resumed, but months went by, with the case

still in limbo. Washington journalists still expected a brief

announcement that a decision had been made against Brown.

On May 17, 1954, at 12:52 P.M., with no prior notice. Chief

Justice Warren began reading the Court's decision in Brown

V. Board of Education. He first stated that all of the evidence

presented by the NAACP had been "inconclusive," which

seemed to verify the fact that Brown had lost. However, Warren

then stated, AS A UNANIMOUS DECISION OF THE

COURT, "We conclude that in the field of public education,

the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Therefore,

we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated, for

whom the actions have been brought, are, by reason of the

segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection

of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. ... In

view of our decision that the Constitution prohibits the states

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 227

 

from maintaining racially segregated schools, it would be un-

thinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser

duty on the Federal Government."

 

Warren's statement that the Constitution prohibits "racially

segregated schools" went beyond the scope of the arguments

of the NAACP; the Constitution actually said nothing on the

matter. The decision unleashed chaos throughout public educa-

tion in the United States. The amazing ruling, even more

amazing because it was unanimous, instead of the long-antici-

pated 6 to 3 ruling against Brown, was based on no legally

acceptable evidence. Clark's doll manipulations and Myrdal's

vicious denunciations of white Southerners were "evidence"

which would have been laughed out of most courts. Rumors

immediately began to circulate that Vinson had been ' 'disposed

of in order to end his opposition to a ruling in favor of

Brown. His son, Fred Vinson (a classmate of the present

writer at Washington and Lee University), also died suddenly

while at the Department of Justice.

 

Kenneth's Clark's "evidence," later revealed to have been

distorted, still threatened the validity of the Supreme Court

ruling. NAACP lawyer Jack Greenberg then took a desegrega-

tion case before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for a prear-

ranged decision, as follows,

 

"We reiterate that no inferior federal court may refrain

from acting as required by the Supreme Court in the (1954)

Brown decision, even if such a court should conclude that

the Supreme Court erred as to its facts or to the law."

 

This amazing ruling tried to dictate that Brown could never

be overturned, even if it were proved to be in error, as was

the case. However, in a later case, Evers v. Jackson Ms.

 

 

 

228 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Municipal School District, 232 F. Supp. 241, 1964, Fed.

Judge Sidney Mize noted, "In this case, the evidence as to

racial differences is of such significance as to reasonably require

the separation of school children for educational purposes is

overwhelming, undisputed and unchallenged. In the opinion

of this court, the facts in this case point up a most serious

situation, and indeed, cry out for a reappraisal and complete

review of the findings and conclusions of the U.S. Supreme

Court in the 1954 Brown decision."

 

Washington insiders now concluded that Chief Justice Vin-

son had indeed been murdered as part of a sinister plot to

force racially integrated schools on all Americans by the use

of armed troops. Earl Warren became Governor of California

through one murder, and Chief Justice of the United States

through another.

 

Justice Felix Frankfurter was never criticized for the fact

that he had been a director of the NAACP at the time he

ruled in their favor. Nor did he reveal that he had personally

selected the attorneys for the NAACP, Jack Greenberg, a

longtime associate, and Thurgood Marshall. Marshall was

then named to the Supreme Coiut himself, where he failed

to disqualify himself in the long procession of racially sensitive

cases before the Court. Loyal to the end, he always voted

for his employers, the NAACP.

 

In 1987, the Harvard Law Review reported "a stunning

fact" about the Supreme Court's milestone ruling in Brown

vs. Board of Education "which declared racially segregated

public schools to be unconstitutional; Justice Felix Frankfurter

had secret, improper, and unethical contacts with a lawyer

for the plaintiff, with a view to engineering a victory for

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 229

 

that side. He succeeded." Detroit Free Press, Mar. 29, 1987.

The editorial commented that had it been known, ' 'Frankfurter

would have been impeached, removed from the bench, and

ruined." In fact. Frankfurter's association of many years with

Jack Greenberg and Thurgood Marshall in the NAACP is

proof that a legal conspiracy was effected, and that Brown

V. Board of Education is thereby totally invalidated. All persons

who claim injury as a result of the forcible integration of

the schools can now bring action against the government, as

can any school district which has been adversely affected by

the ruling.

 

It now seems evident that a further goal of the Brown v.

Board of Education decision was to destroy the rapidly growing

and independent black middle class throughout the United

States. A black elite, composed primarily of ministers and

educators, had succeeded in raising the standards of blacks

in many areas, threatening the traditional plantation system

by which Communist revolutionaries such as Frankfurter and

wealthy white liberals as Mary White Ovington used black

citizens for their own ulterior purposes. Thus blacks have as

much reason to sue the government for damages resulting

from the Brown v. Board of Education as whites, if not more

so. Pleasant black residential neighborhoods are now drug-

tormented, crime-ridden areas in which no one is safe; neither

stable family life nor an effective educational system is possi-

ble. The Brown ruling was recalled in the Washington Post,

April 22, 1989, in an interview with Charles Lofton. Lofton

had been principal of the black elite high school, Dunbar

High School, which produced many black leaders in the Wash-

ington area. He commented that "I had more influence on

 

 

 

230 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

my students in the segregated environment. . . . They used

us as role models. I was at Dunbar when integration came

in and — ^it knocked us out. We had been getting the cream

of the crop, but with integration, students had to go to schools

in their zones. I lost some of my finest teachers, because

there was just not the same demand for subjects such as Latin

or advanced calculus. Partly as a result of integration, our

children do not have as positive a sense of self. We have

lost a whole generation, the generation from sixteen to thirty-

two, and we're never going to get it back."

 

The calculated destruction of the black elite has made possi-

ble the total government control of the black population. The

dedicated black teachers and ministers have been pushed aside,

replaced as role models by drug pushers and political dema-

gogues. One black educator mourned that "We now realize

that a terrible crime has been conMnitted. An entire generation

of black youth has been deliberately tossed onto the scrap

heap by false leadership which has left the black community

disorganized and without hope." Black leaders are also con-

cerned about an apparent campaign to eliminate the entire

black population in Africa through the deliberate inoculation

of AIDS, and by famine and starvation. The Dark Continent

can then be returned to the Rothschilds and to the tender

ministrations of Global 2000, as a largely uninhabited area

rich in natural resources, which can be plundered at leisure.

 

After Brown, Chief Justice Earl Warren found that his most

consistent supporter on the liberal Court was Justice William

O. Douglas. In a later desegregation case, Douglas delivered

the amazing opinion that "No one has a right to attend a

segregated public school." Due to his continuous pursuit of

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 231

 

young women, Douglas soon began to exhibit serious signs

of mental and physical degeneration. He became increasingly

paranoid, claiming that listening devices had been planted in

his offices; he sometimes asked lawyers to step out into the

hall to carry on conversations. He endured more criticism

when he married again, in the well-advertised "case of the

child bride." A New York Times story of Aug. 21, 1988

cited J. Edgar Hoover's opinion of Justice Douglas, as revealed

in FBI files, "Of course, Douglas is crazy and is not in too

good health." During years of senile degeneration, he contin-

ued to occupy his seat on the Supreme Court. His writings

were a continuing puzzle to clerks and other officials of the

Court. In "The Brethren," we are told, p. 243, "Former

clerks were called regularly for clues to the meaning of Doug-

las' notes and his frequently incomplete references to old

cases; his sentences were almost a private code, their meanings

evident only to him." The book goes to discuss Douglas'

continuing incontinence, which caused his family to ask him

to resign. He indignantly replied, "No! There will be no

one on the Court who cares for blacks, Chicanos, defendants,

and the environment." Despite their increasing aggravation

at Douglas' presence, protocol prevented the other Justices

from filing complaints about him. He had long since lost

control of his lower body functions, and the continuous noxious

odors arising from his chair sometimes caused his fellow Jus-

tices to become physically ill.

 

At the time the segregation decision was announced, blacks

occupied all of the low level service and maintenance jobs

at the Supreme Court. There was not a single black secretary

in the entire building. Court personnel were routinely ordered

 

 

 

232 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

to do personal work on their own time for the Justices, such

as taking oriental rugs to the cleaners, shopping, and going

across the city on other errands. The Court was exempt from

civil service laws, and employees could be fired immediately,

with no appeal. Numerous work hazards existed throughout

the building; the black service personnel worked on rickety

scaffolds, sometimes resulting in serious injury. The great

bronze doors were regularly cleaned and polished with hydro-

chloric acid, whose use had long been oudawed in American

industry.

 

After Douglas' death. Justice Thurgood Marshall repre-

sented the most liberal bias of the Court. A protege of Zionist

Justice Brandeis, he had been a member of the ACLU for

many years, studied at the obligatory New York version of

the Lenin School, the New School for Social Research, and

served as special counsel for the NAACP from 1937, when

he was personally approved by Felix Frankfurter, until 1961.

He delivered a stinging denunciation of the Constitution in a

recent speech. Rumor is rife in Washington that he suffers

from Alzheimer's. An article by Dept. of Justice attorney

Terry Eastland in the National Review, April 21, 1989, "While

Justice Sleeps," notes that Marshall sleeps through oral argu-

ments, and spends much of his time in the Court building

watching television situation comedies; a favorite is "I Love

Lucy." He lets clerks write his opinions, and told Life Maga-

zine, anent petitions, 'I ain't giving no break to no drug dealer!

Disgusting! ' Although the Supreme Court renders 130 opinions

each year, Marshall is only assigned fifteen. He refuses to

retire, and vainly hoped that the Democrats would win in

1988, so that another liberal could be appointed in his stead.

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 233

 

In "The Brethren," Marshall is described as being overweight,

drinking too much, eating too much, and thoroughly soured

on his work. He has had one heart attack, from which he

has never fully recovered, but still refuses to retire until a

Democratic President has been elected.

 

The history of the Supreme Court reveals a steady retreat

from its assigned role of protecting the legal rights of all

American citizens. In 1833, the Court ruled that the Bill of

Rights provided only protection against federal authority, but

not against state action. In Barron v. Baltimore, the city was

sued because it had impaired the value of the plaintiff's prop-

erty. Barron claimed this was taking his property without

due compensation, and thereby violated the Fifth Amendment.

Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the Bill of Rights only secured

against "apprehended encroachment of the general govern-

ment — not against those of the local governments. ' ' Marshall's

ruling has never been reversed, although it was superseded

by the three Civil War Amendments, the 13th, 14th and 15th.

 

On restrictive covenants, the Court dismissed Corrigan v.

Buckley in 1926, effectively upholding restrictive covenants.

Twenty-two years later, the Court effectively nullified restric-

tive covenants by forbidding the state to enforce them. Chief

Justice Vinson ruled in Shelley v. Kraemer and McGee v.

Sepes, 1948, with three justices abstaining, "We hold that

in granting judicial enforcement of the restrictive agreements

in these cases, the States have denied petitioners the equal

protection of the laws, and that, therefore, the action of the

state courts cannot stand."

 

In 1989, the Court hesitated somewhat in its heretofore

upholding of affirmative action cases, by stating that ' 'a person

 

 

 

234 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

cannot be deprived of his legal rights in a proceeding to which

he is not a party." This seemed to end the era of class actions

in which rulings affecting large groups of Americans had been

routinely handed down, even though most of them had never

been a party to the action.

 

In 1945, the Court vainly attempted to stem the rapidly

growing monopolization of the media by ruling that "The

First Amendment presupposes that the widest possible dissemi-

nation of information from diverse and antagonistic sources

is essential to the welfare of the public." This decision was

later used as the basis for a 1978 Court decision which pre-

vented daily newspaper owners from buying radio and televi-

sion stations in the same cities as their newspapers, and thereby

establishing a media monopoly. The decision seems to have

had little effect in preventing media moguls from expanding

their empires. It was recently predicted that within the next

decade, four giant corporations will control all of the world's

communications.

 

The Supreme Court ruled in Totten v. U.S., 92 U.S., that

"public policy forbids the maintenance of any suit in a court

of justice, the trial of which would inevitably lead to the

disclosure of matters which the law itself regards as confiden-

tial, or respecting which it will not allow the confidence to

be violated." This would seem to guarantee personal privacy,

but it has not restrained judges from routinely ordering all

personal papers and records to be turned over to the opposing

party in general lawsuits.

 

The considerable Masonic direction of the Supreme Court

throughout its history was documented in 1988 by Paul A.

Fisher's book, "Behind the Lodge Door." A veteran of the

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 235

 

OSS and the Counter-intelligence Corps, Fisher used his con-

siderable talents for intelligence analysis to build an irrefutable

case for the domination of the Court by Masons. He begins

with Chief Justice Marshall, who was Grand Master of the

Virginia Lodges, and documents the fact that the secret oath

of the Masons has played a major role in Court decisions

ever since. He notes that FDR's plan to pack the Court origi-

nated with four Masons, whom FDR subsequently appointed

to the Court, Black, Byrnes, Minton and Jackson.

 

Another recent study shows that nine of sixteen members

of the Congressional Committee on the Judiciary are Masons,

showing that die continuing Masonic influence still permeates

not only the Supreme Court, but the entire Judiciary. This

influence extends not only to the Justices, but to their law

clerks as well. In "The Brethren," we are told that the law

clerks in the office of the Chief Justice exercised great power.

"The way things worked in the Chief's chambers gave them

tremendous influence. Warren told them how he wanted the

cases to come out." So much for "impartiality." Woodward

and Bernstein also quote Warren's successor. Chief Justice

Burger, on Warren, "sloppy, politically motivated, interested

more in results than in legal reasoning, a man without intellec-

tual honesty."

 

Despite the fact that the RICO law, the Racketeer Influenced

and Corrupt Organizations law enacted by Congress, has been

perverted by the Department of Justice from its stated purpose

of fighting organized crime to a weapon of terrorism against

legitimate business, the Supreme Court recently refused to

recognize this perversion. More than one thousand RICO suits

are being filed each year; 93% of them have no connection

 

 

 

236 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

with organized crime. The Wall Street Journal and other publi-

cations have repeatedly denounced this rape of justice. Never-

theless, on June 26, 1989, the Supreme Court refused to rein

in the law. The Court ruled 9-0 to continue civil suits for

triple damages, although Justice Scalia admitted that the law

is "so vague it violates the Constitution."

 

The Court now faces a challenge in its necessity of ruling

whether the judiciary can impose direct taxes. U.S. District

Judge Russell Clark had ordered Kansas City property taxes

increased by 95% to pay the costs for forced desegregation,

and ignored the will of the voters by authorizing the school

district to issue $150 million of capital improvement bonds.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge's

arbitrary action, which clearly flouts the Constitution, and

which totally abrogates Art. 1, sec. 8 by giving the courts

power to tax. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision

in the case by Oct. 1989.

 

Judge Clark's action is typical of the social activism in

which the Supreme Court itself has taken the lead. A Washing-

ton Post story Dec. 28, 1988 declared "Many in Washington

view it as judicial activism run wild; seven judges forcing

this wealthy township, Bedminster, N.J., to build housing

for the less fortunate, nearly tripling its population. Sen. Gerald

Cardinale said of the justices, 'They think, like all social

planners, that their view of society is superior to everyone

else's. The court is destroying the democratic process.' For

years, the N.J. Supreme Court has been headed by Chief

Justice Robert Wilentz, heir to the political power wielded

by his father, a Democratic wardheeler and B'Nai B'Rith

activist. David Wilentz had prosecuted Bruno Hauptmann in

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 237

 

the Lindbergh kidnapping case. As exposed by Anthony Sca-

duto in his ground-breaking book, "Scapegoat," Wilentz had

never before tried a criminal case of any kind; he had been

appointed Attorney General by Gov. Harry Moore as a political

payoff for switching the support of the B'Nai B'Rith Masonic

power to Moore's campaign.

 

Wilentz determined to convict Hauptmann, despite the lack

of evidence. He rounded up a group of witnesses who were

willing to commit perjury, bolstering their incredible testimony

with crudely manufactured "evidence." Wilentz' principal

witness was 87 year old Amandus Hochmuth, who testified

that Hauptmann had driven up to him on the day of the kidnap-

ping and inquired the way to the Lindbergh residence. Social

Security records proved that Hochmuth was not only legally

blind from cataracts, but was also hopelessly senile. Wilentz

also withheld from the jury the Reliance Property Mgmnt

paybook which proved that at the time of the kidnapping,

Hauptmann was working in New York! When J. Edgar Hoover

was informed of Wilentz' activities, he indignantly ordered

all FBI agents to withdraw from the case. He refused to have

the Bureau's work contaminated by such crude perjury; Hoover

also expected the roof to fall in on Wilentz when his conspiracy

was exposed. Hoover remarked to his associate, Clyde Tolson,

"I don't know if Hauptmann will ever go to jail, but I'm

damned sure Wilentz will." In fact, with the B'Nai B'Rith

power behind him, Wilentz succeeded in having Hauptmann

convicted and electrocuted. For years, his widow, Anna Haupt-

mann, worked to have the frameup exposed, but she was

jeered at by the entrenched powers of the media and the legal

system.

 

 

 

238 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Wilentz typified the unbridled arrogance of the judiciary

who daily wield their power in our courts. The Associated

Press noted Dec. 29, 1988, that a Ft. Lauderdale judge, J.

Leonard Fleet, routinely sentences lawyers who displease him

or who are late coming to court, or even if their mode of

dress offends him. He orders them to go to a supermarket

and buy food for the poor. Again, this is social activism

and has nothing to do with the administration of justice. How-

ever, it is typical of the rape of justice.

 

The Portland Me. Press Herald recently decried the practice

of retired federal judges drawing full pay, even though they

no longer hear any cases. It cited former Chief Justice Warren

Burger, who receives $115,000 a year. The editorial noted

that twenty per cent of all senior judges draw full pay, even

though they do no work. However, in view of the omnipresent

acts of judicial tyranny, it might be better if we retired all

of them. The Yonkers case, which was headlined daily in

the press throughout 1988, typified the judicial dictatorship

which now terrifies our people. Federal Judge Leonard Sand

personally decided that the city of Yonkers, the fourth largest

city in New York, was not doing enough to "wipe out racial

discrimination." He ordered the city to build one thousand

new units for blacks in residential neighborhoods in which

substantial racial integration had taken place. After residents

opposed the order, he imposed $500 a day fines on three

Yonkers city councilmen and a fine of one million dollars a

day against the city itself. The judge resided in Chappaqua,

a wealthy white suburb north of Yonkers. Columnist Pat Bu-

chanan wrote, "What is happening in Yonkers is an outrage.

A Harvard educated dictator in black robes, elected by no

 

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT 239

 

one, is ordering the fourth largest city in New York, against

the will of its people and elected officials, to spend millions

of tax dollars building public housing it doesn't want or need,

in areas Sand alone will determine. If Yonkers refuses, the

Judge will destroy the city financially, and jail its elected

officials. Will someone explain to me what exactly George

III did to our forefathers to compare to that?"

 

British troops who tried to enforce a decree as dictatorial

as Judge Sand's would have been met with armed rebellion.

The hidden explanation of Judge Sand's action, as the present

writer explained in "The World Order," is that every public

official has a secret agenda to aggravate and increase racial

tensions by every means possible, in order to provoke a raging

conflict, and provide the excuse for active government repres-

sion against all groups. The minorities continue to be helpless

pawns in this obvious but never openly stated program.

 

The Supreme Court again maddened the populace with its

July Fourth approval of the desecration of the flag. One Joey

Johnson, a New Yorker who echoes the staunchest tenets of

Leninism, claimed that "the flag is a symbol of oppression,

international murder and plunder of a sick and dying empire."

He was then arrested in Texas for publicly burning the flag.

The Supreme Court, in Texas v. Johnson, ruled 5-4 that burning

the flag was a free speech exercise which was protected by

the First Amendment as a political statement. The front page

of the Washington Post headlined "Court Nullifies Flag Dese-

cration Law . ' ' Just below it was another feature story , ' ' Soviet-

U.S. Becoming Partoers." The majority of the Justices ruled

that conviction for flag-burning was not consistent with the

First Amendment, Justice Stevens dissented, "The value of

 

 

 

240 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

the flag as a symbol cannot be measured. The court is therefore

quite wrong." Chief Justice Rehnquist noted, "(The flag)

has come to be the visible symbol embodying our nation

. . . Millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical

reverence regardless of what sort of social, political or philo-

sophical beliefs they may have."

 

Pat Buchanan wrote another stinging column about the flag-

burning decision. On July 6, 1989, he stated, "For 30 years

a despotic court has been writing into our Constitution, and

law, its own arid ideology, its own prejudice, its own view

of how a rational society should govern itself, casting aside

as so much trash the deepest sentiments, traditions, beliefs

of the American people, all of the accumulated wisdom of

the race. ... A predominantly Christian people has had

yoked upon it an alien, secularist concept of the good society.

. . . America today is two countries, with values in conflict.

Where they celebrate raucous dissent, we tolerate it. Where

they believe the marketplace of ideas must remain open to

all sentiments, no matter how pernicious, seditious, or disgust-

ing, we believe there are limits to the toxicity of the moral

pollution a democratic Republic can stand. . . . We have

had enough judge-made law."

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 6

 

 

 

The Court as Arena

 

 

 

According to legend, the "court" originally referred to

the courtyard of King Solomon's palace, where disputes were

heard when the weather permitted. In mediaeval times, the

"court" was the poultry yard, where chickens were allowed

to run free and peck at worms. 1377 Lengl. P.P.O.B. vx

466 "Just as capones in a court come to mannes whistlynge."

Court also referred to the enclosures which surrounded the

Jewish tabernacle. Later, it became known as the place where

the sovereign or other high dignitary resided and held state,

attended by his retinue. 1480 Caxton Descr. Eng. 17, "The

messengers of Rome came to the grete Arthur's court."

 

The court is the arena where civil procedure takes its course.

The basis of all civil procedure in the United States is the

relentless application of the ancient legal maxim, "Fry the

pig in his own fat." This means that the parties in a legal

dispute are maneuvered by their lawyers and by orders from

the judge to step into the pan and sizzle until they have been

reduced to a passel of bones. The rendered fat is then divided

 

 

 

241

 

 

 

242 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

up between the avaricious lawyers and the participating judicial

authorities. If you are an American citizen worth some

$300,000 in personalty, you may decide to enter into litigation

to recover a debt, damages from an injury, or other payment

to which you believe you are legally entitled. Until they step

into the quicksand, most Americans look upon litigation as

a comparatively simple matter. They engage an attorney for

a reasonable fee, he presents the facts to a judge, perhaps

before a jury; the opposing party recites his version of the

facts, and a decision is rendered, with a judicial order for

payment. The lawyer will then deduct his fees, and the litigant

returns home with his collection.

 

The usual outcome is a far cry from these developments.

Instead of collecting what is due him, the citizen with $300,000

in personalty may find that not only has his net worth vanished,

but that he now owes his lawyer an additional $50,000, plus

counterclaims advanced against him by the opposing party

which have been allowed by the court, and that even now,

officials are on his way to his home to evict him. Is this

justice? Of course not. It is the law merchant in action, in

which all legal realities are transformed into legal fictions.

At any time during litigation, a plaintiff may be hit with

ruinous fines, arbitrary jail sentences, and other misfortunes,

while his original goal of collecting moneys due him now

recedes into the distance, never to be realized.

 

The first ventures of the present writer into our halls of

justice, some forty years ago, were marked by total ignorance

of the details of the judicial process. Like most Americans,

I naively supposed that if you had a grievance, you went to

court, stated your grievance, and the opposing party stated

 

 

 

THE COURT AS ARENA 243

 

some rebuttal. The impartial judge, having listened carefully

to both sides, would then deliver a fair verdict. End of case.

 

The reality turned out to be quite different, so different

that I became a courthouse habitue for some four decades,

not because I was seeking entertainment, but because I kept

going back to see what new outrage would be perpetrated

against me. My first judge, whom I was later told had never

been known to deliver an impartial verdict in his entire career,

frequently turned off his hearing aid and sat in blissful silence

while the sweating lawyers (this was before the era of air-

conditioned courtrooms) strained over every word, hoping

to make an impression upon His Honor. I also learned that

there was really no need for the judge to listen to the testimony,

because, in the great majority of cases, his decision had been

reached long before the case actually came to trial. Thus he

had no reason to burden himself with the dreary chore of

listening to days and hours of contradictory, and often perjured,

testimony.

 

I also learned in short order that lawyers in most instances

had no intention of seeing my complaints come to trial. Their

legal maneuvers were designed solely to get rid of me, a

goal in which the judge heartily concurred. As a person repre-

senting himself, on Constitutional lines, I presented a threat

to the economic base of all members of the legal profession.

Ninety per cent of the cases heard in our courts could be

presented without any lawyer being present. The attorney pro

se virus is the AIDS of the legal profession, which could

decimate its ranks.

 

In my initial case, whenever I appeared in court, a matter

of some inconvenience, as I was then residing in another

 

 

 

244 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

state, the opposing lawyers would first register surprise, and

then disapproval that I had actually arrived. They would imme-

diately ask for another postponement. After I left the state,

they would hurriedly reschedule another hearing, hoping that

I would not be able to return. This charade went on for several

years, and was finally dismissed under the statute of limitations.

 

The mysteries of civil procedure, which at that time seemed

to present an impenetrable code, were finally unveiled for

me by one of the most able law firms in the state. I had

sued a man who had attempted to kill me (see Chapt. The

Strange case of the Schizophrenic Driver). Because he had

been driving illegally, it was necessary to prevent me from

bringing the case to trial. The firm's members expected to

make short shrift of me, but because the offender was a promi-

nent merchant, the firm's senior partner personally took charge

of the case. He began his campaign with an inquisitorial fifty-

nine questions, the First Set of Interrogatories, supposing that

I would either refuse to answer them and throw them aside,

thus defaulting out of the case, or I would trip myself up in

my answers to the extent that he could have the case dismissed.

In most cases. Interrogatories, which are answered under oath,

are only answered in consultation with one's attorney. A lay-

man could hardly be expected to answer them without digging

a deep hole for his case. Refusal to answer means that the

opposing lawyers appear in court and request dismissal on

grounds of default. Judges always grant default dismissals

as a quick method of getting rid of an obnoxious attorney

pro se.

 

Being an indefatigable writer, I answered the Interrogatories

with some eighty pages of answers, using the opportunity to

 

 

 

THE COURT AS ARENA 245

 

interpolate many events of my career to illustrate the points

I was making. This led to a further imbroglio in chambers.

This case lasted for some three years, during which the highly

paid lawyers tried every trick in their repertoire. The result

was that I received an advanced course in civil procedure

which no law school could have given me.

 

After forty years, I analyzed the process of civil procedure,

reducing it to three items which must never be ignored; 1.

Answer everything. 2. Deny everything. 3. Answer on time.

Refusal to answer any pre-trial discovery, no matter how intru-

sive it may be, is seized upon by the opponent as grounds

for dismissal, which the judge usually grants. Interrogatories,

Requests for Admission, and Depositions are the three sacred

cows of pre-trial discovery. Although I never failed to answer

them, I always filed, upon receiving demands for these proce-

dures. Motion to Quash Interrogatories, Motion to Deny Depo-

sition, and Motion to Deny Requests for Admission. This

forced the opposing attorneys (I always faced at least two,

sometimes three or four, lawyers at every session) to go before

the court and request a court order. The judge seemed mystified

by these motions from me, because pre-trial discovery is the

bread and butter of the legal profession. In every case, the

judge issued a court order that I must answer pre-trial discov-

ery. However, my motions usually postponed the sessions

for several months, adding to the steadily running meter of

opposing counsel, while my meter consisted solely of turning

on my electric typewriter.

 

I repeatedly filed objections to pre-trial discovery, pointing

out, accurately on my part, that it meant that opposing counsel

simply tries the case himself, without judge or jury being

 

 

 

246 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

present. Counsel conducts lengthy examinations under oath,

in a procedure which is designed solely to harass the other

party, put him to great expense, and hopefully, to break him

down physically to the point that he no longer realizes what

he is saying. He is then likely to make a statement which

will destroy his entire case. These are the same principles of

the Spanish Inquisition which are used by the Internal Revenue

Service and by other government agencies. You are given

the third degree until you finally confess, whether you are

wrong or not. The abuse of this procedure proves that it is a

flagrant violation of the Constitutional prohibition against bills

of attainder. The purpose of pre-trial discovery is to place

you under a court-ordered bill of attainder, so that you must

"taint" yourself, make some damaging admission, and testify

against yourself in violation of the Fifth Amendment against

self-incrimination. Ah, says the legal expert, but you are talk-

ing about civil procedure; the Fifth Amendment is only con-

cerned with criminal procedure in which a citizen accused

of a crime is protected against self-incrimination. However,

if the Fifth Amendment protects one from testifying against

oneself in a criminal charge, it is equally Constitutional that

the same protection is extended to a citizen testifying in a

civil case. The Fifth Amendment specifies that "nor shall

be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against

himself." This amendment extends a specific protection

against self-incrimination; it does not state that any citizen

shall be compelled to testify against himself in a civil action,

although its language in this instance mentions only criminal

cases.

Art. 1 sec. 10 specifically states "No State . . . shall pass

 

 

 

THE COURT AS ARENA 247

 

any Bill of Attainder," yet state judges have repeatedly, over

a period of forty years, issued orders compelling me to submit

to inquisitorial pre-trial discovery for the sole purpose of at-

tainting myself and my complaint, in a flagrant Bill of Attain-

der. The judges can do this because they are presiding over

an Admiralty Court, and the law merchant does not prohibit

bills of attainder. Under Admiralty procedure, an American

citizen has no Constitutional safeguards, hence the judges

freely granted Bills of Attainder against me. The Fourth

Amendment guarantees "The right of the people to be secure

in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreason-

able searches and seizures," yet I was repeatedly ordered to

turn over all of my personal papers, photographs, financial

records, tax forms for periods of from twenty to thirty-five

years, to the opposing counsel so that they might turn up

some damaging material to be used against me in the process

of self-incrimination. Under the law merchant, the judges

used admiralty procedure to order me to "stand and deliver,"

the time-honored phrase of the British highway robber, forcing

me to turn over my property to the bandits.

 

The three principles which I developed as "MuUins' law,"

bear some elaboration. The first, "Answer everything," means

just that. Refusal to answer means a dismissal of your case

and sanctions, both financial and penitential, will be issued

against you. However, in representing myself, I found that

opposing parties almost universally refused to answer my inter-

rogatories, or marked each question, "Not relevant"; their

attorney had previously obtained guarantees from the judge

that, because I was an attorney pro se, no sanctions would

be ordered against his client. However, this is a flagrant dodge

 

 

 

248 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

which you must never use in representing yourself, because

sanctions will be ordered against you. If you don't like the

question, such as "What is the color of your hair?", you

may answer, "Even my hairdresser doesn't know for sure,"

and expound on this at some length, going into the reasons

your grandfather left the old country, and why homesteading

has lost its appeal in recent years. The answer should be

held to less than 1500 words.

 

The second maxim, "Deny everything," is more crucial.

Few Americans are aware that our court system functions

on total duplicity. Everything in the judicial process is designed

to trick the opponent. You may see no harm in answering a

question with a straightforward answer which apparently does

not imperil your case, but the attorney will eventually use it

against you. Admit only your name.

 

The third principle, answer on time, is also part of the

legal quagmire. A day late means that you are out of your

case. Most Americans suppose that a judge will be lenient,

and allow a day late in answering. This will never happen if

you are representing yourself, although judges habitually ex-

tend all sorts of delays to their fellow attorneys. The least

error by an attorney pro se will bring the judge down against

him, dismissing his complaint. Despite the best efforts of

their secretaries, lawyers frequently fail to answer on time,

because they are by nature lazy and shiftless. In cities where

a comfortable Masonic brotherhood creates a bond between

the judge and the lawyer, such failures may result in a mild

reprimand, or none at all. Lawyers are also frequently late

in appearing to argue motions or for court appearances, and

sometimes fail to appear at all. This too is usually met with

 

 

 

THE COURT AS ARENA 249

 

mild amusement or a forgiving gesture from the judge. In

lilce instances, attorneys pro se usually have their cases dis-

missed out of hand.

 

The problem of using the designation, attorney pro se, which

the present writer has used for many years, is that it is defined

in Black's Law Dictionary as "For Himself," which could

mean that he is appearing as another person who appears

"for him self." Black's also defines it as "in person," which

seems adequate. Purists prefer the appellation "In Propria

Personae," which according to Black's, is "In one's own

proper person." In either case, you become the attorney of

record. And whichever you use, your primary problem is

not what you call yourself, but the fact that you are appearing

in an admiralty court which denies you the protection of the

Constitution.

 

The legal profession has set up generous protection standards

for one who wishes to represent himself. The Standards Relat-

ing to Trial Courts, American Bar Assn Commission on Stan-

dards of Judicial Administration, 1976, sec. 2.23. Conduct

of cases where litigant appeared without counsel. When a

litigant undertakes to represent himself, the court should take

whatever measures may be reasonable and be necessary to

insure a fair trial."

 

I have never met any judge or attorney who had read that

particular recommendation.

 

On May 27, 1977, Chief Justice Warren Burger addressed

the American Bar Association, "In the federal courts the right

of self-representation has been protected by statute since the

beginnings of our nation. Sec. 35 of the Judiciary Act of

1789, 1 Stat. 73,92, enacted by the First Congress, and signed

 

 

 

250 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

by President Washington, one day before the Fifth Amendment

was proposed, provided that in all the courts of the United

States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes,

personally, or by the assistance of counsel. The right is cur-

rently codified in 28 USC Sec. 1654."

 

The decisions of the admiralty court frequently fly in the

face of common sense, as well as law, because of the havoc

created by illogical judicial pronunciamentos whose real pur-

pose is part of the program of the hidden government. Thus

Judge Charles Wohlstetter, chairman of Contel Corp., de-

scribes the judicial breakup of American Telephone and Tele-

graph as "Probably the most stupid and damaging decision

that has ever been made in the history of business in any

country." It has been suggested that Soviet prestige was con-

stantly affected by its backward telephone system, while the

United States had the best telephone system in the world.

The judicial decision was that we must give up our smoothly

functioning telephone system because it was a "monopoly,"

and break it up into inefficient smaller units, which would

hopefully be as inefficient and backward as the Soviet telephone

system. Many dissatisfied customers believe that objective

has now been reached.

 

The Constitution plainly states. Art. 1, Sc. 10 that "No

State shall . . . pass . . . Law impairing the Obligation of

Contracts." Why was it necessary to place this prohibition

in the Constitution? To ' 'promote the general welfare' ' through

business stability. However, the liberal Holmesian school now

claims that contracts are "only words," which can mean what-

ever one wishes them to mean, and therefore cannot be upheld.

In 1968, the California Supreme Court ruled in Pacific Gas

 

 

 

THE COURT AS ARENA 251

 

& Electric vs. G. W. Thomas Dray age & Rigging that although

there was a clear indemnification provision in a contract, words

didn't settle the matter. Chief Justice Traynor rejected the

common law notion that parties must be free to negotiate

among themselves, observing that individuals can use words —

that is, contracts — ^to allocate risks and rewards, is an old

view which is "a remnant of a primitive faith in the inherent

potency and inherent meaning of words. Words, however,

do not have absolute and constant referents."

 

As a lifelong wordsmith, I use words to communicate certain

facts. In a contract, words define the obligations of the parties.

One would suppose that this would be sufficient even for an

admiralty court, but the law merchant has now embarked on

a wholly new tack, guided by Hohnesian liberalism, that mere

words do not define the provisions of a contract, because

they are pathetic remnants of primitivism. Judge Traynor actu-

ally cited, in support of his opinion, semantic and anthropologi-

cal evidence that only primitives ascribe binding meaning to

words. "E.g. 'The elaborate system of taboo and verbal prohi-

bitions in primitive groups . . . totemistic and protective names

in mediaeval Turkish and Finno-Ugrian languages; the mis-

placed verbal scruples of the Presieuses; the Swedish peasant

custom of curing sick cattle smitten by witchcraft, by making

them swallow a page torn out of the psalter and put in dough. ' '

The Wall Street Journal terms this "moonbeam legal evi-

dence." Perhaps the next step will be to make a defendant

chew up and swallow his own confession, which, after all,

is mere words. The Journal cites this decision as a dangerous

development in contract law, noting that "The Pennzoil v.

Texaco case put investors world-wide on notice that anything

 

 

 

252 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

could happen in a Texas courtroom." The problem is not

limited to Texas. The present writer has for years compared

American civil procedure to Russian roulette. You go into

the courtroom, the attorney hands you a loaded pistol after

spinning the cylinder, and you put it to your head and pull

the trigger. This is our legal system.

 

Lawyers have now come into court to obtain enormous

awards for such legal discoveries as "Post-Traumatic Stress

Disorder, which was defined in the American Psychiatric Assn

Manual in 1980, and which spawned thousands of profitable

lawsuits. It has been refined to encompass many more specific

cases of stress — ^the Battered Woman Syndrome, the Rape

Trauma Syndrome, the Child Abuse Syndrome, the Post Abor-

tion Syndrome, Oppression Artifact Disorder, which was con-

jured up for blacks as a new version of legal voodoo, and

Victimization Disorder. The American Psychiatric Assn was

lobbied successfully by the homosexual community to remove

homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual,

where it had rested for many years as a profitable basis for

recruiting clients from the gay community; it is now contained

in an independent appendix. You may have overlooked the

fact that you could be a victim of Paraphiliac Coercive Disor-

der — ^has anyone ever ordered you to do anything? See your

lawyer. The real gold mine has been found in sexual discrimina-

tion lawsuits against businesses; if you can't prove sexual

discrimination, you may have to fall back on a surefire com-

plaint — sexual harassment. When your boss smiled at you

this morning, he may actually have been laughing — ^that will

cost at least $300,000, in the hands of a good lawyer. These

stimuli to the legal imagination have come about through

 

 

 

THE COURT AS ARENA 253

 

the liberalizing of the law school curricula. Good-bye to Kent's

Commentaries and the Constitution. Coke and Blackstone have

been gone these many years. The emphasis of the curricula

now is on contract law and training in the law merchant.

More esoteric offerings include "Feminist Legal Thought"

at the highly touted University of Virginia Law School, which

graduated Robert and Teddy Kennedy, as well as Race Rela-

tions Law, and Refugee Law. The University of Georgia Law

School offers three hours of admiralty law; the law schools

generally offer extensive courses on Federal estate taxes, trusts,

and other developments of the Law Merchant State.

 

We may be forgetting the fact that the Republic of the

United States of America was founded by refugees who were

fleeing just this sort of legal dictatorship in Europe. North

European individuals who had been bom into the category

of fit and able citizens were being persecuted and killed by

the growing numbers of the unfit, who were unable to compete.

They therefore gathered together in secret conspiracies and

used their combined power to exterminate their fit competitors.

That the extermination or expulsion of the fit caused havoc

in the nation and brought ruin to the economy was less impor-

tant than the goal of promoting the survival of the unfit.

 

Seeking no revenge against their enemies, the fit migrated

to America, wishing only to escape, and, to some extent, to

proscribe the unfit from pursuing them to these shores. The

fit drew up a formula for self-government, which they called

the Constitution. This remarkable document was not merely

a prayer, in the legal sense, for protection, but a binding

resolve in which they contracted to protect themselves and

their descendants from the ferocity and the ruthlessness of

 

 

 

254 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

the unfit. A system of republican self-government was devised,

which carefully proscribed the machinations of the unfit, and

demanded the protection of the fit from this dedicated enemy.

To ensure that the unfit would never be able to use the powers

of government against the fit, the Founders drew upon the

greatest traditions of Western civilization, choosing the most

admirable provisions of Greek, Roman, and English law. They

divided the government into three compartments, to prevent

any department from establishing a dictatorial power. This

constitutional republic was divided into the legislative, the

executive and the judiciary. From the outset, the judiciary

was considered the least powerful and the least involved in

the processes of government. It existed as a potential referee

if either the executive or the legislative branches tried to wield

excessive power. Constitutionally, the judiciary was neither

expected to make law nor to execute it. This tripartite system

was designed, like the Titanic, to keep one or more compart-

ments afloat, even if one was struck by disaster.

 

The Founders sought to protect themselves against a recur-

rence of their unfortunate experiences at the hands of the

Black Nobility in Europe, which had become the champions

of the imfit in the lists; they therefore tried to limit excessive

power in the executive, making the President something of

a figm-ehead, and relying upon the more representative legisla-

tive branch to exercise restraint in governing. The result is

that we see an Imperial Congress conducting political show

trials without objection from the judiciary , whose powers seem-

ingly have been usurped. The judiciary does not object because

it has reserved truly despotic powers for itself. Are you con-

cerned about the crime, violence and dope in your child's

 

 

 

THE COURT AS ARENA 255

 

school? The judiciary will not let you do anything about it.

If citizens protest about conditions in their schools, the judi-

ciary steps in and takes control of the schools. Do you favor

public religious displays? The judiciary forbids such displays,

even though you, as an American citizen, have a direct propri-

etary right in every public area.

 

However, the true despotism of the judiciary has been

achieved by its continuous and furtive destruction of the Consti-

tution, and replacing it with the dictatorial vehicle of the

Black Nobility, the admiralty court, which was spawned by

England's chartering of the Bank of England, its worldwide

espionage empire, the Secret Intelligence Service, and by its

enormous profits from the slave and drug trades. Because

the judges no longer allow the Constitution to play a role in

their decisions, their reaction to the introduction of Constitu-

tional arguments in the courts range from derision to anger.

Some judges allow Constitutional arguments to be introduced,

knowing that they will not affect the decision. Other judges

bridle at any citation of the Constitution, as a direct affront

to the admiralty procedure of their court. The situation remains

concealed from American citizens, because the media is forbid-

den to mention Constitutional issues. Instead, we get endless

sob stories about a three-legged dog in Finland, or a paraplegic

in New Zealand who has taken up ice skating. Wallowing

in "compassion" and "caring" is now the substitute for re-

sponsible concern about the fate of our nation.

 

The tragic development of Americans who have been denied

their Constitution was achieved because the Black Nobility,

early on, noticed the Achilles Heel of our Constitutional sys-

tem, the power of judicial review. The "original intent" of

 

 

 

256 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

the Constitution was that no one branch of government could

wield totalitarian power over the other two branches, or over

the American people. This original intent was subverted by

replacing Constitutional law with the law merchant. The Jeffer-

sonian system of checks and balances enshrined in our Consti-

tution does prohibit one branch of government from dominating

the other branches. However, the law merchant allows the

judiciary to issue imperial edicts that no one, even the Presi-

dent, is "above the law." The judiciary cleverly avoids men-

tioning that "the law" to which they are referring is the

absolute decree of the law merchant, or that the federal agents

who appear on your doorstep have been sent there in flagrant

violation of the Constitution, but on direct commission by

the admiralty court.

 

This charade can succeed only as long as you, the citizen,

remain unaware of what is going on. For those who become

informed, the door is opened for them to exercise their Consti-

tutional rights as American citizens. Andrew Melechinsky

has long been active in the lists with his Constitutional Revival

Movement in Fairfield, Conn. When government goons filed

a suit against him, Melechinsky responded by an Answer

which he filed in the form of an Affidavit in the Enfield Land

Records, v. 582, p. 1036, sending a copy to his accusers.

He thus avoided giving the admiralty court jurisdiction by

appearing and entering a plea. Melechinsky filed "Notice of

Disclaimer of Unlawful Equity Jurisdiction: "The under-

signed, Andrew Melechinsky, is not under the jurisdiction

of the IRS. He has no connection with the IRS. No jury has

ever found probable cause. No jury has ever declared liability. ' '

Melechinsky then cites his person, property, books and records

 

 

 

THE COURT AS ARENA 257

 

which are private, protected and guaranteed under the Fourth

through the Tenth Amendments. He states, "I demand a court

of law (as opposed to equity), a neutral judge at law, and a

probable cause jury to decide whether or not there is cause

to bring an action against me. . . . Federal personnel in their

official capacity can be sued for damages by a person damaged

by an unlawful equity decree. This is a formal notice; govern

yourselves accordingly." Signed, Andrew Melechinsky; nota-

rized.

 

In a case where he was assaulted by a deputy, Melechinsky

filed a Jurisdictional Challenge; the judge then entered a plea

over his objections. Melechinsky then filed a REPUDIATION

OF USURPATION OF JURISDICTION AND ADDITIONAL

COUNTER COMPLAINT AND CLAIM FOR DAMAGES.

The judge dismissed it. Another judge (Noren) killed himself

after having locked Melechinsky up for exercising his right

to remain silent. If more citizens could follow Melechinsky's

example, we might see a wave of suicides among the corrupt

officials of the judiciary. Their powers can only be exercised

in the realm of darkness. Light will destroy them.

 

Andrew Melechinsky has drafted a simple change which

should be included in every state code: "Whenever there is

any variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the

common law in reference to the same matter, the rules of

the common law shall prevail."

 

Any citizen may legitimately object to granting jurisdiction

over his person to a court, because the American courts have

become the official endorsers and protectors of every type of

deviation and perversion. The New York Court of Appeals

recently ruled four to two that marriage is officially ' 'a fictitious

 

 

 

258 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

legal distinction," thus opening the door to the state sanction

of homosexual couplings, animal associations and other odd

combinations. This is the same court which a few years ago

threw out the conviction of two homosexuals for sexual acts

in a bookstore, on the grounds that because the acts occurred

in a bookstore, this was an act of "free speech" which was

protected by the Constitution!

 

Because of the Democratic majority in Congress, the com-

mittees are dominated by leftwing Democrats, not the least

of which is the Judiciary Committee. Newsweek reported on

the bias of this committee by quoting Rep. Chuck Douglas,

April 10, 1989, "I don't know if you know who Barney

Frank is, but he is one of the two members there who are

only interested in members of their own sex. That gives you

a little feel for the Conrniittee."

 

The Congressman's reference to his colleague. Rep. Barney

Frank, showed some irritation with Frank's personal back-

ground. Despite Frank's public revelling in stories about his

homosexual "orientation," he was now in his fifth term in

Congress, and had won 70% of the vote in the 1988 election

in Massachusetts' 4th District. The Associated Press on August

26, 1989, carried revelations from the Washington Times that

Frank's lover, whom he paid $80 for their first encounter,

and then $20,000 a year for his "duties," had been operating

a male prostitution ring from Frank's apartment on Capitol

Hill. The lover, using the name of "Greg Davis," had been

charged with oral sodomy, drug charges, and contributing to

the delinquency of a minor. He was also charged with posses-

sion of cocaine, the "drug of choice" for our enlightened

leaders.

 

 

 

THE COURT AS ARENA 259

 

Frank was astounded at the public interest in the revelations.

As a longtime resident of Sodom-on-the Potomac, a mecca

for those of his persuasion because of the profusion of young

sailors and Marines, he saw little merit in the story. He justified

his conduct by maintaining, during an hourlong press confer-

ence, that he "has been in a monogamous homosexual relation-

ship for about two years with a very sensible person and a

steadying influence." (without issue, of course).

 

His fellow Democratic Party member, Speaker Tom Foley,

who recently replaced Speaker Jim Wright of Texas, leaped

to Frank's defense by praising Frank's "outstanding service

to his constitutency and the nation." He prudently refrained

from explaining that Frank's service may have gone beyond

the call of duty.

 

The extreme leftwing bias of the Judiciary Committee has

an inevitable effect upon the types of decisions rendered by

the judges, who take their lead from the political stance of

the Committee. The citizen also should be aware of the differing

Constitutional origin of the courts before which they appear.

Many presentday "courts" are actually administrative law

courts set up by Congress. These are known as "Article I

courts" because they were originally territorial courts estab-

lished by Congress in the territories before they gained state-

hood. The most typical of these administrative law courts is

the Tax Court, whose judges, although acting with the powers

of a federal judge, are not and cannot be federal judges,

because they are appointed for fifteen year periods, whereas

federal judges, under Art. HI, sec. 1 of the Constitution,

hold their offices for life, unless impeached. A legitimate

court in the United States is an Article III court. An Article

 

 

 

260 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

I territorial court authorized by Congress depends entirely

upon admiralty procedure for its rulings, which means that

it functions as a branch of the Bank of England through the

London Connection (see Secrets of the Federal Reserve, by

Eustace MuUins). There is also a serious questions as to

whether Article III judges are now legitimate. Several people

have caused consternation in judicial ranks by requesting that

an Article III judge preside at their trial, that is, a judge

who functions under the Constitution, meaning that he is a

judge who qualifies under Art. IE, Sec. 1, which requires

that "the Judges . . . receive a Compensation, which shall

not be diminished during their continuance in Office. ' ' Because

all judges today have payments withheld from their salaries

for social security, insurance, tax charges and other deductions,

there is no question that these deductions "diminish the Com-

pensation' ' of the judges while they are in office. Consequently,

said judges can no longer qualify as judges under the provision

of Article III of the Constitution. Those who request a true

Article in judge at their trial are raising a problem which is

difficult to resolve.

 

Because Congress is not granted any power in Article I to

establish courts of any kind in the United States, the Tax

Court, as an Article I court, has no jurisdiction over any

American who is a citizen of a State. To prevent this and

other questions from being raised before Tax Court, the court

refuses to allow anyone to practice before it who has ever

challenged the basic premise of the income tax law. The present

writer appeared before Tax Court as attorney pro se, and the

"deficiency" was hastily resolved by a court judgment that

I had no tax deficiency. At that time, I had not been researching

 

 

 

THE COURT AS ARENA 261

 

the Article I dilemma, but should I have occasion to appear

before Tax Court again, the question will be raised.

 

During my time in Tax Court, I saw that the persons appear-

ing there were the most obvious victims of a tyrannical and

insanely greedy federal authority. There was a pathetic elderly

couple, shabbily dressed, with many grocery bags filled with

cash register receipts; a mentally retarded youth dressed in

castoff clothing, who had little concept of what was happening

to him; and a contractor who had accepted enormous bribes

in a state paving contract, not realizing that although bribery

is an omnipresent fact of life and is accepted by the government,

the government also requires that all bribes, without exception,

must be reported as income. The Criminal Investigation Divi-

sion of the IRS now had him on a greased slide to the peniten-

tiary.

 

A territorial court such as the Tax Court, which is illegally

situated in any State of the United States, illustrates the bold-

ness of the admiralty court in replacing our Constitutional

courts throughout the nation. For the past five hundred years,

Anglo-American jurisprudence has required proof of an intent

to break the law — the principle of mens rea — ^before a criminal

conviction can be obtained. As Judge James Buckley pointed

out on the Washington Court of Appeals, in reversing the

criminal conviction of President Reagan's aide, Lynn Nofziger,

on vague charges of "lobbying," prosecutors must prove both

a criminal act (actus reus) and a guilty mind (mens rea).

Despite his acquittal, Nofziger' s legal battle cost him one

and a half million dollars. Just as our Constitutional law has

been supplanted in its "original intent" by the bold tyranny

of the admiralty courts, so the necessity of proving mens

 

 

 

262 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

rea has also been tossed aside as excess baggage by the law

merchant. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson previously

called the intent requirement "as universal and persistent in

mature systems of law as belief in freedom of the human

will and a consequent ability and duty of the normal individual

to choose between good and evil."

 

Political show trials of Republican White House aides in

Washington, who are routinely convicted by black Democratic

juries, cannot establish intent, but the victims are hurriedly

legally keelhauled by admiralty procedure before they or their

attorneys realize what is happening to them. In most of these

cases, their attorneys are charging from one to three million

dollars to defend them; for that kind of money, you have to

go along with the Establishment. However, these same political

show trials have exposed aspects of the jury system as totally

unqualified to make a just decision; in any case, these trials

never had any such goal. They were conceived to make a

political point, and "justice" or its rape, was a side issue.

Dean Griswold of Harvard Law School stated, "Jury trial at

best, is an apotheosis for the amateur. Why should anyone

think that twelve persons brought in from the street, selected

in various ways for their lack of general ability, should have

any special capacity to decide controversies between persons?' '

David Peck calls jury trial "geared to the assimilation of the

unfamiliar by the inexpert." Prof. Prosser ridicules "the

twelve housewives, bakers helpers, and unemployed individu-

als we get today in the United States." In Washington's politi-

cal show trials. North, Nofziger, Deaver et al, both the judge

and the jury are expressly selected to obtain a conviction of

a political opponent. The ballot box has been transferred to

the jury room.

 

 

 

THE COURT AS ARENA 263

 

The magical number of twelve used for the jury is taken

from Kabbalistic numerology; twelve is known as a number

of completeness, as is seven. Of the twenty-two letters of

the Hebrew alphabet, twelve are definitely connected with

the twelve signs of the Zodiac. Eleven or thirteen jurors would

be more practical, as it would lessen the chance of a deadlock.

However, twelve satisfies the need to identify the judicial

process with the cult of Babylon, as well as conforming with

the importance of the number twelve in many aspects of our

existence; the twelve hour day, twelve months, twelve disciples

of Jesus, twelve Labors of Hercules, and many other usages.

Revelation states that God's mark was placed on 12,000 from

each of the twelve tribes for the number of 144,000, who

will survive to stand on Mt. Zion with the Lamb. Revelation

also describes the New Jerusalem as walled with twelve gates,

on which stand twelve angels; the wall has twelve foundation

stones with the names of the Twelve Apostles and adorned

with twelve jewels; the tree of life within the city bears twelve

kinds of fruit; the dimensions of the city are multiples of

twelve.

 

Bushell's Case, which was tried over three hundred years

ago in London, was a landmark jury case, in which the jurors

held that every person has a right to worship according to

his own conscience. It marks the birth of the modem jury

system. The importance of the jury in nullifying an arbitrary

judge has been perverted by the judge's "instructions" to

the jury. These instructions change the ancient concept of

the jury as "trial per pais," that is, trial by the country,

meaning "by the people," as distinguished from our present

system of the law merchant, which is trial by the government.

No one should ever be tried by "the government," that is,

 

 

 

264 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

by an arbitrary power, but only by one's peers, those of the

same origins, goals and ambitions as oneself. As Lysander

Spooner points out, "An Essay on the Trial by Jury," "The

object of this trial 'by the country' or by the people, in prefer-

ence to a trial by the government, is to guard against every

species of oppression by the government. In order to effect

this end, it is indispensable that the people, or 'the country,'

judge of and determine their own liberties against the govern-

ment; instead of the government's judging of and determining

its own powers over the people."

 

The judge's arbitrarily extended power to "instruct" the

jury is part of the same law merchant process which was

used to extend Article I legislative courts based in the District

of Columbia, and created by Congress' exclusive legislative

power over the District of Columbia, Art. 1, Sec. 8, CI 17,

by a secret interpretation of the commerce clause of the Consti-

tution. These legislative courts had no power to punish, but

this power was later "assumed" through admiralty procedure.

The result is that the federal courts throughout the United

States are extended District of Columbia legislative courts

which have no legal or judicial power to ' 'punish' ' any Ameri-

can citizen, or to pronounce punitive sentences upon us. Fur-

ther, they are illegally seated in the States, because the Consti-

tution, Art 1 Sec 8 CI 17, limits them to the Seat of

Government, the District of Columbia. This problem has been

"resolved" by extending the District of Columbia to encom-

pass the entire United States!

 

The courts have become the preserves of a small section

of the American legal profession, that ten per cent which

comprises the members of the American Association of Trial

 

 

 

THE COURT AS ARENA 265

 

Lawyers, which has 63,000 members of the 707,000 licensed

members of the American legal profession. These trial lawyers,

in their quest to obtain multi-million dollar fees, have created

the $300 billion a year tax on American business which Peter

Huber defines as the harvest of current tort liability, an amount

greater than our trade deficit; which allows the average worker

who wins a sex harassment or sex discrimination suit to receive

an award of $602,000, and even greater awards in wrongful

termination suits, an average award of $732,000, according

to the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 3, 1989. After ten years of

litigation, according to the Washington Post, May 9, 1989,

of suits brought by the Vietnam Veterans of America, resulted

in two million dollars in payments to veterans who charged

they were victims of dioxin poisoning, and in twenty million

dollars being paid to their lawyers! But that's impossible,

we might observe. Contingency fees are one-third of the award.

Two-thirds should go to the victim. As proposed by the lawyer,

a case taken on contingency fee does allow one third to the

lawyer, and two-thirds to the victim. However, legal expenses,

fees for appeals etc., often mean that the lawyer winds up

with ninety per cent of the award. The victim, instead of

being awarded 66% of the damages, often winds up with no

more than five or ten per cent.

 

An even more flagrant action of trial lawyers occurs when

they persuade their clients to be "magnanimous," and to

lower their expectations. Such an appeal to a client's generosity

usually occurs after the lawyer is approached by opposing

counsel, who says, ' 'Look, we haven't got a prayer of winning

this one. You're going to wipe us out. Go back and tell

your client he should be satisfied with a moral victory, and

 

 

 

266 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

forget any monetary awards." No lawyer would agree to such

an outrageous procedure unless some private allowance has

been made to spur his generosity. A stunning example of

this appeal of "magnanimity" occiured when the American

Medical Association faced disaster, after being convicted of

criminal conspiracy in an effort to maintain its illegal Medical

Monopoly throughout the United States, by trying to destroy

the competing skill of chiropractic. On Aug. 27, 1987, after

eleven years of desperate legal maneuvers, Federal Judge Susan

Getzendanmier of U.S. District Court found the AM A guilty

of conspiring to destroy the profession of chiropractic. The

AM A faced damages of hundreds of millions of dollars, which,

after conviction, could have been tripled as punitive damages.

Their lawyers persuaded the chiropractors to accept "a moral

victory," with the result that the members of this profession

are still being assessed payments of millions of dollars to

their lawyers for the lawsuit which they ' 'won' ' ! Magnanimity,

anyone?

 

In Maryland, a new court ruling is a first strike against

the "litigation lottery," stating that in the future, suits against

professionals will have to prove "actual malice" to collect

punitive damages. The ruling has no effect on actual compensa-

tory damages, but Richard P. Gilbert, chief judge of the Mary-

land Court of Special Appeals, overturned a $750,000 award

against an opthalmologist, as a new departure in the field of

medical malpractice. The court defined "actual malice" as

' * the performance of an act without legal justification or excuse ,

but with an evil or rancorous motive influenced by hate, the

purpose being to deliberately or willfully injure the plaintiff."

This is an accurate description of the FBI thirty-three year

campaign against the present writer, ("A Writ for Martyrs,"

 

 

 

THE COURT AS ARENA 267

 

by Eustace MuUins), which resulted in a fifty million dollar

judgment against the government.

 

U.S. government responsibility in another case surfaced

in the Shimoda Case (American Journal of International Law.

V. 59, 1965): An individual sued the Japanese Government

for damages sustained in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima

and Nagasaki in a suit filed Dec. 7, 1963. The District Court

of Tokyo ruled that the United States violated international

law by dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

and that the plaintiff had no grounds to recover from the

Japanese government. Article 19 of the Peace Treaty with

Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nationals against

the Allied Powers and other nations arising out of the war

or out of actions taken because of the existence of the war.

The Japanese Government also cited its diplomatic protest

to the United States in a formal note presented through the

Swiss Government August 10, 1945, in which the attacks

were ruled "a new offense against the civilization of man-

kind." It described the aerial bombardment of the cities of

Hiroshima and Nagasaki as an illegal act of hostilities and

the indiscriminate bombing of undefended cities, further citing

the prohibition against poison gas as outlawing such attacks —

Art. 23, Hague Regulations Respecting Land Warfare 1899,

and General Protocol 1925. Recovery by any Japanese citizen

was unlikely under the principle of fait accompli; it happened.

Despite the fact that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and

Nagasaki actually happened, it was a lawful reality which

after the fact could only be treated as a legal fiction, history

being essentially fantasy, as contrasted to the real present

and the unimaginable future.

 

Because of the emphasis on the court as a Roman arena

 

 

 

268 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

for political show trials, the court as a place where criminals

are brought to the bar of justice to atone for their crimes has

faded into insignificance. On Jan. 5, 1986, the New York

Times reprinted an editorial from 1983 on the New York

Criminal Court, headlined "The Crime of the Criminal Court. ' '

"Rarely has any public institution been held in such open

contempt by those who work in it and those who pass through

it. Judges call it a sham and a fraud. Lawyers say that justice

is unpredictable. Only one in one hundred cases are tried."

This ratio does not apply to the number of political offenders

who are tried, convicted and sentenced. This ratio is one

hundred of one hundred. The process is mercilessly pilloried

in a recent book, "RAILROAD: U.S.A. Vs. LYNDON LA-

ROUCHE ET AL." LaRouche's crime was that he sought the

presidency of the United States four times as an independent

political candidate, in a "bipartisan" nation which allows

only two political parties, each with the same program of

Marxist oppression and worldwide revolution. LaRouche was

brought before Chief Judge Albert Bryan Jr. U.S. District

Court for the Eastern District, whose treatment of political

offenders earned his court the nickname of "the Rocket

Docket." The Washington Post headlined on Nov. 20, 1988,

"LaRouche Trial Expected to be Speedy; Alexandria's Rocket

Docket Federal Court." LaRouche called the court, "the only

railroad in the United States which runs on time." At a secret

meeting in his Alexandria office, in the autumn of 1988, U.S.

prosecutor Henry Hudson described the Bryan court as "our

window of opportunity," and "our last chance to get La-

Rouche." It is gospel that it takes from three to five years to

get a case through our over-burdened court system, yet La-

 

 

 

THE COURT AS ARENA 269

 

Rouche was indicted Oct. 14, 1988, and pronounced guilty

Dec. 16, 1988! The case originated with a letter from Henry

Kissinger to FBI director William Webster (the defendant in

the present writer's suit against the FBI) Aug. 19, 1982, "sug-

gesting" it was time to do something about LaRouche. Kis-

singer controlled the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory

Board, which gave the LaRouche strike force official White

House backing . Senator Robert Dole remarked of the "conspir-

acy" charge which the secret task force brought against La-

Rouche. "Conspiracy? That's what they do when they can't

get you on anything else."

 

LaRouche responded to the indictment by listing the federal

and state agencies which had sworn to get him: the FBI; the

U.S. Secret Service; the IRS; U.S. Attorney for the Eastern

Dist. of Va.; U.S. Postal Service; BATE; Va. Atty Gen.

office; State Police of Va.; Va State Corp. Commission; the

Virginia-Israel Commission. Anyone who has all those agen-

cies against him couldn't be all bad. William Weld and Henry

Kissinger had set up a special government task force, The

General Litigation and Legal Advisory Section of the Criminal

Division, Justice Dept. to finish off LaRouche. He was quickly

tried and sentenced. Judge Bryan virtuously noting at his sen-

tencing, "this idea that this is a politically inspired, politically

motivated prosecution, that is errant nonsense."

 

One could only admire Judge Bryan's ability to say this

with a straight face. LaRouche has never been anything but

a political figure; he has never been a tobacconist or a social

worker. During the proceedings, Jan. 19, 1989, Judge Bryan

stated that any information asked of jurors by the defense

would be "badgering." Mr. Webster, defense attorney, re-

 

 

 

270 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

plied, "I would prefer a different term, Your Honor." BRYAN.

I know. That's my term. It's not yoiu« or the governments."

The idea that any defense attorney would ' 'badger' ' a prospec-

tive juror who would later rule on the innocence or guilt of

his client itself was ridiculous. Judge Bryan had a long record

of anti-LaRouche activity, having previously participated in

the shutdown and seizure of LaRouche publications, and later

denying a motion which appealed a secret ex parte proceeding

and the fact that the U.S. government (read Kissinger) had

exercised prior restraint against a publishing company in viola-

tion of the First Amendment. Bryan denied the motion.

 

LaRouche appealed Judge Bryan's sentence in Case No.

89-5518 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit,

citing numerous violations of constitutional rights, interference

with the process of jury selection, and many other violations.

The appeal cited the principle of law, "Difficilem oportet

aurem habere ad crimina; In a court of law, one must not

descend to listen to slander." This is a fundamental Principle

of Legality. The appeals cited LaRouche 's conviction on

charges of failure to repay loans, "a fact which occurred

and which no parties in this case try to deny, is not a criminal

act in itself." The loans were political loans, which legally

are different from business loans, loans for educational pur-

poses etc. In any case, the federal agents made it impossible

for LaRouche to keep track of or repay the loans because

they seized millions of documents in a raid on his headquarters

in Leesburg, Va. , Oct. 6, 1986.

 

Because of his geographic location, LaRouche was forced

to appeal to the notorious 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (which

denied an appeal from the present writer on grounds so incredi-

 

 

 

THE COURT AS ARENA 271

 

ble it was obvious that no member of the court had even

glanced at the pleadings). LaRouche faced an additional prob-

lem with the 4th Circuit; Judge Bryan's father, Albert V.

Bryan Sr. was himself a judge on the 4th Circuit Court from

1961 until his death in 1984, and the court had maintained a

record of rarely overturning any rulings of the present Judge

Bryan. ' 'The Circuit Court is known to be extremely protective

of Albert Jr. and 'the rocket docket.' "

 

Representing oneself in court, as this writer has now done

for some four decades, is a heady experience. It allows one

to choose at will from the entire repertoire of legal strategy,

without fear or favor. Strangely enough, strategy is a word

rarely used in the legal profession, because its members prefer

the devious techniques of conspiracy and treachery. I once

asked a former ' 'richest man in the world' ' who was embroiled

in a legal battle, "What is your strategy?" He was puzzled

by the question. Could anyone believe that Napoleon had no

strategy in his succession of lightning like victories throughout

Europe? He began to lose when he tempered his military

genius with political considerations. Waterloo was not far

off.

 

Once a litigant has dredged his way through the quagmire

of pretrial discovery, there are a number of strategies available.

If a defendant, you file "Motion to Dismiss." If a plaintiff,

you file a Motion for Summary Judgment. These motions

are pro forma, and rarely succeed, but they give you another

turn at bat. Counter-claims are always good, as well as a

lawsuit filed against opposing counsel. These suits need little

preparation. One need only look over the file of the case

and note all the illegal acts which the counsel has perpetrated

 

 

 

272 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

against you. Some of my consultants advise filing suits against

the judge; it is noteworthy that all persons known to me who

regularly urge me to do this have themselves never filed a

suit against a judge. There is no risk of turning him against

you; he is already against you. The problem is that such a

suit opens the door for punitive actions of contempt, remanding

to jail or whatever he may trump up to get you out of his

courtroom and into confinement.

 

Court demeanour is important, although it will not win

you any friends there; nothing can do that. You should be

well-spoken, well-dressed, and unflappable. Almost every

judge I have appeared before has done his best to goad me

into some outburst, by actions so flagrantly prejudiced that

most plaintiffs would have to react. Because you are surrounded

by armed men, any gesture which might be interpreted as

"violent" would bring an inevitable response. On one occa-

sion, I wore a large Masonic ring, which I had picked up at

an auction in a madhouse, and flaunted it before the judge

at every opportunity. It made not the slightest difference; they

know who is a Mason and who is not.

 

In an address to the American Bar Association in 1940,

John W. Davis, a distinguished jurist, stated the ten principles

for court argument:

 

1 . Change places in your mind with the court.

 

2. State the nature of the case, and a brief history.

 

3. State the facts.

 

4. State next the applicable rules of law on which you rely.

 

5. Always go "for the jugular vein."

 

6. Rejoice when the court asks a question.

 

 

 

THE COURT AS ARENA 273

 

7. Read sparingly and only from necessity.

 

8. Avoid personalities.

 

9. Know your record from cover to cover.

10. Sit down.

 

Lawyers rarely lose an opportunity to create chaos in interna-

tional affairs — ^the career of the late John Foster Dulles is

ample witness to that. The Nation noted on Feb. 6, 1989 a

new development, "revolution by litigation," as evidenced

by the action of a Washington wheeler dealer, William Rogers,

of Arnold and Porter (formerly Arnold, Fortas and Porter).

In ongoing efforts of Washington insiders to unseat Noriega

in Panama, who had somehow been transformed from a partner

in government drug operations to a competitor, Rogers gave

Noriega's political opponent, and apparent President of Pan-

ama, Eric Delvalle, control of some fifty million dollars of

Panamaniam assets in the U.S. The Justice Office of Foreign

Registration notes that Arnold and Porter received $450,517

in fees for ten weeks of work for Delvalle 's shadow govern-

ment, and could receive millions more. The Nation noted

that this could make Rogers the highest paid revolutionary

in history.

 

As part of a supposed campaign against organized crime.

Congress passed the RICO statute in 1970. The bill was in-

tended to "wipe out" organized crime by charging it under

the sweeping provisions of the new Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organization, or RICO law. In some unexplained

manner, the enforcement of the statute somehow overlooked

organized crime altogether. Those charged under the RICO

statute were legitimate businessmen, who quite often had ne-

 

 

 

274 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

glected to make the right political contributions. In short,

RICO, instead of punishing the Mafia for its extortion racket,

went after businessmen who had refused to yield to extortion

from Congress. Chief Justice William Rehnquist spoke to

the Brookings Institution April 7, 1989, noting that RICO

was the basis for nearly one thousand cases a year. "Civil

RICO is now being used in ways that Congress never intended

when it enacted the statute. The time has arrived for Congress

to enact amendments to civil RICO to limit its scope."

 

However, the Supreme Court, when a RICO case was re-

cently appealed there, refused in its ruling to limit RICO in

any way. Its punitive measures, such as triple damages and

fines, have been used to put many American businesses into

bankruptcy. No relief is in sight.

 

Another lucrative field before the courts is libel action.

Yet the Wall Street Journal noted in an op-ed piece, July

13, 1989, that what most litigants in libel actions wanted

was not monetary payment, but public vindication. A three

year study by the University of Iowa, begun in 1982, found

that only one-fourth of libel litigants were after monetary

awards. Three-fourths said they would have been satisfied if

the allegedly false story had been corrected. Two factors inter-

vened; first, the unbridled arrogance and wealth of the media —

so sue me; and second, the fact that most libel plaintiffs are

represented by attorneys on contingency fee. A retraction or

public apology would net these lawyers nothing. Consequently,

they refuse to arbitrate, or to offer the offending publication

a chance to settle by an apology. The Journal conmiented

on "the influence of lawyers, whose interests may not be

congruent with those of their clients." This is such a basic

 

 

 

THE COURT AS ARENA 275

 

fact of our legal system that it is amazing that anyone should

have to mention it. Of course the interests of the lawyer are

not congruent with those of his client. The American public's

refusal to acknowledge this inescapable fact of life lies at

the bottom of most of our problems with the legal profession.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 7

 

 

 

The Department of

Justice

 

 

 

Most Americans believe that they have in Washington a

superior bulwark of their liberties, not above the Constitution,

but existing to bring the Constitution to life in prosecuting

violations of their freedoms. This bulwark is known as the

Department of Justice. Unfortunately for our comfortable sup-

position, the Department of Justice exists, and was created,

not as a bulwark of justice for the citizens of America, but

as an instrumentality by which political crimes could be com-

mitted against us.

 

Congress created the Department of Justice in 1870, almost

a century after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

The century prior to the creation of the Department of Justice

was a period of unparalleled growth and prosperity for the

American nation. The century since its creation has been a

period of steady decline. How did this happen? America inau-

gurated its existence as the land of opportunity, the land of

 

 

 

276

 

 

 

THE DEPARTME^r^ OF JUSTICE 277

 

freedom, and the land of justice. Of the three, justice was

always the most unattainable, but it existed, in however warped

or inadequate a fashion. After 1 870, the activities of the Depart-

ment of Justice served to remove the possibility of obtaining

justice in the courts permanently beyond the reach of most

Americans. This does not mean that justice could not be had.

It was always there for the fortunate few, for those who had

created the Department of Justice and who subsequently bene-

fited from its creation.

 

The Department of Justice, by its very nature, has no perma-

nent bias or prejudice in its mode of operation. It exists solely

to serve its creators and directors, the PIPs, or Party in Power,

which is also known as the Perverts in Power, because of

their propensity for perverting every aspect of American exis-

tence. Although all government departments in Washington

are permanently tainted by political opportunism, the Depart-

ment of Justice is the most reprehensible, because it is adver-

tised as the final arbiter of our problems . Of all the departments ,

the Department of Justice is the most flagrant prostitute, boldly

advertising that she will do anything for her pimps.

 

The present writer has advised the Department of Justice

routinely over the past thirty years of serious criminal acts

committed and which fall directly within the purlieu of this

department. Because these letters are sent Registered with

Return Receipt required, the department has regularly an-

swered these notifications, and as regularly has refused to

take any action. Reported violations of civil rights are met

with the identical Department of Justice response, usually in

a sneering tone, that I should hire myself a private attorney,

if I really think that my rights have been violated. Notifications

 

 

 

278 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

of routine theft, using the mails to defraud, and conspiracy

to defraud, all amply documented, have been met with the

same response, that I should hire a private lawyer. This is

the same Department of Justice which recently spent some

forty million dollars to determine how Col. Oliver North paid

for a couple of tires!

 

When I wrote to Mr. Oliver (Buck) Revell in 1986 (the

current acting director of the FBI) complaining of continuous

violations of my copyright on my book, "Secrets of the Federal

Reserve," I received a response dated May 28, 1986 that

"the FBI pursues criminal investigations and prosecutions

of copyright matters generally in the areas of sound recordings,

motion pictures and audiovisual works). ... the FBI will

not institute a criminal investigation relative to this matter."

 

Few people know that the vast resources of the FBI for

years have been diverted to protecting the profits of a few

Hollywood film moguls, who are also among the largest donors

of political funds to national campaigns. FBI resources are

confined to stopping unauthorized copies of these moguls'

films and records. Faced with the refusal of the FBI to act

in this matter, I went into state court, and later into federal

court, with several lawsuits against violators of my copyrights.

In each instance, the judge intervened actively on behalf of

the defendant, and my complaints were consigned to the waste-

basket.

 

The overt activity of the Department of Justice on behalf

of the political powers that be is proof that the five thousand

lawyers there do work to earn their salaries. When not carrying

out humiliating errands for party bosses, they may be found

conspiring with the dread KGB to commit atrocities against

 

 

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 279

 

American citizens, or indulging in their favorite pastime, vol-

unteering to cany out hatchet jobs against critics of the State

of Israel.

 

From one point of view, the Department of Justice may

be acting to protect the public. One shudders to think what

the effect might be if its five thousand lawyers were suddenly

discharged and unleashed upon an imsuspecting public. The

consequences would be calamitous, and could bring on the

total collapse of the nation. A visitor to these hallowed halls

complained that the marijuana smoke was so thick in one

office that he couldn't see to read his brief. For some decades,

the Department of Justice has been the first stop out of law

school for arrogant young graduates from Harvard, Columbia

and Yale. Typical was the revelation, at the height of the

Watergate imbroglio, that one young Department of Justice

lawyer had become quite popular at parties in Washington

and New York. In return for supplies of Acapulco gold, he

was playing the supersecret Watergate tapes at liberal yuppy

parties, and was the hit of the circuit. The episode was a

one day source of gossip, and was quickly forgotten.

 

Since the advent of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, the

Department of Justice has been unrelentingly "liberal" in

its bias. The long parade of Republican White House advisers

convicted and sent to prison reflects not only the power of

the Democratic Congress, but the overwhelming prejudice

of the Department's attorneys. Like the Supreme Court, the

Department of Justice can be said to have read the election

returns, but its interpretations of them occurs on a much lower

and more petty level. The dedication of department officials

to statism, more aptly known as Marxism, has never been a

 

 

 

280 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

secret in Washington. However, in recent years, there have

been rumors of two conflicting philosophies of government

in the Department of Justice. In fact, the most active rivalry

and longtime opposition of two fanatical sects has now come

to roost in the halls of Justice. In 1933, with the sudden

dominance of the Stalinist wing of the Communist Party,

assuming absolute direction of the Democratic Party, govern-

ment officials vied with each other in exhibiting their newfound

loyalty. Large posters of Lenin and Stalin were placed in

offices and homes of prominent officials; the Internationale

was routinely sung at weekend parties hosted by these officials,

and earnest students could be seen poring over the latest edition

of Stalin's speeches from International Publishers. However,

these were mere tokens of a fanatical loyalty. These officials

were not token Communists; they were actively engaged in

espionage activities in our halls of government. Members of

the notorious Harold Ware cell, presided over by Felix Frank-

furter and his ubiquitous proteges, who were known as his

"Happy Hot Dogs," were named to key roles in the depart-

ments of government. Longtime government employees, who

had served ably and well at very low salaries, were now

shunted to the background, irreversibly tainted as ' 'good Amer-

icans." Few of these unlucky ones could even boast a foreign

accent.

 

The Stalinists remained firmly in control of the Democratic

Party for many decades. Meanwhile, a rival group had been

headquartered in the United States, the followers of Leon

Trotsky, who were committed to "world revolution now."

They bitterly opposed the Stalinists, who echoed Stalin's dic-

tum of "Socialism in one country," that is, Russia, although

 

 

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 281

 

a purer form of Communism had now been established on

the banks of the Potomac, perhaps the only genuine Communist

government which has ever existed anywhere. In 1940, Stalin,

fearing Trotsky's divisive influence on the brink of world

war, had him hacked to death in Mexico City. The Trotskyites

now had a martyr, and a cause worthy of continuing financial

support by the various Rockefeller tax exempt foundations.

The Trotskyites finally came to rest under the aegis of the

League for Industrial Democracy, a shadow name for the

old Socialist Workers Party, the Trotskyite movement in Amer-

ica.

 

Firmly committed to the principles of Marxism and Trotsky's

doctrine of world revolution now, the League for Industrial

Democracy began to infiltrate conservative American groups.

After 1948, the LID became the nesting place for the most

fervent Israeli propagandists in the United States. First advertis-

ing themselves as ' 'neo-conservatives, ' ' they gradually became

more militant and virulently anti-Stalinist. In 1980, with the

election of Ronald Reagan as President, the LID, masquerading

behind its vocal contacts in the Hoover Institute at Stanford

University, seized control of the Reagan Administration.

Reagan unwittingly found himself playing the Hollywood role

of General Custer, completely surrounded by the Indians at

the Little Big Horn, while his few remaining genuinely conser-

vative supporters were chopped down. The Trotskyites now

had total power in the White House. They wrote virulent

speeches for Reagan to deliver, denouncing the Moscow re-

gime as the Evil Empire, and threatening to avenge the death

of Trotsky by an allout war against the Soviets.

 

The realities of international politics forced them to tone

 

 

 

282 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

down these toxins, but they continued to develop "anti-Com-

munist" regimes in Latin America. After the Goldwater elec-

tion fiasco, the "neocons," the Trotskyites who now consid-

ered Tel Aviv as their Kremlin, moved into control of the

Republican Party by default, as the Eastern control, the tradi-

tional Wall Street direction of the Republicans, floundered

under the uncertain leadership of Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller.

 

In Nicaragua, the "neocons" found their golden opportu-

nity. For decades, Nicaragua had been the playground of such

banking houses as J & W Seligman Co., and Brown Bros,

(now Brown Bros. Harriman, the family firm of President

George Bush). The Nicaraguan dictator. Gen. Alberto Somoza,

invited some Israeli entrepreneurs into his country, in the

hopes of quick profits. They made millions for him, but abused

the people so mercilessly that a reaction took place. The Sandi-

nistas, a Stalinist Communist group, seized power, exiled

Somoza, whom they subsequently murdered, and seized the

Israeli enterprises. The Israelis began to finance an opposition

movement, called the "contras."

 

When Reagan came into the White House in 1980, the

"neocons" sought U.S. financing for the contra movement,

in the hopes of recapturing the Israeli businesses in Nicaragua.

However, the Democratic Congress, still firmly committed

to the support of Stalinist Communism throughout the world,

refused to allow U.S. support of the contras. An impasse

developed which has paralyzed the American government for

almost a decade. The Kissinger "neocons," led by his personal

proteges, John Poindexter and Oliver North, and supervised

by Elliott Abrams of the Dept. of State, (son-in-law of the

Israeli powers. Midge Decter and Norm Podhoretz of Commen-

 

 

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 283

 

taiy , the agitprop publication of the American Jewish Commit-

tee, sought to finance the contras through tax-exempt dona-

tions. Congress then forbade contra support by the Boland

Amendments.

 

To punish those who supported the contras, Congress sought

to take over the executive branch of government. The tradi-

tional system of checks and balances was thrown overboard,

as Congress appointed "Special Prosecutors" to crucify North

and other scapegoats of the "neocons." Even trials, the tradi-

tional purlieu of the executive department, were taken over,

as Congress staged spectacular televised Moscow show trials

of its victims, such as North, in the grand tradition of Josef

Stalin. The American public, totally bemused by the spectacle

of two wings of the Communist Party battling to the death

in Washington like insane pit bulls, was never informed by

the servile press, which was now largely under alien domina-

tion, about the true nature of the struggle. Meanwhile, the

economy, the national borders, the environment, the military,

and other responsibilities of the national government, were

abandoned, leaving the nation to flounder and then to sink

into total disarray.

 

Another expensive and well publicized Department of Jus-

tice operation has been its mad pursuit of "Nazi war crimi-

nals," almost a half century after the event, a campaign whose

equivalent would be the indictment of Soviet officials of the

present regime for mass murders committed during the purges

of the 1930s by Stalin. Although these alleged "crimes" took

place outside of American jurisdiction, the law merchant prin-

ciples of our legal system allowed the U.S. government to

take action against persons who later became American citi-

 

 

 

284 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

zens. Justice set up the Office of Special Investigations, which

acted as the U.S. office of the KGB, and also worked closely

with Mossad, Israeli Intelligence, to manufacture "evidence"

against several elderly American citizens who were claimed

to have been "guards" in German concentration camps nearly

fifty years ago. Many millions of dollars was expended by

OSI to have these elderly victims deported and executed.

One of the principals of OSI was Nate Lewine, who mysteri-

ously became the compulsory lawyer of choice for Republican

White House executives accused of "influence peddling" and

other offenses.

 

Nate Lewine began his lucrative career at the Department

of Justice as a top operative of the "Get Hoffa" squad at

the Department (this may have been the cause of John F.

Kennedy's assassination). He is a former room mate of Philip

Heymann, President Carter's director of the Criminal Division

at the Department of Justice, and now at Harvard Law School.

Walter Sheridan, chief of the "Get Hoffa" squad, was the

dirty tricks mentor of the operation. This group leaped to

the defense of Stephen Bryen after he was accused of passing

vital defense secrets to Mossad. Bryen is now on the staff

his longtime associate, Asst. Secretary of Defense Richard

Perle. The vicious assault on John Tower when he was nomi-

nated as Secretary of Defense was masterminded by the Mossad

group at Defense; they feared that he might balk at their

continued espionage on behalf of Israel. The notorious Office

of Special Investigations had been organized at the behest of

Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, abetted by Heymann

and Lewine. It was set up specifically as a dirty tricks unit

of Mossad and the KGB , operating in deep cover at the Depart-

 

 

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 285

 

ttient of Justice. Lewine's clients usually went to jail after

paying him millions of dollars. He first defended Congressman

George Hansen, who was charged with failure to properly

fill out ethics reporting forms. His real offense was that he

had gone to Iran to try to free American hostages, thus invading

the sacred preserves of the Middle East, which had long been

the property of Mossad and Israeli politicians. Hansen paid

Lewin one million dollars to be sent to federal prison, where

his treatment was so brutal that 258 Congressmen petitioned

the Bureau of Prisons to alleviate his suffering. Millions of

Americans deluged Reagan with demands that Hansen be pa-

roled; all of their requests were thrown into the wastebasket

at the White House by the sneering "neocons" who held

Reagan captive.

 

Michael Deaver, Reagan's closest confidant, was the next

victim. Lewine charged him three million dollars. Deaver

was convicted. Americans have shown little reaction to the

procession of Moscow show trials which have been held in

Washington since the Watergate episode, "the scandal of the

century," in which a Democratic office was burglarized by

Republican henchmen. White Republican White House execu-

tives have been tried by black Democratic juries, and convicted

in every instance, the latest being Oliver North. This is not

racism on the part of the juries, as much as it is the "Moscow

process," in which Democratic Stalinists are sworn to convict

Republican Trotskyite neocons, no matter what the charges

or the evidence against them. This mockery of the judicial

process is typical of the "law merchant" court system, which

functions solely on power and money. No legal standards

need apply.

 

 

 

286 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

The Office of Special Investigations evolved into a small

conspiratorial group of fanatics who assumed control of all

Department of Justice operations. This group was known as

"Nesher," the Hebrew word for "eagle." Its origins may

be found in a book by John J. Dziak, historian of the Defense

Intelligence Agency, "Chekisty: A History of the KGB."

Dziak exposes a worldwide espionage and assassination bureau

run by the KGB through Dr. Max Eitington, a close personal

associate of Sigmund Freud. It was Eitington who brought

the use of psychiatry and drugs into international espionage.

He also prepared the documents for the 1937 secret trial,

which resulted in the nine top generals of the Soviet Army

being executed. These documents were later revealed to have

been prepared by Hitler's Gestapo. Eitington had cooperated

fully with Reinhard Heydrich to prepare this "evidence,"

with the same techniques which were later employed by the

U.S. Department of Justice to use fake evidence from the

KGB to have American citizens deported and executed by

OSI.

 

Among the many murders arranged by Max Eitington was

the murder of Trotsky's son, Leon Sedov, in a Paris hospital;

Rudolf Kleist, a German Trotskyite whose decapitated body

was found in the Seine; and Walter Krivitsky, a KGB defector

who was murdered in a Washington hotel only a few feet

from the halls of Congress. Eitington' s brother ran the foreign

espionage operations of the KGB, the expenses being paid

by the income from the Soviet Fur Trust. Max Eitington set

up the Berlin Psychiatric Institute, whose graduates later came

to the U.S. to establish branches of the Tavistock Institute

(the British Army Dept. of Psychological Warfare operation),

 

 

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 287

 

which has systematically brainwashed officials of the major

U.S. foundations and educational institutions.

 

The Eitington group, known as the Killerati, pioneered in

the use of drugs and psychiatry in espionage coups. Its tech-

niques became the basis of the British Secret Intelligence Ser-

vice and its subsidiary, the Central Intelligence Agency. The

Department of Justice takeover by Nesher, the spawn of this

unholy group, provided a happy meeting ground for the ostensi-

bly hostile forces of the KGB and Mossad. Provided with

unlimited funds by the American taxpayer, they were enabled

to carry out their sinister worldwide campaigns of systematic

murder and destruction in every nation of the world. Nesher

financed hit teams to assassinate Palestinians who were cooper-

ating with the U.S. government, thereby ensuring the continu-

ance of chaos, on which Israel feeds, throughout the Middle

East, and resulted in the taking of U.S. hostages, not as retalia-

tion against the U.S., but as protection against further assassi-

nation attempts by Mossad. Nesher ousted Duvalier in Haiti,

creating widespread chaos and suffering in that nation. Mean-

while, Nesher' s principle operative in the U.S. government,

Jonathan Pollard, was busily securing thousands of pages of

vital U.S. documents for his Israeli employers, in order to

assure further economic chaos and foreign diplomatic catastro-

phes for our nation. Pollard operated under the aegis of Under

Secretary of Defense Fred Ikle, whose Swiss connection is

now involved in a vast scandal. Dde's two principal aides

were also prominent in Nesher operations, Richard Perle and

Stephen Bryen. They set up another front group, JINSA, the

Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, as a cover for

their furtive operations, working closely with Moscow Procura-

 

 

 

288 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

tor and Soviet Attorney Natalya Kaleznikova, and the master-

mind of the Irangate affair, David Kimche, the director of

Mossad, who was Pollard's controller. The Pollard coverup

was led by Dep. Atty Gen. Arnold Bums and Nate Lewin

of Nesher. Bums's law firm handled the books for the Lansky

Syndicate operation through Sterling National Bank. Bums

set up fifteen illegal tax shelters through Israeli connections,

which criminally evaded some forty million dollars in taxes.

An investigation into Bums' operations was stopped by DJ's

head of the Criminal Division, William Weld, of the Wall

Street banking family whose control of the Bank of Boston

funnelled payments to Pollard for his espionage operations.

The background of the Nesher group was found to originate

in the Swiss espionage and banking interests, one of whose

proctors, Tibor Rosenbaum, had financed the Israeli conquest

of Palestine. Swiss law enforcement was headed by Elizabeth

Ikle Kopp, cousin of Assistant Secretary of Defense Fred

Ikle. She was married to Hans Kopp, who headed a billion

dollar holding company for espionage groups operating world-

wide, the Shakarchi Trading Co. Shakarchi handles enormous

sums for CIA, Mossad and other espionage operations. Ten

million dollars of Iran Contra proceeds from the illegal sale

of Arms to Iran was first deposited in the Chase Manhattan

Bank in New York by Arab wheeler dealer Adnan Kashoggi;

the money was then transferred to credit Suisse, and later

laundered by Shakarchi executives. This money paid for the

delivery of 1000 TOW missiles to the CIA, for clandestine

delivery to Iranian terrorists. As a result of investigations

into the Iran Contra dealings, both Kopp and his wife are

now under investigation, while Kashoggi languishes in a Swiss

 

 

 

THE DEPARTME^fT OF JUSTICE 289

 

prison. The case is expected to uncover interesting corollaries

between the international drug cartel, international espionage,

and Israeli intelligence.

 

The Department of Justice was formerly headed by Ronald

Reagan's friend, Edwin Meese III, who publicly denounced

the American Civil Liberties Union. Meese was hounded from

office, and forced to hire Nate Lewin as his personal attorney

to defend him against a host of charges, none of which were

ever proved. Meese was then replaced by a Republican from

the Eastern Liberal Establishment, Dick Thomburgh, former

Governor of Pennsylvania. Thomburgh had formerly been a

director of the ACLU! He now heads some 77,000 employees

at the Department of Justice, and has announced his intention

to dismantle fourteen regional strike forces against organized

crime. Under Meese, the personnel of the Department of Justice

had grown by 34%, while its achievements dwindled to the

point of invisibility . Thomburgh had developed a cozy relation-

ship with the Merrill Lynch stockbroking firm while Governor

of Pennsylvania; his largest expenditure was the authorization

of an $807 million bond issue to improve the rapidly decaying

Pennsylvania Turnpike. He later became a director of Merrill

Lynch at a salary of $35,000 a year. Merrill Lynch' s former

chairman, Donald Regan, was President Reagan's chief of

staff in the White House.

 

The Department of Justice continues to offer a spiritual

home to personages who could be most generously described

as "kooks." The Washington Post of March 11, 1989 re-

counted the strange tale of federal prosecutor Judy Russell,

who had been widely hailed as "one of the most promising

young attomeys in the United States." She faked death threats

 

 

 

290 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

against herself, and was diagnosed as schizophrenic, "with

four distinct personalities." She was found not guilty of ob-

structing justice "by reason of insanity."

 

The FBI continued to offer money to a host of odd personali-

ties. A wellknown member of Richmond, Virginia's City

Council, Henry Richardson, had pleaded guilty in February

1988 to the possession of dangerous drugs and drug parapherna-

lia. He was fined fifty dollars, and received a contract from

the FBI to finger other drug users in the city government.

His attorney, Michael Morchower, reported in an AP release,

April 29, 1989, that "Richardson may have flimflammed the

FBI out of six thousand dollars . . . Mr. Richardson sent

the FBI on a wild goose chase that with information that

had no value."

 

Richardson later admitted his heroin addiction, and was

being dunned for ten thousand dollars for his "cure" in a

local institution.

 

Attorney General Dick Thomburgh, who had been chosen

for this cabinet post by President George Bush, promises to

take the Department of Justice on a new, and even more

liberal, tack. When we remember that George Bush cam-

paigned actively against the ACLU (his opponent, Michael

Dukkakis, boasted that he had long been a member of the

ACLU) throughout his presidential campaign, it becomes more

puzzling that as soon as he ascended to the White House,

Bush immediately chose for his most sensitive Cabinet Post

a director of the ACLU.

 

Thomburgh then announced his most crucial appointment,

the selection of his Deputy Attorney General. He named Robert

Fiske Jr., a choice which caused cries of rage to emanate

 

 

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 291

 

from most Republican conservatives. Fiske had long been

notorious as the liberal agent of the American Bar Association

from 1984 to 1987. As the dominant member of the ABA

"screening committee," Fiske had passed on to the most

vociferous liberal activist organizations the names of prospec-

tive judicial nominees during his years of "screening." These

activists then dug up the entire history of each nominee, care-

fully scrutinizing it for any sign of pro-Americanism. Those

who had failed to make ritual obeisance to the nation's most

powerful behind the scenes liberal forces had their names

tossed into the wastebasket. Only those with tried and true

liberal records were given the ABA's recommendation for

nomination. The result was that the nation's judicial system

became loaded with judges whose personal history embraced

drugs, sexual "liberation," and who openly espoused the

most violent principles of virulent leftwing organizations.

 

The ABA screening process was not as important during

the administration of Democratic Presidents. Jimmy Carter

was notorious for the liberal activists, some three hundred

judges, whom he stacked in the nation's courts. However,

during Republican Administrations, the ABA screening pro-

cess was crucial to the Stalinist Democrats as the means to

subvert and stall Republican programs. Judges who were sus-

pected of being "conservative" encountered a phalanx of

opposition in the ABA screening conrniittee.

 

In 1985, Fiske was forced to admit that he had indeed

sent the names of Reagan's prospective nominees for conserva-

tive judicial posts to such wellknown liberal activists as the

Alliance for Justice Judicial Selection Project, to determine

if the nominees had any provable record of "bias" towards

 

 

 

292 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

women or minorities. The result was that Reagan's nominees

encountered months of stalling, open animosity, and in many

cases, denial of their nomination for judgeships. When Thorn-

burgh nominated Fiske as his Deputy Attorney General, it

was seen by Washington insiders as a payoff to a saboteur

for his career as a notorious wrecker, destroying Reagan's

chances of nominating a more conservative judicial bench.

Fiske, whose mother was a Seymour, of a prominent Wall

Street family, had become a partner in the prestigious Wall

Street firm of Davis Polk and Wardwell. One of Washington's

most respected legal observers, Paul Kamenar of the Washing-

ton Legal Foundation, described Fiske as "basically a liberal

type milieu. Wall Street lawyer, country club type Republi-

can."

 

Although the previous Attorney General, Edwin Meese HI,

had left office under a cloud, having become involved in the

notorious Wedtech scandal with the State of Israel, he may

be vindicated when one looks at the record of his successor,

Dick Thomburgh. A Yale graduate and longtime personal

friend of President George Bush, Thomburgh is also a protege

of Don Regan, President Reagan's former White House Chief

of Staff and head of the giant stockbroking firm, Merrill Lynch.

Thomburgh not only became a dkector of Merrill Lynch; he

also is a director of the giant scandal ridden drag store chain.

Rite Aid Corporation. The scion of the Rite Aid family, Martin

Grass, was arrested in Room 158 at Cleveland's Sheraton

Airport Hotel. Prosecutors had seized him as he was in the

act of handing a $33,000 check to Melvin Wilcyznski, a voting

member of the state pharmacy board. In return, Mr. Wilczysnki

had signed an undated letter of resignation from the pharmacy

 

 

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 293

 

board. The entire incident was videotaped by prosecutors,

who had also recorded four prior telephone conversations be-

tween Grass, former executive vice president of Rite Aid,

who had been recently named president of the firm, and Wilc-

zynski. The news of the arrest caused Rite Aid stock to tumble

$1,875 per share, down to $34.75. Rite Aid is the nation's

largest drug store chain, with 2270 stores and 28,000 employ-

ees. It owns 65 auto parts stores, ADAP, and a 40 store

chain of retail bookstores, Encore. It also owns a dry cleaning

chain, Begley Corp., of which Martin Grass is director.

 

Rite Aid's overweening interest in the Ohio State Board

of Pharmacy was due to its acquisition of 162 Gray Drug

Fair stores in 1987. Rite Aid has 349 stores in Ohio. Members

of the State Board of Pharmacy had fined Rite Aid fifty thou-

sand dollars on January 1989, for allowing nonpharmacy em-

ployees access to prescription drugs. The board had previously

refused to allow Rite Aid a grace period to correct the many

drug security problems which were endemic in its stores.

The Wall Street Journal account of the affair, an extensive

one, stated that Martin Grass had planned to submit Mr. Wilc-

zynski's resignation to Governor Richard J. Celeste, who,

as Grass told Wilczynski, had agreed to appoint pharmacists

chosen by Rite Aid to fill future vacancies on the state pharmacy

board. Prosecutors alleged that Rite Aid was attempting to

stop the pharmacy board from proceeding with enforcement

actions against it. Investigators had learned that the Grass

plan, to which Celeste was claimed to be a party, was to

replace three members of the pharmacy board with Rite Aid

supporters, and to oust the board's executive director. Ninety

of the Gray Drug Fair stores acquired by Rite Aid had been

 

 

 

294 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

raided in a two day period and charged with not having proper

security alarm systems, as well as other violations.

 

In New York state. Rite Aid had become involved in another

imbroglio when the firm's vice president for governmental

affairs and trade relations threatened to boycott the New York

State Employees Prescription Plan, when new rates were pro-

posed in 1986. The Federal Trade Commission then charged

Rite Aid with illegally forcing an increased reimbursement

rate on prescriptions, a move which subsequently cost New

York State an added seven million dollars in charges.

 

A wellknown Wall Street drug chain analyst noted that

"Marty wanted to show his father that he could handle anything

which came up during his presidency. At this rate, he will

never be named president of the Federation of Jewish Philan-

thropies (a position carrying great personal prestige in the

community) . ' ' The analyst was referring to the record of Marty

Grass's father, Alex Grass, a Miami lawyer who had married

into the hierarchy of Rite Aid stores. He married Lois Lehrman

(the Lehrman family are the chief stockholders in Rite Aid).

Grass later became chief operating officer of the giant drug

firm, leading to his zooming to a prominent role in community

philanthropies. He is currently listed as chairman of the United

Jewish Appeal, the Israel Endowment Fund, the Jewish Federa-

tion, the Jewish Agency for Israel, and the Israel Center for

Social and Economic Studies. He is the brother-in-law of

the wellknown neoconservative, Lewis Lehrman, who led in

the purchase of the Republican Party by wealthy neoconserva-

tives in 1980. While he was still president of Rite Aid stores,

Lehrman ran for Governor of New York, breaking all spending

records in his campaign, which was unsuccessful. Although

 

 

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 295

 

his campaign of loyalists assured him that ' 'A Jewish candidate

can't lose in New York," he insisted on spending seven million

dollars for TV ads, while his successful opponent, Cuomo,

spent only one and a half million. Cuomo 's campaign workers

had also assured him that he could not lose, telling him that

"A Roman Catholic Italian can't lose in New York." When

the votes were counted, they were right.

 

Lehrman then promoted himself as an arch conservative,

endowing his own "rightwing thinktank," which he modestly

named "the Lewis Lehrman Institute." Lehrman is also a

chief financial backer of such wellknown "conservative"

groups as the Heritage Foundation, which is led by a British

Fabian Socialist, and the American Enterprise Institute, both

of which are Rockefeller sponsored agitprop operations mas-

querading as "rightwing political groups."

 

Lehrman had ah-eady won some recognition (principally

through his favorite magazine, the National Review), as the

ideological genius behind President Reagan's famous "supply

side revolution." Lehrman was also an ardent advocate of

the "goldbug" principles of the French economist, Jacques

Rueff. Lehrman then became the mentor of a former liberal,

David Stockman, who had switched sides when the Republi-

cans gained the ascendancy. When Stockman and his cohort.

Jack Kemp (now Bush's cabinet choice as head of the giant

Health Education and Welfare boondoggle in Washington)

published a controversial report early in the Reagan administra-

tion warning of "an approaching economic Dunkirk," it was

common knowledge in Washington that they had merely pla-

giarized an earlier Lehrman Report reaching the same con-

clusion.

 

 

 

296 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

In 1977, Lewis Lehrman placed three million dollars of

his rapidly burgeoning personal fortune into the Lehrman Insti-

tute, which he installed in a luxurious Manhattan townhouse.

When Lehrman announced his intention of running for the

Governorship of New York, the Lehrman family stock in

Rite Aid was worth $92 million, of which Lewis Lehrman 's

share was $60 million. During his campaign, the stock in-

creased in value by ten points, reaching a high of 40 on the

exchange. Wall Street analysts apparently believed that the

Rite Aid firm would benefit financially by having its principal

stockholder in the Governor's seat. In fact, Lehrman spent

some ten million during his campaign, while his stock holdings

m Rite Aid increased by $15 million, meaning that he had

realized a tidy increase of $5 million in his personal fortune

by seeking public office. This was a unique twist to the usual

pattern of events in the United States political domain, whereby

poor farmboys dedicate themselves to a life of public service

and wind up with fifty million dollars worth of corporate

stock, as did the late Lyndon Baines Johnson.

 

Lewis Lehrman had long been one of a very small group

of gods in William Buckley's pantheon, routinely eulogized

in the pages of the CIA agitprop sheet, the National Review;

Lehrman's companions in this strange pantheon were Sir James

Goldsmith, a relative and partner of the Rothschilds of Europe;

Bill Casey, director of the CIA; Jeane Kirkpatrick, known

as "Miss Israel" of the Washington set; and Milton Friedman,

the tireless spokesman of the Rothschilds' Viennese School

of Economics. These gods were known collectively as the

"neocons," intellectual slang for "neoconservatives," who

were well represented on the board of directors of the Trotskyite

priesthood in the United States, the Rockefeller financed

 

 

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 297

 

League for Industrial Democracy, the old Socialist Workers

Party (Valhalla of the martyred Leon Trotsky, a victim of

Stalin's insatiable urge to kill). The Rockefeller fascination

with Trotsky dated back to the heady days of 1917, when

old John D. himself saw Trotsky off to spark the Bolshevik

Revolution in Russia. John D. charitably stuffed ten thousand

dollars into Trotsky's pocket as he embarked on his career

of world revolution, a startling departure from Rockefeller's

standard gift of one dime to those of whom he approved.

 

Despite Lehrman's image as a loser, which was compounded

by his aura of great wealth, and his habit of buying those

whom he wished to impress, the pages of the National Review

sparkled with tributes to Lehrman's great deeds in peddling

aspirin to the public. William Buckley also has a daily newspa-

per column, in which he rolled out his big guns to support

Lehrman's candidacy (Oct. 26, 1982), praising Lehrman as

"a briUiant public servant' ' who was also ' 'prominent in Jewish

affairs." Lehrman later discovered that hardly anyone in New

York read Buckley's outpourings, which may explain why

he lost.

 

Frustrated in his drive for the governorship of New York,

which would bring the coveted White House into view, as

witness the strange career of Franklin Delano Roosevelt,

Lehrman threw his money and influence behind the political

career of Jack Kemp, who proved as difficult to sell to the

American public as Lehrman himself. National Review de-

scribed Kemp as "the political fugleman of the Lew Lehrman

economic school." Despite Lehrman's influential backing.

Jack Kemps' quest for the Presidency, along with Lehrman's

other political ambitions, sank without a trace.

 

Lehrman's fortune originated with his grandfather, an itiner-

 

 

 

298 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

ant peddler whose principal stock, as his grandson was fond

of recalling, consisted of shoelaces and sugar. The grandfather

finally accumulated enough cash to open a small grocery store,

which, as so often happens in our climate of creating wealth,

became a large wholesale grocery chain. When the accoun-

tants' reports showed that the profits from drugs far exceeded

the much smaller retiuns on meat and potatoes, the elder

Lehrman went into the retail drug business. After the millions

had piled up, his grandson. Lew, was able to marry a Protes-

tant, Louise Stillman, a member of New York's most presti-

gious banking family, and the historic bankers (National City

Bank, now Citibank) of Rockefeller's billions of income from

Standard Oil, the world's most successful monopoly. Two

of the Stillman daughters had married into the Rockefeller

family, which brought Lew Lehrman into the family's golden

aura. As a student at Harvard, Lew Lehrman was awarded a

Carnegie teaching fellowship and a Woodrow Wilson fellow-

ship. It has long been a truism in the more august Ivy League

establishments that great family wealth should not be consid-

ered a deterrent to a student receiving fellowships, even though

the donors may have originally intended them for needy schol-

ars.

 

Alex Grass, the Miami lawyer who married Lew's sister,

was also prospering with Rite Aid. The political campaign

which increased Lew's fortune by some twenty per cent had

a corresponding effect on Alex and his wife Lois' holdings.

However, Alex Grass became oppressed by growing envy

and dislike of his more famous brother-in-law, a situation

which was deftly profiled by writer Michael Kramer in New

York Magazine. Grass promptly filed a $24 million defamation

 

 

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 299

 

suit against New York, of which nothing has been heard in

recent years. Kramer noted in New York's issue of April 5,

1982, from lengthy discussions with Rite Aid executives, that

"Alex has always been jealous of Lew." There had been

considerable infighting within the firm for years, as Alex and

Lew each battled to support his claims that he and he alone

had been responsible for the phenomenal growth of Rite Aid

and its burgeoning profits. No mean publicist himself, Alex

Grass had chosen to promote himself through inmiersion in

Jewish affairs, finally achieving the most desired position in

Jewish philanthropy, when he was named national chairman

of the United Jewish Appeal. Lehrman continued to devote

himself to "public affairs," hiring Robert F. Kennedy's dy-

namic speechwriter, Adam Walinsky, to draft his pronunci-

amentoes. The rivaky between the relatives finally subsided

when Lehrman withdrew from active participation in the firm,

and Alex was able to name his son as president. Insiders

believe that it was the Grasses' frantic determination to "show

up" Lew which led to Marty's involvement in the Ohio bribery

scandal. As previously noted, the deep involvement of the

new Attorney General with the scandals of Rite Aid raises

serious questions as to the motives of President Bush's drive

for a "kindler and gentler America," but not necessarily a

more honest one.

 

In addition to Thomburgh, other directors of the Rite Aid

firm are Richard Kogan, president of the drug firm Schering

Plough, a three billion dollar operation. Kogan also has the

requisite London connection, being a director of one of En-

gland's Big Five banks. National Westminster, which provided

the most recent choice to head the Bank of England. Kogan' s

 

 

 

300 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

fellow directors at Schering Plough include William A.

Schreyer, chainnan of Merrill Lynch; Harold McGraw, chair-

man of the business pubUshing giant, McGraw Hill; Virginia

Dwyer, director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York,

Eaton Corp., Georgia Power, and the Southern Company,

which has been much in the news recently; and James Wood,

chairman of A&P Co.

 

Federal agencies have shown no curiosity as to whether

Kogan's position as head of one of the nation's largest drug

manufacturers poses a conflict of interest with his position

as director of the nation's largest retail drug operation. Other

directors of Rite Aid are Leonard Stem, Philip Neivert, Henry

Taub and Gerald Tsai Jr. Formerly known as the Boy Wonder

of Wall Street, Tsai is now chairman of the holding company,

Primerica, which owns the Wall Street investment firm. Smith

Barney Co., and Continental Life, as well as Fingerhut, a

textile firm grossing $800 million a year. Directors of Primerica

include Washington's most famous wheeler dealer, Joseph

Califano Jr. , known as the highest priced lawyer-lobbyist in

Washington, and former Secretary of Health, Education and

Welfare, the world's largest boondoggle. Charles Hugel is

also director of Primerica; he is chairman of Combustion Engi-

neering Co., one of the nation's most fervent proponents of

"trade with Soviet Russia" and USTEC, the secretive "busi-

nessman's organization' ' which is desperately trying to salvage

the collapsing economy of the Soviet Union, all expenses to

be paid by the American taxpayer, and to rescue the Leninist-

Marxist philosophy of government from well-deserved obliv-

ion. Califano serves with Hugel on the board of Combustion

Engineering. Hugel is also chairman of RJR Nabisco, director

 

 

 

THE DEPARTME^r^ OF JUSTICE 301

 

of Pitney Bowes, and director of the Eaton Corp. , the creation

of the late Cyrus Eaton, a protege of John D. Rockefeller

who became famous for his connections to the Soviet KGB

through his sponsorship of the mysterious "Pugwash Confer-

ences," and who was advertised for years in the American

press as "the nation's most pro-Communist financier."

 

The final director of the present Rite Aid Corp. to attract

our attention is Henry Taub, chairman of the giant Automatic

Data Processing Corp. ($1.38 billion a year). The firm's fi-

nances are handled by Manufacturers Hanover Bank in New

York, the Rothschild Bank, according to littleknown Congres-

sional hearings. Its directors include Alan Greenspan, a director

of J. P. Morgan Co., who is now in charge of the nation's

monetary system as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board

of Governors; Joseph Califano, previously mentioned; Lau-

rence Tisch, the tycoon who swallowed the CBS media giant;

and Frederick Malek, known as one of the pillars of the fallen

Nixon Administration.

 

Although Rite Aid's officers and directors have many historic

connections with the fate of the embattled Middle East country ,

Israel, none are more prominent than Henry Taub. He is a

director of American Technion, which provides funds for Isra-

el's burgeoning science industry; the Bank Leumi Trust, which

financed the takeover of Palestine from the Arabs through

Tibor Rosenbaum of Switzerland and points west, and other

Jewish agencies. A former director of Rite Aid, and protege

of the Lehrman political drive, is Maxwell Rabb, the grey

eminence of the Eisenhower Administration, who for many

years has represented "American" interests as the United

States Ambassador to Italy. Another prominent Washington

 

 

 

302 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

wheeler dealer who interlocks with Rite Aid is H. Guyford

Stever, director of Schering-Plough, who has held many impor-

tant government posts in such agencies as NASA, the National

Science Foundation, president of Carnegie-Mellon University,

chairman of the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Joint Committee for Science

and Technology, board of governors of the Israel Science

Foundation, and director of the giant defense contractor, TRW

Corp. Stever is a member of the exclusive Cosmos Club of

Washington, and the famed Bohemian Club of California,

where the elite meet to plan their personal goals for the great

American future.

 

The sinister combination of banking and legal interests ex-

posed in these connections has been itemized in great detail

in this writer's book, "THE WORLD ORDER." Confirmation

of its conclusions are to be found in the dramatic show trials

held in Washington in recent years, in which persons suspected

of "conservativism" were deliberately pilloried by the devo-

tees of One World, the historic liberal political movement.

To protect themselves in the courts, these special interests

have gone to great lengths to ensure that the cases would be

heard by judges who were proven to be sympathetic to their

hidden goals. The instrumentality has been an agency of which

few Americans have ever heard, the American Bar Associa-

tion's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. This rela-

tively unknown group, elected by no one, has exercised a

virtual veto power over judicial nominees for many years,

confining its approval to those prospective judges with an

extensive record of service to its largely unpronounced but

wellknown and well understood goals. An editorial in the

Wall Street Journal of March 22, 1989 noted that "Politics

 

 

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 303

 

disguised as objective evaluation characterized the ABA's

quasi-official role in judicial selection during the Reagan

years." The Washington Legal Foundation, a public interest

group, is now suing the ABA, because the Standing Committee

refused to give this conservative foundation information on

nominees which it had willingly shared with leftwing groups.

The standing conunittee has maintained its principles of closed

deliberations and secretive voting, much like its preceptor,

the secretive Federal Board Reserve Board of Governors. The

WLF lawsuit was based on the ABA's well established record

of sending information on prospective judicial nominees to

the NAACP, People for the American Way, the ACLU, and

other prominent liberal operations, while steadfastly denying

this information to conservative groups such as the WLF.

The ABA process ensured the nomination of liberal activist

judges which now plague the American bench, and which

represent the rape of justice for most Americans who do not

fall into that category. The Washington Legal Foundation

maintained that "the investigations have been conducted and

are continuing to be conducted in such a way as to penalize

or discredit candidates who hold or profess conservative princi-

ples or ideology, and to delay or prevent their nomination

by the President."

 

In response, the ABA maintains that it only investigates

"the judicial temperament" of nominees, but fails to explain

why it only sends the names of prospective judicial candidates

to leftwing organizations. ABA committee member Stewart

Dunnings has testified that they wanted to confine judicial

selection to candidates who had an affirmative action commit-

ment. Susan Liss, director of the People for the American

 

 

 

304 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Way, revealed that it was routine for the ABA to give the

names of potential candidates to the Alliance for Justice, an

umbrella group of civil rights organizations such as the NAACP

and ACLU. This practice allowed these groups to mount an

offensive against prospective candidates long before their

names had reached the President, or before conservative groups

could defend them. Sen. Orrin Hatch described this process

as follows: "It exercises a virtual veto over our judicial nomi-

nees." Sen. Gordon Humphrey also has forcefully objected

to the sinister behind the scenes operation of the ABA, stating

to the Senate Judiciary Committee that ' 'the system is a mould-

ering, corrupt, malodorous old relic which should be given

a quick burial for the sake of public health." Sen. Humphrey

then wrote a letter to President Bush complaining that during

Robert Fiske's tenure as chairman of the ABA Standing Com-

mittee, "there is evidence that committee evaluations were

tainted with ideological bias against conservative nominees

selected by President Reagan. ' ' He stated that Fiske had leaked

the names of prospective nominees to activist liberal groups

which could target them for reprisal even before their names

had been announced to the public. Despite these protests,

Atty. Gen. Thomburgh announced on June 2, 1989 that his

choice of Fiske as his Deputy Atty. Gen. still stood, and

that he intended to continue to send the names of prospective

judicial nominees to the ABA Standing Conmiittee. Thom-

burgh claimed that the committee had promised to change

its liberal bias, whereupon the committee members promptly

retorted that they had not changed and had no intention of

changing their methods of approving judicial candidates. They

continued to deny that religious or philosophical stands of

 

 

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 305

 

candidates afifected their conditions of approval, despite the

fact that the Wall Street Journal editorial page gave consider-

able space to the protest of Arthur Schwab on April 11, 1989,

that the ABA had blocked his judicial appointment for religious

and political reasons, mainly because he was a practicing

Christian. He submitted a 20 page recitation of his complaint

concerning a three year "investigation" of his candidacy by

the ABA. His nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals

in Pennsylvania was withdrawn by President Reagan, because

he could not win approval by the ABA. The committee member

assigned to question him, Jerome Shestack, is known as one

of the most liberal of the 15 man Standing Committee. He

pointedly asked Schwab why his children went to a Christian

school, even though the ABA claims they do not take religious

affiliation into account in approving prospective nominees.

Shestack was also a director of the far-left Lawyers Committee

for Civil Rights Under Law, and served on a Joe Biden for

President Committee, even while the ABA was masterminding

the Biden Judiciary Committee assault on Robert Bork.

 

The determination of the World Order to prevent the selec-

tion of any judicial appointee who was not committed to their

sinister international program has not only been a rape of

justice; it has been the handmaiden of the rape of the entire

American people. The consequences of this campaign are

now raging in Washington, in what is being called "a feeding

frenzy," as conservatives take their revenge for the outrages

committed against their candidates during the past thirty years

by the ABA Standing Conunittee on the Federal Judiciary.

The liberal conspiracy against conservative candidates reached

its apogee in the Moscow show hearings on the candidacy

 

 

 

306 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

of Judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court, followed by

the widely leaked ABA report on his nominal successor, Judge

Douglas Ginsberg, who was said to have smoked a marijuana

cigarette some years earlier. The greatly over-extended Bork

Hearings caused a breakdown of Americans' confidence in

the processes of government, which was reflected in the 500

point drop in the stock market in the October 1987 Crash.

This was followed by the prosecution of Congressman George

Hansen on charges of "ethics violations," charges which were

based on the fact that he had not entered some items on the

proper line, iat a time when most Congressmen admitted they

did not know how to properly fill out the newly required

forms. Hansen, a Republican, and a Mormon from a Western

State, Idaho, was pilloried because he had long been an outspo-

ken critic of brutal abuses by agents of the Internal Revenue

Service against American citizens, and because he had inter-

fered in the politics of the Middle East. Because Hansen had

flown to Iran to try to secure the release of American hostages,

and thereby imperilled a billion dollar operation of the Chase

Manhattan Bank, he was chosen for crucifixion. None other

than Nate Lewin, of the Department of Justice infamous Office

of Special Investigations was hired to defend Hansen. Lewin

charged Hansen a million dollars to defend him; Hansen was

duly convicted on orders of Mossad for having dared to barge

into the sewer of Middle Eastern political conspiracy, where

he was not wanted. He served every day of his sentence, in

the most brutal of the federal prisons, at Petersburg, Va.,

despite pleas from 258 Congressmen that he be released on

parole. He was judged "too dangerous" to the minions of

 

 

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 307

 

the World Order to be allowed early parole, despite the fact

that the court records showed he had not profited from the

alleged "violations."

 

The brutal treatment meted out to Congressman Hansen

alerted some Congressmen to the fact that they had to fight

back or be destroyed. They now went after the most notorious

of the wheeler dealers in Washington, the Democratic Speaker

of the House, James Wright. Wright was one of the most

dedicated leftwingers in Congress, and had upheld the Stalinist

war against the Trotskyite Republican effort to aid the Contra

movement in Nicaragua. A list of 69 ethical violations was

drawn up against Wright, although the Wall Street Journal

stated that the original list had numbered 116, but had been

cut almost in half by those who wished to protect Wright

from the consequences of his own actions. At the height of

the investigation, Wright was further compromised by a family

matter. His personal protege, John Mack, whose brother had

married Wright's daughter, was found to have received ex-

tremely favorable treatment after conunitting one of the Wash-

ington area's most shocking crimes. In 1973, Mack had lured

a twenty year old girl into the back room of a discount store

where he was employed. He seized a hammer and smashed

in her skull with repeated blows, exposing her brain in five

areas. He then stabbed her five times in the breast near her

heart, leaving part of her heart exposed, and then slashed

her repeatedly across the throat. He then carried the body of

his victim, Pamela Small, to her car, and drove her to a

remote area, where he left her for dead. Amazingly enough,

she revived some eight hours later, and drove to an Exxon

 

 

 

308 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

station, where she persuaded the attendant to get her to a

hospital. She then underwent seven hours of surgery; her left

lung had collapsed and her heart required extensive repair.

Mack was subsequently arrested, and powerful influences

swung into effect to defend him. He was merely charged

with "malicious wounding," and received a 15 year sentence.

Instead of being sent to state prison, he served his time in

the county jail, where he worked as a cook. Congressman

Wright had written to the judge, offering Mack a job even

before he was sentenced. With this opportunity awaiting him.

Mack was released after 27 months. Wright obtained a job

for him in the Congressional mail room at $9000 a year (the

present writer earned a mere $1500 a year as a deck attendant

at the Library of Congress, but had no Congressional patron).

As Wright's influence grew, so did that of his protege. John

Mack became the executive director of the Democratic Steering

and Policy Committee, and was described by reporters as

the most influential Congressional staff administrator on Capi-

tol Hill. However, Mack's victim continued to live and work

in the Washington area. Several years ago in 1987, Wright's

office summoned the leading newspapermen in Washington,

the Capitol Hill reporters for the Washington Post, the New

York Times, and the Wall Street Journal, for a consultation

on the Mack affair. The goal was to prevent an approaching

firestorm about the Small assault. These reporters, including

the CBS representative, agreed that it was "an old story,"

and that it had no foreseeable interest. The reporters now

admit that "they blew it." What seems more likely is that

they had the opportunity to curry favor with the most powerful

politician on Capitol Hill, Jim Wright, who was third in line

 

 

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 309

 

for the presidency of the United States, and that they did it

the Washington way.

 

When the story broke in the Washington Post on May 4,

1989, the usual efforts at ' 'damage control' ' were taken. Wright

issued a statement to the press that he was not "told the

details of the crime," apparently giving the impression that

he thought Mack had been charged with jaywalking. Wright's

statement praised Mack as "an exemplary and truly inspiring

person . . . outstanding . . . remarkable capacity for intellec-

tual growth. ' ' Other Democratic leaders joined Wright in effu-

sive praise for Mack's accomplishments. His wife was serving

as executive assistant to Congressman Mavroules, a leading

Democrat. In fact, Mack had exhibited the highest qualities

for political activity, an instinct for the jugular, blood lust,

and capacity for direct action such as cold blooded attempted

murder. This writer has repeatedly lectured on the element

of criminality in those who seek political office; Mack now

verified the strongest statements on the matter. In the face

of the Democratic chorus of praise for this remarkable human

being, stories of other acts committed by Mack surfaced.

The Democratic phalanx of defenders was shaken by the defec-

tion of several radical feminists, who were alarmed by the

fact that Mack had never apologized for his acts, or sought

to make any restitution to his victim — she had taken care of

her own hospital expenses. Congress woman Pat Schroeder

and other women on Capitol Hill expressed their unease at

having to deal with Mack in their political lives, and because

Mack's defense of his actions had been that he had been

under "stress" (Washington traffic is indeed very stressful),

Schroeder publicly showed concern that he might again be

 

 

 

310 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

overtaken by "stress" while she was in his office discussing

Democratic Party policies of which he was the final arbiter.

In the face of these protests, Wright suggested to Mack that

he had better resign, a decision which was motivated by the

fact that Wright was now battling for his own political survival.

Mack's departure did little to help him, and Wright finally

announced his own resignation. The Associated Press noted

that he received a standing ovation from his colleagues in

the House.

 

Another leading Democratic liberal. Congressman Tony Co-

elho, then announced that he was resigning as Democratic

Party whip, and leaving politics. He found it difficult to explain

his association with the junk bond king, Michael Milken,

who earned $500 million last year, and who apparently tried

to share the wealth by cutting Coelho in on a deal or two.

The Post revealed that Congressman Tommy Robinson had

a 22 year old model on his staff, who was being paid $60,000

a year. He owed her father $100,000, (Jerry Jones, a wealthy

oilman who owns the Dallas Cowboys).

 

The Republican National Committee, in commenting on

Coelho's inmiinent departure, responded to Coelho's spirited

defense of John Mack, who happened to be his business part-

ner, that it was the second time that Coelho had come to the

defense of a man convicted of an attack on a woman. This

was followed by an apology from the Committee, after being

informed that the first time Coelho had defended a man con-

victed of an attack, it had been on a boy, not on a woman.

Such are the pitfalls of describing the public sewers of Wash-

ington.

 

Although the press delicately refrained from dwelling upon

the details of Coelho's intervention on behalf of a convicted

 

 

 

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 311

 

felon, the New Republic, in its issue of June 12, 1989, noted

that the Congressman had not only intervened on behalf of

his business partner and personal political confidante, John

Paul Mack, but also on behalf of David Weichert. Weichert

was the son of John Weichert, a 1982 Coelho campaign con-

tributor who had donated several thousand dollars to the cause

of Coelho. He now asked Coelho to intervene on behalf of

his son, who was about to be sentenced for the crime of

first degree murder. This crime was brutal enough to be com-

pared to the Mack assault. Weichert had kidnapped, tortured

and killed a retarded youth because he feared the youth might

testify against him in a burglary case. Weichert choked the

youth, then stabbed him, beat him furiously with a baseball

bat, and forced him to dig his own grave. According to the

account of his accomplice, he threw the youth into the grave

while he was still alive, seized the shovel and threw in the

earth, burying his victim alive. Coelho immediately went to

bat for the murderer, contacting the judge, and giving him

to understand that as an influential Washington politician,

he had a deep concern over this case. The judge apologetically

informed Coelho that he could do very little about the sentence,

as conviction for this crime now carried a mandatory sentence

of life in prison.

 

In the wake of Wright's resignation, columnist R. Enmiett

Tyrell Jr. noted that one of Wright's aides had been imprisoned

for tax evasion, while Wright's press aide and righthand man

in dealing with the media, George Man:, had written a titillating

work in 1982, titled "The Sex Book Digest: A Peek Between

the Covers of 113 of the most Erotic, Exotic and Edifying

Sex Books."

 

The Democratic Party had maintained control of the House

 

 

 

312 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

of Representatives with the coalition welded by Franklin De-

lano Roosevelt in the early 1930s with the able assistance of

Bella Moscowitz, a leading New York Communist organizer.

This was a consensus of Communists, blacks, the Mafia, and

various other special interest groups, which exercised iron

control over the corrupt political machines of the nation's

largest cities. Although this weird coalition could control the

House, it could not deliver a Presidential majority, resulting

in a Republican Administration held at bay by an activist

and fanatical Communist and Zionist Democratic alUance.

Paralyzed by this impasse, the nation sank into deeper disarray,

its assets being stripped by a horde of eager aliens, while

the infrastructure built at such cost and effort by previous

generations rotted into oblivion, seemingly beyond repair.

 

Alarmed Democratic leaders, with the blood of Robert Bork,

John Tower and other Presidential appointees on their hands,

now shrieked that the "feeding frenzy" must end, that the

departure of Wright, Mack and Coelho should have satisfied

those who mourned the ritual slaughter of George Hansen,

Robert Bork and John Tower at the hands of a fanatical Stalinist

Democratic Congressional hit team. However, Republican

leaders noted that they still had long lists of other Democratic

stalwarts with even longer lists of ethical and financial viola-

tions. Despite the rape of justice, the struggle goes on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 8

 

Durance Vile

 

 

 

Our present custom of confining criminals in expensive

prisons is a costly relic of humanist thought. It can be traced

back to the Renaissance period in Italy. In the classical worid

of Greece and Rome, society protected itself by killing or

exiling criminals, or persons who presented a clear and present

danger to society. The purpose was to remove a threat to

the common weal. With the rebirth of humanist influence on

society, a Phoenix-like revival of a cult which had been feared

and hated by society since the blood thirsty rites of Baal

and Ashtoreth, some five thousand years earlier (see THE

CURSE OF CANAAN by Eustace MuUins), came the "com-

passionate" pretext of preserving and coddling the criminal

element. The thought of maintaining such a threat in perpetuity

would have seemed the height of insanity to classical thinkers,

who evolved the cultural basis of our civilization. During

the Middle Ages, wielders of power built huge castles, for-

tresses where they could defend themselves against their ene-

mies. Deep within the bowels of these castles, dungeons were

 

313

 

 

 

314 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

built for the incarceration of enemies whose sudden death

might have unleashed dangerous forces; claimants to power

or religious martyrs who , for various reasons , might be allowed

to live for many years, but whose imprisonment itself consti-

tuted a living death.

 

With the growing infiltration of the Black Nobility into

the European monarchy, the aristocracy was persuaded that

the imprisonment of criminals could serve as a deterrent and

a warning to others who posed a threat to society. The most

famous prisons resulting from this concept were the Tower

of London, and the Bastille in Paris. The Tower of London

became the home of many prominent political offenders, in-

cluding Sir Edward Coke. In France, the Bastille held a curious

mix of hardened criminals and political offenders. The libera-

tion of a total of seven prisoners in the Bastille on July 14,

1789, which is now the French national holiday corresponding

to our Fourth of July, resulted in the freeing of four professional

forgers, one libertine who had been imprisoned at the insistence

of his exasperated family, and two limatics. One of the lunatics

was then carried through the streets by a cheering crowd.

He believed that he was Julius Caesar, and that Rome had

once again become the center of the world. The only casualty

of the liberation was the warden, who was dragged out into

the street and torn to pieces by the mob. Four days earlier,

the warden had insisted upon the release of the Bastille's

most famous prisoner, the Marquis de Sade, who had continu-

ously floated notes from the window to the street below de-

manding that he be freed. "Bastille Day" not only celebrates

the triumph of lunacy and sadism, but also the triumph of

the Masonic conspiracy over the French monarchy. Some

 

 

 

DURANCE VILE 315

 

sixty years earlier, the rise of the House of Hanover in London

had installed Freemasonry in England under the royal patron-

age.

 

Early nineteenth century reformers such as Jeremy Bentham,

the protege of the East India Company, and William Godwin,

whose daughter wrote "Frankenstein," invented the intellec-

tual foundation of a fantasy structure which was called a ' 'cor-

rectional" system. The term "prison" was deemed too calum-

niating; henceforth, "prisoners" would be known as "victims

of society" who must be "corrected" and imbued with "cor-

rect" social attitudes. Instead of society being protected from

criminals, it was now the criminals who were to be cosseted

and cared for while they prepared for the day of their revenge

upon society. The heirs to the Cult of Baal, the humanists,

claimed that "bad environment" created the criminal class.

The removal of the criminal from this unfortunate situation,

to a prison where he could be cared for, would "correct"

his criminal tendencies. The humanists then developed a new

social science, penology, which like all the misconceptions

spawned by this new wave, psychology, civics, and social

welfare, gradually merged to form a huge modem combine

or trust, nurtured by the tax-exempt humanist foundations.

Penology began with the praise- worthy efforts of a few consci-

entious persons to alleviate the harsh conditions of prisoners

in the early 1800s. Remember that life was harsh for most

Americans at that time, and it was unlikely that prisons would

be maintained with better living conditions than those enjoyed

by the average pioneer. Conditions were slowly improved,

but by the turn of the century, prisons had become part of

the overall bureaucracy, which meant that they were part of

 

 

 

316 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

the spoils system, graft, and political influence. Like insane

asylums and other government institutions, prisons were turned

into gold mines of graft for those fortunate enough to wield

political power, most of the funds appropriated for the feeding

and care of prisoners being pocketed by those who had mastered

the democratic process. Faced with the difficulties of influenc-

ing the bureaucracy, the humanists began to develop new

methodologies in their campaign for prison reform. Their first

discovery was that no human being should ever be incarcerated.

This was hardly a revolutionary thought — ^it had been the

precept of the founders of classical civilization. The humanists

began to implement their goal of emptying the prisons by

formulas for work release, early parole, and family furloughs

for prisoners. The problem was that these techniques resulted

in a dramatic increase in crime, and caused the prisons to

become more overcrowded than ever. The humanists also

developed programs of intensive psychotherapy for those pris-

oners who were not yet eligible for the release program. The

released prisoners, most of whom were recidivists, or habitual

criminal psychopaths, committed horrendous crimes, which

caused public outrage, and the demand that more millions

be spent for police protection, and for the building of more

prisons. Faced with the prospect of vast increases in their

funding, the bureaucrats of the crime industry realized that

the humanist procedures were indeed evidence of the gratifying

results of the new science of penology. Burdened with the

task of spending more millions than they had ever envisioned,

the prison bureaucracy became enthusiastic converts to the

obvious advantages of social activist penology.

The "science" of penology came into its own after World

 

 

 

DURANCE VILE 317

 

War n, when a horde of rapacious humanists, who had been

indoctrinated by the professional social scientists of the Tavi-

stock Institute and its numerous American satellites, obtained

lucrative employment throughout the prison system. The Tavi-

stock Institute had been set up after the First World War, as

a branch of the British Army Department of Psychological

Warfare, to study the methods of controlling shell-shocked

soldiers. Their purpose was to use these unfortunate victims

of the war as guinea pigs, testing them to see how much

strain was necessary before the average human would break

under stress. The technique of Conmiunist brainwashing was

one of the more successful offshoot of these studies. It spawned

a host of refinements, such as "motivational technology"

and "stress management," which educational and government

leaders, and business executives, are now required to undergo

at one of the Tavistock Institute spinoffs throughout the United

States. The purpose of these brainwashing techniques is to

trick the subject into admitting some sexual misconduct, a

hidden fear, or other weakness exposing an Achilles heel by

which he can then be "manipulated" for the rest of his career.

The goal is people control. It originated in the Jesuitical tech-

niques of the Inquisition during the Middle Ages, and is now

the basis for the entire operation of the United States govern-

ment, especially those departments engaged in "intelligence"

work, such as the CIA, the IRS, and other conspiratorial

areas.

 

The purpose of the Jesuitical confession is always control.

For this reason, the American judicial system insists not only

upon confession, but, upon conviction, an expression of re-

morse. Many Americans who have been convicted of some

 

 

 

318 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

political offense in our courts self-righteously refuse to express

remorse, which justifies the gleeful judge in giving them a

much harsher sentence than he could have pronounced if they

had grovelled and spouted emotional recriminations. This was

graphically demonstrated at the end of the political show trials

called the Watergate trials. Republican political offenders were

sentenced to long terms by a Democratically controlled court,

the longest sentence being handed down to Nixon's former

aide, G. Gordon Liddy, because he refused to recant. This

religious error resulted in his spending many years in prison,

which he might have avoided by the required cringing and

apostasy. Even so, the process was more humane than that

of the Middle Ages, where the prisoner was tortured until

he recanted, and was then burned.

 

The purpose of our criminal justice system is not to remove

the criminal from society, but to find the lever by which he

can be manipulated by the conspirators. His "handler" does

not care whether it is sex, drugs, an irrational fear, or whatever

weakness; the goal of the Tavistock method is to find that

lever. Another key point in manipulating the subject is to

convince him that everything that is being done to him is

being done "for his own good." He cannot make any progress

until he relieves his mind through the technique of "confes-

sion. ' ' The appalling cynicism of these manipulators is beyond

most moral individuals' capacity of understanding. They can-

not comprehend the Satanic origin of these techniques, unless

they are famiUar with the five-thousand-year-old Cult of Baal

and the worldwide Canaanite conspiracy.

 

Even after conviction and sentencing, the prisoner is still

expected to offer continuous acts of contrition, which will

 

 

 

DURANCE VILE 319

 

result in an early release through parole or furlough. The

result is that many prisoners "find Christ" the moment the

prison doors clang shut behind them, the most notorious being

one of the Watergate victims, Charles Colson, who was so

successful in charming his way out of prison that he opted

for prison religious work, rather than returning to his lucrative

law practice.

 

Although the prison parole system remains firmly grounded

in bribery and political influence, the members of the parole

boards still place great stock in Jesuitical expressions of contri-

tion from those who seek release. Such expressions also offer

a convenient screen for the hidden reasons behind the sudden

parole of a notorious criminal.

 

Because penology is based upon humanism, the modem

version of the Cult of Baal, prisoners who have been accused

of anti-humanist activities, such as religious belief, patriotism,

or belief in the Constitution, are never granted parole. They

always serve out their entire sentences. Such offenders include

those Americans suspected of anti-Communism, tax resisters

(who are often referred to by the servile media as tax "pro-

testers' ' — it has never been a crime in the United States to protest

against any tax imposition), and members of the white ethnic

minority who have been indicted for "racism." In our legal

terminology, a racist is anyone who publicly refers to white

racial ethnicity. It is obligatory for blacks, Jews and Hispanics

to constantly parade their racial loyalties, and to beat or kill

anyone who criticizes them, actions which find instant approval

in the media and in our courts. Should one of these activists

accuse a white citizen of "racism," the white citizen is

promptly arrested and convicted. The Department of Justice

 

 

 

320 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

has publicized for years its policy that only whites can be

charged and convicted of the crime of "racism." The present

writer has letters from high ranking officials of the Department

of Justice that the white citizens of the United States have

no civil rights and cannot claim any redress for violations of

civil rights. The Department of Justice apparently bases its

stance upon the 14th Amendment that special rights and privi-

leges were conferred upon blacks and other minorities, while

apparently stripping white citizens of these same rights and

privileges. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "privilege"

as "the grant of a right," and also as "a grant of immunity"

which the Department of Justice interprets as being conferred

upon racial minorities by the 14th Amendment (passed under

martial law, therefore invalid), but which is denied members

of white ethnic groups in this nation.

 

During the 1950s, the akeady outmoded and discredited

nineteenth century humanistic claims of penology were ex-

panded into increasingly vaporous and unrealistic programs.

Prison guards were forced to endure extensive ' 'human rights"

and "sensitivity" sessions by the Tavistock manipulators as

part of a nationwide brainwashing diktat. Guards were told

that they must address prisoners as "Sir"; they must never

raise their voices to them, no matter what the provocation,

and they must deliver printed menus to the cells before the

prisoners were marched to the mess halls. A new California

prison has developed an even more costly program, in which

the meals are delivered by hotcarts to each cell! States domi-

nated by the more humanistic conspiracies, notably in Massa-

chusetts and Maryland, eagerly adopted the most extreme

"advances" of the new penology. The Massachusetts program

 

 

 

DURANCE VILE 321

 

was so exhaustive that it caused a taxpayer revolt. It also

cost its Governor, Michael Dukakis, the 1988 presidential

election. A notorious murderer, Willie Horton, had been re-

leased on one of the numerous furlough programs of the new

penology; he promptiy killed again. The liberal colleges of

Massachusetts had previously indoctrinated a horde of practi-

tioners of humanistic penology, the most notorious being Dr.

Norma Gluckstem. A leading radical at the University of

Massachusetts during the 1960s, Gluckstem initiated a program

at the university which gave students academic credit for spend-

ing time in jail cells with extremely dangerous prisoners. The

University of Massachusetts also promoted one of the most

pernicious doctrines of Maoist Communism, that professors

and business leaders should spend six months of each year

in working at some form of manual labor.

 

It was hardly surprising that Dr. Gluckstem would be ap-

pointed head of the nation's most troublesome prison, the

notorious Patuxent Institute in Maryland. Patuxent originated

after some Maryland politicians went on a paid junket to

Denmark. After the obligatory visits to brothels and pornogra-

phy shops, the politicians realized that they had to justify

their pleasant vacation at the taxpayers expense. They decided

to ' 'study' ' some innovative prison techniques at a new institu-

tion outside of Copenhagen, which treated dangerous offenders

by psychiatric techniques. The politicians were immediately

convinced that this program offered them considerable political

benefits in a caring and compassionate nation. They retumed

to Maryland as converts to the "new wave" of prison treat-

ment. The result was that in 1955, the state of Maryland

established what has now become the nation's most criticized

 

 

 

322 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

and talked about prison. Salem A. Sarh, a scholar at the

National Institute of Mental Health, who has studied the rela-

tionship of law and psychiatry for thirty years, notes that

"it was the heyday of the mental health movement. The feeling

was that to just lock people up was not effective. You had

to treat them."

 

The "treatment" consisted of interviews of the prisoners

by well-paid mental health experts, who asked them, "Do

you think you are dangerous? Do you think you would ever

rape again?" These interviews allowed those prisoners who

were professional criminals to play the favorite indoor sport

of our prisons, "Schmoozing" or conning the liberals. The

prisoners immediately embraced the Tavistock and Jesuitical

techniques of confessing what the interviewer wanted to hear.

"I'm in jail because I couldn't control my greed," because

of "my insensitivity," or "my self-destructive tendencies."

"The only person I have ever really harmed is myself." Such

"Stroking" convinced the penologists that the criminal had

experienced a genuine reform; he was now a model prisoner

who was ready to be returned to society. One of the prisoners

who was thus returned to society was Robert Angell, who

had murdered two policemen in cold blood during the commis-

sion of other crimes. It was disclosed in November of 1988

that this triple murderer had left Patuxent eleven times on

unsupervised furloughs. He had killed a teenager in 1975,

choosing him at random, and then murdering him, and he

killed two policemen in Potomac a year later during a bank

robbery. Dr. Gluckstem justified her decision to release Angell

by her conviction that Angell was "a completely different

person," who "deeply regrets" murdering three people. The

 

 

 

DURANCE VILE 323

 

Gluckstem program of sending the most dangerous criminals

from Patuxent inaugurated a reign of terror and fear among

residents of the area. Some people sold their homes and moved

away, certain that they would never be safe while Patuxent

remained a fertile breeding ground for crime. One prisoner,

while on an unsupervised furlough, raped and killed an 1 1-

year-old boy. Another prisoner, Charles Wantland, was pa-

roled after serving five years of a thirty year sentence; he

raped and killed a twelve-year-old boy in Clinton, Maryland.

A few weeks later, convicted rapist James Stavarakis, whose

earlier parole had been revoked, fled while on work release

from Patuxent and allegedly raped another woman. Patuxent

records proved that its inmates served substantially shorter

sentences for violent crimes than inmates at other Maryland

institutions. Fernando F. Stewart was paroled by Patuxent in

1981, seven years after he had been convicted of the murder

of a county police officer, and sentenced to life in prison.

When questioned about Stewart's release. Dr. Gluckstem re-

plied, "People can change." The Gluckstem program of daily

work release, unsupervised furloughs, and early parole was

compounded by intensive psychotherapy and peer counselling

sessions. These programs were made to order for hardened

criminals, many of whom had spent years in their cells boning

up on psychological studies and psychiatric treatises on the

criminal mind. They eagerly embraced the Jesuitical techniques

of confession and recrimination as the golden keys which

would unlock the doors of the prison. Because the Gluckstem

method was tailor-made for the most ruthless classes of crimi-

nals, the murderers and the rapists, its benefits were never

offered to the political prisoners, the protesters and constitu-

 

 

 

324 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

tionalists, who were forced to serve out their entire sentences.

 

The Patuxent board was composed of Dr. Gluckstem, other

Patuxent administrators, and law professors. Coming under

fire for her policies, Dr. Gluckstem protested, "This place

had a mission, whether you believe in that mission or not. I

sort of was the caretaker of a historic institution. And when

you see it being wiped out, there's a certain sadness." She

was referring to the rising tide of public outrage at her methods

of managing Patuxent Institute. Russell E. Hamill, vice chair-

man of the Montgomery Criminal Justice Commission, said,

"Public safety is too important to be left to psychiatry." He

derided Patuxent as "nothing but a psychiatric sandbox."

State Senate President Mike Miller Jr. said, "Dr. Gluckstem

was a disaster." Refusing to express any concern for the

victims of her pampered inmates. Dr. Gluckstem vanished

from the scene. The Washington Post later found her in the

liberal encampment of Telluride, Colorado, operating a bed

and breakfast inn!

 

After the unsupervised furlough and work release programs

at Patuxent were ended in Dec, 1988, Jerald A. Vaughn,

former director of the International Assn. of Police Chiefs,

wrote an op ed piece for the Washington Post, Dec. 13, 1988,

in which he pointed out, "The Willie Horton and Robert

Angell cases are not all that unique . . . Last year alone,

more than 200,000 weekend or multiday furloughs were

granted to prisoners in our federal and state institutions. About

.5% commit a violent act while on furlough, nearly 1,000

violent crimes each year. Prisoners only serve 45% of their

total sentence, on average. Prison furloughs in their current

form undermine the integrity of our criminal justice system

 

 

 

DURANCE VILE 325

 

and make a mockery of meaningful sanctions against criminal

behaviour. Government does have a moral obligation to protect

the public from criminals adjudicated guilty of heinous

crimes."

 

Increasing public apprehension about criminals walking the

streets after being sent to prison was reflected in the presidential

campaign of 1988, in which George Bush, a pleasant but

uninspiring candidate, faced a long uphill struggle to overcome

the vast lead amassed by the Democratic candidate, Michael

Dukakis. Dukakis had the media, the entire academic conrniu-

nity, the bureaucracy, the unions, and the minorities, allied

in the rebirth of the old Roosevelt coalition which had been

put together by Communist leader Bella Moskovitz in 1932.

This phalanx of political power seemed destined to crush the

Bush appeal. A Bush adviser, Lee Atwater, finally became

aware of the most widespread emotion in America, fear. He

advised the public of the Massachusetts penological machine

which had unleashed a horde of vicious criminals on the nation,

the most notorious being one Willie Horton. The people re-

sponded by marching to the polls, and voting against the

criminal psychology program of Dukakis and his Massachu-

setts leftwing demagogues.

 

Nevertheless, penology continues to be a growth industry

in the United States, with a number of private firms entering

the field. The Corrections Corp. of America is the industry

leader; its directors interlock with gambling interests and the

Bronfman liquor empire. RCA operates the Weaversville

prison unit in Pennsylvania; The Eckerd Foundation operates

the Okeechobee prison in Florida. The prison bureaucracy

has also developed its own version of the Soviet slave labor

 

 

 

326 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

camps, called UNICOR. It produces 192 different products

in our federal prisons, paying the inmates an average of sixty

cents an hour. UNICOR states that it is a government corpora-

tion, wholly owned, despite the fact that on Dec. 6, 1945,

Congress passed 31 USCA 866, "No corporation shall be

created, organized, or acquired by the federal government.

No wholly owned government corporation shall continue after

June 30, 1948. The private corporate authority of every such

corporation shall take the necessary steps to institute dissolution

or liquidation proceedings before that date." UNICOR bureau-

crats are now demanding that the government double its prison

capacity to fulfill its burgeoning slave labor contracts. The

federal government is now kidnapping many persons and hold-

ing them for years in prisons.

 

UNICOR also has many contracts with government depart-

ments. At the Lexington Federal Prison, HUD, the Department

of Housing and Development, contracted with Federal Prison

Industries, UNICOR, to process some 60,000 credit applica-

tions for mortgages. Prisoners operating 35 computer terminals

processed forms containing credit card numbers and other

vital bank and credit information from the 60,000 applicants.

One prisoner, Beverly Hirsch, was horrified to find that such

personal information was being made available to prisoners,

who could pass the numbers along to accomplices outside

the prison. She talked to a reporter from the Lexington Herald-

Leader; the result was that she was immediately placed in

solitary confinement. Her security status was changed to a

derogatory one, and she was soon transferred to California,

far from her children and her recently- widowed mother. Prison-

ers who run afoul of the penology bureaucracy receive the

 

 

 

DURANCE VILE 327

 

full treatment; loss of rights, "diesel therapy," that is, repeated

transfer further and further away from their loved ones, often

with months passing in which relatives do not know where

they are; and "loss of rights while in transit." The U.S.

Marshals Service uses more than 800 county jails as "stop-

overs" for the victims of "diesel therapy." As a "snitch"

on prison corruption, Beverly Hirsch will remain "in transit"

for many months.

 

Another wellknown prisoner, Rudy Stanko, has also been

the victim of "diesel therapy," for blowing the whistle on

UNICOR's slave labor practices in our federal prisons. Stanko

has been the victim of "diesel therapy" eighteen times, some-

times being moved from one prison to another three or four

times in a period of two or three weeks. In less than two

years of imprisonment he has been in solitary confinement

472 days. The story of this "criminal" illustrates the depths

to which our criminal justice system has sunk. Stanko was

one of the fastest-growing meatpackers in the United States.

A rival meatpacking group tried to force him out of business;

when that failed, they offered to buy him out. He refused.

He was then subjected to public pillorying by several national

television programs, where ex-employees, who had been

bribed by his competitors, claimed he had sold spoiled meat

to school luncheon programs. He was then indicted and con-

victed on the perjured testimony; his rivals took over his plant

for ten cents on the dollar. Stanko wrote a book about his

experience, "THE SCORE," for which the present writer

wrote foreword. He identified his persecutors as a Zionist

cartel, which enraged the manipulators of the secret govern-

ment. Stanko was sentenced to a long prison term. There

 

 

 

328 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

would be no psychotherapeutic coddling for him. His captors

were told to give him the full treatment; continuous "diesel

therapy," solitary confinement, and brutal mistreatment

which, after some months, has caused the deaths of many

political prisoners. Never having committed any crime, Stanko

is at a great disadvantage in our prison system, which is run

by and for criminals. To this day, not one ounce of "tainted

meat' ' has ever been identified with his meatpacking operation.

It was a classic example of bribed witnesses, professional

perjurers, and dedicated opposition obtaining their goals.

 

Federal Prison Industries is listed at 320 1st st. HOLC

Bg, Washington D.C. 20534. In the Reader's Guide, prison

labor is listed under "convict labor." UNICOR, as well as

the privatization of "corrections" industries, is but one of

numerous spinoffs from our crime problem. We have had

enormous growth in police forces, as well as other parts of

the bureaucracy. However, the greatest single beneficiary of

the growing crime problem is the insurance industry. It has

long been a truism that the insurance industry is almost totally

dependent upon a consistently high rate of crime; otherwise,

burglary, liability, and other profitable insurance lines would

shrivel up. The media cooperates by dramatizing the daily

perils of life in the United States, particularly in our larger

cities. On Feb. 16, 1989, the Atlanta Journal headlined,

"METRO CRIME UP 14% in 88. DOUBLING 87 IN-

CREASE. Law enforcement officials blamed most of it on

escalating drug use and prisoners released too soon."

 

On Jan. 27, 1989, the Washington Post headlined, "A

LETTER FROM A FRIGHTENED METROPOLIS. Violent

Crime Wave Rattles Even Hardened New Yorkers. Fear Stalks

 

 

 

DURANCE Vtt-E 329

 

Subways." The story noted that there were 1840 homicides

in New York City in 1988, a figure greater than that in most

major countries of the world. Fear stalks the city so routinely

that reporters are hard put to find more cliches to describe

the situation. The Daily News headlined, "A City Under

Siege, ' ' ' 'Three Long Island women, all of whom had obtained

protective court orders, were shot and killed in a nine day

period by their estranged husbands, who then committed sui-

cide." The women were actually killed by government psy-

chiatrists, who, under their new designation of "socially

cured" had routinely diagnosed homicidal lunatics as present-

ing no further threat to society, even though these men had

declared their intention of murdering their wives as soon as

they were released. The story continues, "A pregnant doctor

was raped and killed at Bellevue Hospital, and police arrested

and charged a vagrant secretly living on the 22nd floor. . . .

massive publicity focussed on the trial of Joel Steinberg, the

Greenwich Village lawyer accused in the beating death of

his illegally adopted daughter. Two other small children died

in the custody of parents whose cases were botched by the

city's welfare agencies."

 

More than fifty women have been murdered in recent years

after their criminally insane husbands were treated and diag-

nosed as "cured" by government staff psychiatrists. Hundreds

of children have been killed after welfare agencies and suppos-

edly well trained social workers demanded that judges order

them returned to brutal family situations, where they were

beaten and tortured until they died. The women who notified

authorities that their husbands intended to kill them were also

routinely judged by social workers and psychiatrists to be

 

 

 

330 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

suffering fh)m delusions, and, most serious of all, they were

guilty of "paranoia." Paranoia is one of the most serious

charges a psychiatrist can make against you. It means that

you suspect someone may try to harm you, an obvious delusion

in this perfect world. In the New York Times magazine, Mar.

19, 1989, W. H. Wash, editor of Psychology Today, offers

an authoritative definition of paranoia, as "an elaborate and

rigid system of delusional beliefs," complicated by "an elabo-

rate and rigid belief-system." He states that a paranoid streak

characterized such populist politicians as Huey Long, with

their grand conspiracy theories. He informs us that a paranoid

person has a rigid and judgmental thought process. (Rigid)

is a favorite word of liberal psychoanalysts; it means that

they must find a client who will hold still while they pick

his pockets. He also tells us that the paranoid person character-

istically exhibits grandiosity and hostility, and that paranoid

delusions originate in one's self-dislike.

 

Since Max Eitington, the colleague of Sigmund Freud, intro-

duced psychiatry as a key element in the world Communist

conspiracy, those who oppose Communism have always been

diagnosed as suffering from delusions and paranoia. The great-

est paranoid personality of all time, of course, was Adolf

Hitler, who nearly toppled the Communist empire, proving

that Eitington and his fellow KGB agents were correct in

fearing the paranoid enemy. In the United States, any citizen

who reports the Communist activities of government employ-

ees finds himself facing a quick ride to the insane asylum.

When a senior State Department official, Felix Bloch, was

recently photographed handing over a briefcase to a KGB

agent, only a paranoid suffering from anti-Conununist delu-

 

 

 

DURANCE VILE 331

 

sions would claim that he was doing anything more dangerous

than exchanging family pictures of a vacation on the beach.

We mention paranoia in such detail because of the psychiatric

insistence that it is always delusional, and that it originates

in "self-hatred," a mental problem which exists only in the

world of psychiatry. The fifty women who were slain by

their lunatic husbands after repeated boasts that they intended

to do just that, were one and all dismissed by psychiatric

experts as suffering from paranoia. Apparently it is a fatal

illness, because they died of it.

 

The crime problem forces American citizens to live in a

constant state of warfare. The Washington Post headlined

Jan. 29, 1989 that "Fear Leads D.C. Cab Drivers to Defy

Law." Mayor Barry's scandal-ridden District of Columbia

government had passed a law fining any cab driver $100 if

he passed by or refused a "dangerous" fare. For "dangerous,"

read "black." The fact that D.C. Cab drivers now number

97% black, and that they know what they are doing when

they refuse a fare, did not prevent the Barry regime from

labelling them as criminals. On Jan. 18, 1989, the murder

of a 73 year old cab driver in one of the city's most crime-

ridden areas, at 3rd and Underwood NW, in the shadow of

the nation's capitol building, forced the drivers to become

more choosy in accepting their fares.

 

In recent months, worldwide TV news coverage, particularly

in Europe, which sends many tourists to Washington, has

caused the city to win the title, "crime capital of the world."

No other city comes close to Washington's capture of the

label, "the murder capital of the U.S." With 372 murders

in 1988, and 120 more in the first few months of 1989, Mayor

 

 

 

332 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Barry moved quickly to staunch the flow of blood. He an-

nounced that 25 police would be detailed to arrest jaywalkers!

An estimated 10,000 jaywalking tickets will be issued by

the alert Barry police force this year. Meanwhile, Sen. Mark

Hatfield witnessed a shootout in the street near his office,

but didn't bother to report it. He says it is so commonplace

that there is no point in filling out a police report, which

will promptly be buried. Barry will do nothing about the

city's murder rampage, but jaywalkers have been placed on

notice.

 

Because of academic inability to see cause and result, no

one has analyzed the capture of the title "crime capital of

the world" as the inevitable result of a previous crime, the

illegal decision of the Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer

in 1948. Because the decision was arrived at through the

efforts of Justice Frankfurter's law clerk as amicus curiae,

and his close connections with the organizations which had

brought the suit, the American Jewish Congress and the Ameri-

can Jewish Committee, the decision must be stricken from

the record as invalid. The Court ruling which brought about

the white flight from Washington, and the resulting crime

wave, must be corrected.

 

Although the Federal Prison Bureau has a good thing going

with its convict slave labor program, there is no congruent

resultant reduction in the crime wave. Time noted May 12,

1986 that the going rate for prison work in New York State

prisons was from 320 to 650 an hour. The paperwork for

the Dept. of Motor Vehicles was being handled by the women's

prison, the Bayview Correctional Facility. Time noted Aug.

29, 1988 that an inmate at California's Lompoc prison had

 

 

 

DURANCE VILE 333

 

authored an article for the San Francisco Chronicle, "The

Gulag Mentality" which exposed the slave labor operation.

Indignant prison officials immediately ordered a dose of ' 'diesel

therapy" for him. Martin was shipped to San Diego, and

then to Phoenix. He sued for restraint of freedom of speech,

but the judge refused to lift the orders of transfer, noting

that it was "for the good of the correctional system."

 

A recent study by the Rand Corp. shows that each criminal

costs society $430,000 a year in loot. It costs $25,000 a

year to keep him in prison, indicating that society saves

$405,000 a year for each criminal kept in prison. It now

costs $16 billion a year for the states to house inmates; about

$1 billion per year goes for their health care. AIDS has pre-

sented a new and even more expensive medical dilemma for

prison authorities, as has the rapidly aging prison population.

In 1987, there were 40,000 federal prisoners, a total of 533 ,000

prisoners held in all U.S. prison facilities. There are constant

calls for the building of thousands of additional cells. Construc-

tion costs for federal prisons run from fifty to one hundred

thousand dollars per cell, depending on how many Congres-

sional relatives are contracted for the job. Offenders average

187 crimes each, or one every couple of days, although some

energetic offenders exceed this number. To fulfill the demands

of corrections officials would cost $130 billion in new prison

construction, with annual budgets for prison operation rocket-

ing to from $36 biUion to $60 billion per year. Although

this is still a reasonable figure as compared to the $249 billion

a year we spend for defense, without defending anything, it

would probably result in the United States becoming even

more of a police state than it is at present, with the real

 

 

 

334 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

crackdown wielded, not against criminals, but against "politi-

cal dissidents."

 

The direction in which government officials are likely to

move was graphically demonstrated in the strange case of

Congressman George Hansen. Hansen had violated the secret

code of Washington, that no one interferes in Middle East

politics without the permission of Henry Kissinger. Hansen

tried to have some American hostages freed, and promptly

became the only Congressman ever tried under the new "eth-

ics' ' laws, which required Congressmen to report their financial

dealings. He incurred one million dollars in legal fees, lost

his home and all his possessions, and was locked up for six

months in Petersburg, Va. which is considered the most brutal

of the federal prisons. In contrast. Speaker of the House Jim

Wright, accused of 116 ethics violations, which were later

shaved to 69, was allowed to depart Sodom on the Potomac

with not even a wrist slap. After serving his sentence, Hansen

was then arrested for speaking at a religious gathering in

Omaha, and flown back to Washington with his hands cruelly

handcuffed behind his back. He was then held under a false

name so that persons interested in his fate could not locate

him. The Washington Post wryly commented, June 6, 1987,

"If you believe the Justice Department, American streets are

safer these days because George Hansen is back in prison."

The Post pointed out that Hansen "was punished well in

excess of his offense." In fact, he had never committed any

offense, excepting his unauthorized hegira to Teheran. His

brutal treatment was protested by 239 Congressmen in a peti-

tion to President Reagan, and by 300,000 telephone and tele-

gram pleas on his behalf. All were tossed into wastebaskets

by the arrogant Kissinger-controlled Reagan officials.

 

 

 

DURANCE VILE 335

 

The dedication of the Department of Justice, the Federal

Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons

to strictly political law enforcement makes it inevitable that

these agencies must and will be disbanded, the sooner, the

better. We cannot suffer the Department of Justice to continue

as the private operation of the fanatical Zionist agents, Nesher;

we cannot allow the FBI to continue to serve the Perverts in

Power as a private political police, and we cannot allow the

crime wave to continue unabated while the Federal Bureau

of Prisons serves as a convenient place to stash critics of

our criminals in government.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 9

 

 

 

The Case of the

Strange Director

 

 

 

On April 25, 1973, the present writer filed at the U.S.

District Court in Washington, D.C. a three million dollar

lawsuit for damages against the Estate of J. Edgar Hoover,

the late director of the FBI. Within hours after the report of

this lawsuit went out over the national wire services, L. Patrick

Gray HI, Acting Director for the FBI, who had aspired to

become Hoover's successor in power, hastily withdrew his

name as a candidate. Already under fire for having burned

stacks of documents from FBI files, Gray feared that he would

be summoned to testify during the MuUins suit. He decamped

from the Washington scene.

 

I had initially filed the suit in Superior Coiut in Washington,

D.C, but the Court informed me that they had a limit of

fifty thousand dollars on damage suits. I had to file a Praecipe

dismissing my own case, and refile it in the U.S. District

Court. Although I was suing the private estate of a U.S.

 

336

 

 

 

THE CASE OF THE STRANGE DIRECTOR 337

 

citizen, the case was defended by Harold H. Titus, the famed

U.S. prosecutor of the Watergate trials. Presiding over my

suit was Judge Sirica, also of Watergate fame. I protested

the involvement of the Department of Justice, filing a Memo-

randum to Cease and Desist, on the grounds that one party

should not hire the counsel for the opposing party. I was

paying for my prosecution of this action as the plaintiff and

as attorney of record, but the Estate of J. Edgar Hoover,

which consisted of the person of Hoover's consort, Clyde

Tolson, was defended by the Department of Justice, the world's

largest law firm, employing five thousand lawyers, and with

72,000 employees to back up the lawyers. The problem was

that as a taxpayer, I was paying taxes to support the operations

of the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice

was supplying the lawyer for my opponent.

 

The five thousand lawyers at the Department of Justice

have a long history of incompetence when handling cases, be-

cause they are generally dominated by a small band of traitors

known as "Nesher," the Hebrew word for "eagle." When

Nesher called for the prosecution of some American for an

alleged offense against the intemational Zionist movement,

the Department of Justice was marvelously efficient, totally

relentless, and avid in the pursuit of a conviction. However,

on other cases, they have a long record of bungling, muffs and

general ineptitude. This is shown by the files of my case;

Counsellor Titus filed a Memorandum to the Court, noting that

on November 6, 1973, defendant's counsel discovered that a

motion to dismiss had never been filed, although one was

prepared for filing on July 26, 1973! Counsel then requested

that the motion to dismiss be considered timely filed.

 

 

 

338 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 

 

 

EUSTACE C. MULLINS,

 

Plaintiff,

V. Civil Action

 

 

 

No. 779-73

 

 

 

ESTATE OF J. EDGAR HOOVER,

 

Defendant.

 

 

 

MEMORANDUM TO THE COURT

 

On November 6, 1973, defendant's counsel principally as-

signed to defend this action checked the Clerk's Office docket

entries, as well as the Court file, to ascertain whether the

Court had taken any action with respect to the defendant's

motion to dismiss. Upon checking the official records, it ap-

pears that a motion to dismiss had never been officially filed,

although one was prepared for filing on July 26, 1973. Defen-

dant's counsel believed the motion was filed in the regular

course of business on that date, and no further action was

taken by counsel pending a response and/or a disposition by

the Court. Attached is a copy of defendant's motion which

has been a part of defendant's file since July 26, 1973.

 

Defendant respectfully requests that the attached copy of

the motion to dismiss be considered timely filed.

 

 

 

HAROLD H. TITUS, JR.

United States Attorney

 

 

 

THE CASE OF THE STRANGE DIRECTOR 339

 

Titus then retired from the Department of Justice, on grounds

of nausea. Other members of the five thousand Department

of Justice lawyers arrayed against me continued their defense

of the case. The result was, that without any court argument

or any court appearance of the defendant, U.S. District Judge

Joseph Waddy dismissed the case on Dec. 10, 1973. There

had been no adjudication, no hearing of any evidence in the

case, and no consideration of my Constitutional rights. The

decision was rendered according to the law merchant as an

equity decision by a United States Judge, on behalf of the

United States, as Judge Waddy mentions in his dismissal,

"the opposition filed by the United States." I had not brought

suit against the United States; as a citizen of the United States

I would be suing myself. The prejudice shown by Judge Waddy

against me was not because he was black and I was white,

although this may have played a role. The prejudice was

based on the grounds that I was a middle of the road American

citizen, and Judge Waddy had gone on record that he favored

liberal or leftwing activists. When a number of rioters had

been taken off the streets of Washington to protect American

citizens and their lives and property. Judge Waddy had awarded

them enormous sums of money as gifts from the government

of the United States, for the inconvenience they claimed to

have suffered by being detained. Judge Waddy did not wish

to hear the evidence of the harassment and surveillance I

and members of my family had suffered at the hands of govern-

ment agents for some thirty-three years, harassment which

was documented by official government reports, and which

would have been submitted to the court, had I been allowed

to present any evidence in this case. Prejudice prevented me

 

 

 

340 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

from prosecuting this claim for damages, although damages

were freely bestowed by this same judge on rioters who pre-

sented a clear and present danger to the people of the United

States.

 

The stage was set for the actions which precipitated this

lawsuit, when Congress created the "Department of Justice"

on June 22, 1870, providing for a national justice system

and a federal Attorney General. In 1908, in answer to inaudible

demands from the American people for a team of "national

investigators," Congress included in the Simdry Civil Appro-

priations Bill for 1909 the funds to estabUsh a "Bureau of

Investigation." The force behind this "demand" was a small

band of Jacobins, or Masonic Canaanites, who wished to

establish a national political police based upon European mod-

els. These political police were intended to implement pro-

grams designed and enacted by insidious international conspir-

ators to enslave and rob the people of the United States.

These political police were intended to punish opponents of

these sinister programs.

 

The then Attorney General, Charles Joseph Bonaparte, a

member of the family of Napoleon, warned Congress during

the deliberations and testimony on this appropriation that it

presented a very real danger of setting up "agents provoca-

teurs' ' in the investigative branch of the Department of Justice.

Bonaparte showed remarkable foresight in 1908. The Bureau

of Investigation (renamed the Federal Bureau of Investigation

in 1935) became a nest of agents provocateurs under the leader-

ship of J. Edgar Hoover, whose philosophy of ' 'fighting crime"

was to ignore it, as political goals were all that mattered.

His agents soon realized that they were expected to find some-

 

 

 

THE CASE OF THE STRANGE DIRECTOR 341

 

thing to investigate on the political realm, and if there was

nothing in this vein, it was their mission to create it, to plan

it, finance it and instigate it. The FBI became the B.A.P.,

the Bureau of Agents Provocateurs.

 

In March, 1909, the new Bureau of Investigation began

its operations under Bonaparte's successor as Attorney Gen-

eral, George Wickersham, a wealthy Wall Street lawyer and

law partner of President William Howard Taft. The Bureau

was still a modest operation, with only a few agents, when

a young deck attendant from the Library of Congress joined

it in 1917, apparently to dodge the draft. J. Edgar Hoover

had worked on the decks at the Library of Congress for some

years, attending the Georgetown Law School at night. After

he had completed his studies, and qualified for the bar, he

had the requisite qualifications to become an agent for the

Biureau. In this position, he was also classified as a "vital

government employee," and was removed from the lists of

young men who were being drafted into the armed forces of

the United States.

 

At the conclusion of the First World War, J. Edgar Hoover

became a flunky in the national anti-Communist crusade in-

spired by Attorney General Harry Daugherty, and implemented

by the Chief of the Bureau of Investigation, William J. Bums,

who served as Director from 1917 until 1924. Bums was

the most able and the most famous detective in the United

States. He came from a family which had long been distin-

guished in the profession of law enforcement. His father had

been Police Commissioner of a scandal ridden city, Columbus,

Ohio, where he finally sent many prominent officials to prison.

William Bums himself, at the age of twenty-four, had exposed

 

 

 

342 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

the election frauds of 1883. He made his national reputation

by cleaning up graft in San Francisco, where he sent many

corrupt officials to jail. He solved the Times building bombing

in 1910, an act of terrorism which killed twenty people. It

was Bums' brilliant detective work which sent the McNamara

brothers to prison for this act of wanton terrorism. Bums

then joined the U.S. Secret Service, where he uncovered a

national counterfeiting ring which had been operating unmo-

lested for some twenty-five years. In New York City, Bums

made headlines again when he solved the murder of the notori-

ous gambler, Herman Rosenthal, which culminated in a police

lieutenant and four gunmen being sent to the electric chair.

As the conclusion of the First World War, Bums was enlisted

by Attomey General Daugherty to lead the battle against revo-

lution in the United States. The Conununists, exulting in their

heady victory over the Czar in Russia, and the bloody massacre

of his entire family, saw the United States as ripe for a Bolshe-

vik takeover. Their goal was to break down the orderly pro-

cesses of government on every level, and to take advantage

of the resulting confusion and demoralization of the people

by instigating a national Bolshevik takeover. On June 2, 1919,

during this battle, the home of Attomey General Mitchell

Palmer, at 2132 R St NW in Washington D.C., a peaceful

neighborhood of government officials, was blown up. Assistant

Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt, who lived across

the street, found bits of the bomber's body on his doorstep.

This bombing was intended as an act of retaliation for the

famous "Palmer raids," in which hundreds of wildeyed Com-

munist revolutionaries, most of whom were illegal aliens,

had been arrested. Congress, even as today, was pronounced

 

 

 

THE CASE OF THE STRANGE DIRECTOR 343

 

in its sympathy for the revolutionaries. In a concerted counter-

attack against the campaign of the Attorney General, the House

Rules Conunittee summoned Palmer to a formal hearing, where

hostile members of Congress denounced him for his actions

against the revolutionaries. They demanded that the "rights"

of the aliens be protected. Those who believe that Congress

is only concerned with the problems of Communists saw the

demonstrable proof of their beliefs in the Moscow show trial

which Congress recently staged featuring Oliver North. How-

ever, they have no knowledge of the fact that Congress has

been relentless in defense of Bolshevism since 1920.

 

As a junior assistant to Director Bums, J. Edgar Hoover

participated in the Palmer raids. This activity enabled him

to pose for the rest of his life as a militant anti-Communist.

In fact. Hoover proved to be the Trojan horse in Bums's

Bureau of Investigation. He had become the well-known ' 'pro-

tege" of a prominent liberal in a Wall Street plot to destroy

not only the anti-Communist campaign, but President Hard-

ing's entire administration. This campaign culminated in the

strange death of President Harding, the ' 'suicide' ' of prominent

figures in his administration, and conviction of others, includ-

ing Attorney General Harry Daugherty, on various charges,

sending tiiem to prison. It was a classic demonstration of a

Democratic Congress impeaching a Republican Administration

and trying its officials on Congressional charges. Thomas Jef-

ferson's principle of checks and balances, the three departments

of government having equal power, was thrown into the waste-

basket. Again and again we have seen this same technique,

which resulted in the removal of a Republican president, Rich-

ard Nixon, from office, and the imprisonment of his principal

 

 

 

344 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

advisers, and the conviction and imprisonment of most of

Ronald Reagan's closest advisers. All of these convictions

were obtained by the spectacle of typical Moscow "show

trials" which were made world famous by the blood-thirsty

dictator, Josef Stalin in Moscow in 1938. Congress learned

the technique well.

 

After Daugherty had been charged, he was replaced by a

wellknown liberal, Harlan Stone, who also happened to be

the mentor of J. Edgar Hoover. The two had been the subject

of ribald discussion for some months by the omnipresent Wash-

ington gossips. As an astute detective. Bums was aware that

Stone might be subject to blackmail, but he resolved to ignore

the situation. He was stunned when Stone, as his first official

act as Attorney General, notified him that the entire anti-Com-

munist campaign of the government was now abolished. Stone

disbanded the GID, the General Intelligence Division, which

had been the backbone of the national drive against the Commu-

nist revolutionaries. When Bums requested that he be given

several weeks to wind up the work of the GID, Stone called

him into his office. This was the provocation he had been

writing for. He informed Bums that he was fired as Director

of the Bureau, as of that moment. The audacity of this action,

in summarily discharging the nation's most able detective,

was typical of the arrogance of the leftwing bureaucrat.

 

Stone replaced Bums with J. Edgar Hoover. At one stroke,

a dewey-eyed young man of twenty-four, wistful and demure,

had become one of the most powerful bureaucrats in Washing-

ton, a position he was to hold for the rest of his life. Bums

went to some of his powerful friends in Washington, complain-

ing that Hoover had come in "by the back door" but he

 

 

 

THE CASE OF THE STRANGE DIRECTOR 345

 

discovered that as a former officeholder, he no longer had

any clout. He never again worked for the government, founding

his own very successful private detective agency, which en-

dures to this day.

 

With Bums out of the way, Stone proceeded to enlist the

entire Department of Justice in a massive frontal attack against

members of the Harding Administration. This campaign was

not only intended to punish the Harding officials for their

prosecution of the national anti-Communist campaign; it also

had a deeper and perhaps more vital purpose in staging a

massive coverup of a number of billion dollar swindles which

had been perpetrated as "national emergencies" during the

First World War. The principal benefactor of this coverup

was the Standard Oil interests; Rockefeller had double billed

the military forces for billions of dollars in oil and other

vital military supplies throughout the war. An investigation

of U.S. Food Administrator Herbert Hoover was also under

way, to trace the black market activities of his officials in

sugar and other foodstuffs. The second in charge of his adminis-

tration of the Food Administration had been Lewis Lichtenstein

Strauss, who then became a partner of the Wall Street banking

house of Kuhn, Loeb Co., the American representative of

the Rothschild interests. Hoover himself had been a Rothschild

agent for years, serving as a director of Rio Tinto Zinc, one

of the three firms on which the Rothschild fortunes were based.

There were also impending inquiries into the disposition of

funds raised by the Belgian Relief Commission, which Hoover

had headed for several years, and whose improprieties later

became the subject of a number of books, among them "The

Strange Life and Career of Herbert Hoover. ' ' An investigation

 

 

 

346 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

was scheduled of the activities of Eugene Meyer, a partner

of Bernard Baruch, and head of the War Finance Corporation,

whose administration had printed billions of dollars worth of

Liberty Bonds in duplicate, one duplicate being sold to the

public and the other as asset to the Meyer fortune, which

later enabled him to purchase the Washington Post, today

the most influential political newspaper in the United States.

There were also calls for investigating the activities of Bernard

Baruch, who had served as head of the War Industries Board,

and whose stock speculations in U.S. Steel and other munitions

firms had made him one of the wealthiest men in the United

States.

 

All of these investigations vanished into oblivion, as the

nation's press indulged in an unequalled orgy of media hype

about a "real scandal," the Teapot Dome oil operations. To-

day, many Americans exhibit a kneejerk reaction when asked

about Teapot Dome, but they show no reaction to inquiries

about the Rockefeller scandals, the Hoover scandals, the Meyer

scandals, or the Baruch scandals. These were all shoved under

the rug, while the attention of the nation was focussed for

the next eight years on the "Teapot Dome" scandal. During

all of this hype, the real story was completely submerged.

Two competitors of the Rockefeller oil interests, Harry Sinclair

and Edward L. Doheny, had been persuaded by Washington

bureaucrats to engage in an act of "public service." They

were asked, as a patriotic effort, to pump out a national oil

reservoir at Teapot Dome, because geologists had warned

that the oil was slowly sinking into a sandy substratum, and

would soon be lost forever. Although Sinclair and Doheny

were sceptical that they could afford such a gesture of public

service, they were finally persuaded to proceed. They formed

 

 

 

THE CASE OF THE STRANGE DIRECTOR 347

 

the Mammoth Oil Corporation, and leased Teapot Dome from

the Secretary of the Interior, Albert Fall, whose name, as a

result of this episode, entered the language as a "fall guy,"

or patsy, also inspiring the colloquial phrase, "to take a fall."

 

On the advice of his departmental oil experts. Fall routinely

approved the lease. At the time. Fall owned the largest ranch

in the United States, Tres Rios in New Mexico, some 750,000

acres, an area 55 miles long and 24 miles wide. Acting on

secret instructions from Washington, New Mexico tax officials

suddenly doubled the taxes on his ranch, an amount he was

unable to pay. Faced with the loss of his holdings, Fall re-

quested Sinclair for a temporary loan to pay the taxes, which

Sinclair agreed to do. The Rockefellers then sent one of their

more unsavory henchmen, John Leo Stack, on a secret mission

to the nation's most unsavory newspaper publisher, Frederic

Bonfils, owner of the Denver Post. Bonfils had become a

newspaper publisher by a circuitous route. He had operated

a lottery in Kansas City, where the ticket purchasers learned

that there would be no winning ticket. Bonfils hurriedly left

town ahead of a lynch mob. With his profits, Bonfils arrived

in Denver, where he found that the local newspaper, the Post,

could be had for cash. He bought it as an ideal investment

for a new and even more profitable operation than his fake

lottery. The Post became his personal vehicle for a lucrative

blackmail operation. He would make up a dummy front page

involving some local luminary in a scandal (the scandals were

always real, even though the page was a fake), and send it

to the victim, noting that a suitable donation, usually five or

ten thousand dollars, would "stop the presses." The victim

always paid up.

 

Stack brought Bonfils an even more attractive offer. He

 

 

 

348 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

promised Bonfils a cash payment of $200,000 to print the

story of Teapot Dome. The account, as a Rockefeller operation,

presented it as a terrible national scandal, the looting of the

nation's oil reserves by unscrapulous profiteers. Other editors

had already turned down Stack, despite the lucrative offer,

because the story was obviously phony, and could result in

expensive libel suits. Bonfils accepted the bribe without a

second thought, and broke the story of the "scandal." Once

he had printed it, other editors were wilUng to take their

chances. At any rate, Sinclair and Doheney had no opportunity

to sue anybody, because they were soon victims of the entire

legal staff of the Department of Justice.

 

Bonfils later complained that Stack had withheld $40,000

of the bribe money; Stack claimed that this was his commission

for acting as a bagman for the Rockefellers. Bonfils finally

dropped his complaint, perhaps on the commitment from the

Rockefellers to bring him even more lucrative deals in the

future. The Dictionary of National Biography provides further

insight into the swindles perpetrated by Bonfils and his long-

time partner, Harry Tammen. They are memorialized by the

historian F. L. Mott, in his "American Journalism; A History

of Newspapers in the U.S. through 250 Years," as ' 'paternalis-

tic pirates of journalism." Frederic Bonfils was the grandson

of Salvatore Buonfiglio, a Corsican immigrant who married

into the patrician New England family of Alden, direct

descendants of John Alden. His grandson changed the spelling

to the more French "Bonfils," and became an insurance agent

in the Midwest. He made a small fortune in the Oklahoma

land boom, and with this stake, he launched his own business

venture, the Little Lxjuisiana Lottery in Kansas City. The

 

 

 

THE CASE OF THE STRANGE DIRECTOR 349

 

purchasers of tickets were outraged to find that the lottery

paid no prizes . William Rockhill Nelson , founder of the Kansas

City Star, ran a series of articles exposing Bonfils. The result

was that Bonfils was arrested. Judicious payments to law en-

forcement officials enabled him to escape with most of his

funds.

 

Bonfils then went to Denver, where he teamed up with

Harry Tammen, a bartender at the Windsor Hotel. Tammen

had a profitable sideline, selling fake scalps of Sitting Bull

and Geronimo to Eastern tenderfeet who wandered into the

bar. He also ran dog and pony shows, which he later built

into the renowned Sells-Floto Circus. The Sells family was

at that time the most famous name in the circus business;

the fact that none of the family was connected with Tammen's

operation deterred him not at all. Under threat of lawsuits,

he finally made an agreement with a distant relative of the

Sells family to use the name.

 

After his success with the lottery, Bonfils was looking for

something more profitable than Tammen's swindles. Tammen

informed him that he could buy the Evening Post in Denver

for $12,500. Bonfils bought it, taking Tammen in as his part-

ner. They changed the name to the Denver Post, and began

a free wheeling blackmail operation, which brought them a

handsome return. Strangely enough, none of their victims

ever attacked them, although they were both shot and seriously

wounded in the Post's office. The disgruntled gunman was a

lawyer whom they had hired to sue Governor Charles Thomas

over a pardon which Thomas had failed to grant, presumably

after having accepted the required investment customary in

these matters.

 

 

 

350 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

The Dictionary of National Biography notes that "the jour-

nalistic operations of the pair became a national issue as the

result of the Post's part in the Teapot Dome scandal." The

DNB relates that after accepting Stack's bribe, Bonfils sought

even greater rewards, by approaching Harry Sinclair with a

proposition that the Denver Post would drop any further devel-

opments in the story. Sinclair paid Bonfils $250,000, with

the promise of $750,000 more if the Post refrained from any

further Teapot Dome articles. Bonfils was not without his

detractors among his fellow editors, some of whom saw fit

to lay the full details of this arrangement before the convention

of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. The ASNE

carefully considered the evidence, which was overwhelming;

they then declined to act, claiming that the bribe had been

paid just before the national code of ethics had been installed

by the association!

 

The Teapot Dome story is still enshrined in our history

books as "the greatest scandal in history," although it has

become routine for contemporary journalists to award that

title to another Moscow show trial, the Watergate scandals.

A Democratic Congress luxuriated in the opportunity to drag

former Republican officials in for the next eight years, and

to hammer away at their "terrible crimes," while the real

villains. Rockefeller, Hoover, Meyer and Baruch, snickered

in the background. Fall was not sent to prison until 1931,

some seven years after the event. He was convicted of having

accepted a bribe from Edward L. Doheny, although, in a

later trial, Doheny was acquitted of having given him the

bribe! Fall lost both his ranch and his reputation. He died, a

broken man, in 1944.

 

 

 

THE CASE OF THE STRANGE DIRECTOR 35 1

 

The Great Depression, which followed these Moscow show

trials in Washington, was the logical outcome of the deliberate

manipulation of the national government, both the Congress

and the federal agencies, by the sinister international specula-

tors. These political show trials provided the ideal smoke

screen behind which the manipulators could execute their long-

time program of systematically looting and destroying the

nation. During these Golden Years of the conspirators, J.

Edgar Hoover flourished in Washington. He was the only

bureaucrat who could provide a corps of political police for

any purpose, providing that the customer had sufficient money

and political clout. Hoover had come into office as the personal

protege of a dedicated liberal activist who had singlehandedly

eliminated the government's counterattack against Commu-

nists in America. Hoover always remained loyal to his mentor.

He found an able accomplice in his strange desires when he

hired an up and coming young Washingtonian, Clyde Tolson,

as his assistant. Like Hoover, Tolson had also been the protege

of a powerful Washington official, former Secretary of War

Newton D. Baker. As the "confidential secretary" to Baker,

Tolson's duties had never been obvious but the association

was a satisfying one. After Baker's departure from Washing-

ton, Tolson followed Hoover' s advice and went to night school,

obtaining his law degree as Hoover had done. Like Hoover,

Tolson was also a dedicated Mason, active in the Washington

lodge. In his entire career. Hoover accepted only one business

directorship, as director of the influential and wealthy Masonic

insurance company, Acacia Mutual Insurance.

 

Hoover's rise to power in the Bureau of Investigation was

preceded by his becoming much more active in Masonic en-

 

 

 

352 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

deavours. On Nov. 9, 1920, he was raised to the Sublime

Degree of Master Mason in Federal Lodge No. 1. In April

of 1921 , he attained various degrees in the Royal Arch Masons.

In July of 1921, he joined Washington Commandery No. 1.

He was then named Assistant Director of the Bureau of Investi-

gation, August 22, 1921. On March 1, 1922, J. Edgar Hoover

joined the Almas Shrine Temple, and a few weeks later, he

was given a commission as Captain in U.S. Army Intelligence.

 

In "The Royal Masonic Encyclopaedia," Kenneth Macken-

zie defines the Acacia as "the symbolic plant of Freemasonry.

The Acacia, known as Jebbeck in Egypt, flourishes in the

Levantine countries. It was the sacred wood of the Jews,

called Shittah. "The acacia was used to indicate the place

where dead bodies had been interred among the Jews."

 

William Sullivan later stated in his revealing book about

the FBI, "The Bureau,"

 

"But for reasons that were never entirely clear, Tolson

rose quickly, and was soon working at the Director's side."

Sullivan also commented that Tolson's sole duty at the FBI

seemed to be to agree with whatever Hoover proposed. If

Sullivan had intended in later writings to make the reasons

for Tolson's rise to power in the FBI, "more clear," he

was not to have the opportunity. He was shot in a "hunting

accident."

 

While steadily building important political alliances in

Washington, J. Edgar Hoover cultivated close relationships

with the nation's leading gangsters. He ignored ordinary crimi-

nals, while consorting with the family heads of the national

crime syndicate. In a revealing work, Secret File," Henry

Messick states, (p. 197),

 

 

 

THE CASE OF THE STRANGE DIRECTOR 353

 

"Reinfeld had headed the Reinfeld Syndicate during the

great days of the Big Seven, in partnership with the Bronfman

brothers in Canada, and Longie Zwillman, 'the Al Capone

of New Jersey. ' Much of the liquor brought to the East Coast

was transported there by the Reinfeld Syndicate." On p. 277,

Messick says, "The Reinfeld Syndicate was divided into two

parts; the Canadian end was headed by the four Bronfman

brothers, Samuel, Abe, Harry and Allen. They began as owners

of a small hotel and ended as the richest men in Canada and

head of Distillers-Seagram. It was the Bronfmans' duty to

buy Canadian booze and ship it around the East Coast to the

Rum Rows of Boston and New York."

 

What was J. Edgar Hoover's part in all this? He began to

receive substantial donations from the mobsters, and set up

a private holding operation, the J. Edgar Hoover Foundation,

as conduit for the moneys. He detailed his personal publicity

agent at the FBI, Louis Nichols, (who later named his son

after J. Edgar) to head the foundation. Nichols became the

confidential assistant to the notorious Lew Rosenstiel, a boot-

legger who became head of the Schenley Corporation. In

this capacity, Lou Nichols was installed in Washington as

the highly paid lobbyists for the ex-bootleggers who were

now respectable liquor distillers, thanks to FDR's successful

"repeal" program. Nichols used his Capitol Hill contacts,

which he had developed during his years as J. Edgar Hoover's

righthand man at the FBI, to save the liquor moguls many

millions of dollars in taxes. He acquired large estates in Vir-

ginia and New Jersey, as the result of his loyalty to the liquor

kings. In 1958, Nichols was successful in lobbying an excise

tax bill through Congress which saved Schenley Corporation

 

 

 

354 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

fifty million dollars in taxes. He sponsored the Forand Bill,

which extended the storage period for whiskey from eight to

twenty years. As soon as this bill was passed, the value of

Schenley stock increased sixty-seven per cent in value.

 

Drew Pearson, the Washington scandalmonger who had

become one of the incorporators of the J. Edgar Hoover Foun-

dation, recorded many items in his diaries which he never

published in his daily columns. He made an observation dated

July 18, 1949, about a Syndicate operator. Bill Helis, who

had purchased the Tanforan racetrack from Joe Reinfeld, the

head of the Syndicate. "Now I understand why Bill Helis

contributed three thousand dollars to the J. Edgar Hoover

Foundation. He was a front for Reinfeld."

 

On June 17, 1948, Pearson made an entry as follows: "Tru-

man (President), complained about J. Edgar Hoover collecting

gossip; he was particularly sore about a FBI report on David

Niles about a love affair. ' ' The ' 'love affair' ' concerned Niles'

perverted activities; he was a notorious homosexual, an alco-

holic, and a Conmiunist agent. One of Niles' sisters worked

at KGB headquarters in Moscow; another of his sisters worked

in the headquarters of the Israeli Intelligence Agency, Mossad,

in Tel Aviv. Niles boasted that he had all bases covered.

 

To punish J. Edgar Hoover for having kept Niles under

surveillance, Truman demanded that he furnish two FBI agents

to accompany Niles each evening on his homosexual forays

around Washington. While Niles lured a burly truck driver

into an alley, the agents had to crouch behind garbage cans,

remaining concealed until Niles had completed his work. If

the truck driver threatened to rob him or beat him up, the

FBI agents then rushed forward to protect him.

 

 

 

THE CASE OF THE STRANGE DIRECTOR 355

 

Unbeknownst to Traman, his closest crony, Gen. Harry

Vaughn, was actually J. Edgar Hoover's personal agent in

the White House. Not only did Gen. Vaughn report personally

to Hoover each day on what was being said and done in the

White House; he also lobbied to advance Hoover's power,

working with great fervor to persuade Truman to place the

OSS, and later the CIA, under Hoover's control. Despite

his great influence with the President, Vaughn was unable

to persuade Truman to grant Hoover these concessions. In

return for this valuable assistance. Hoover funnelled expensive

gifts to Gen. Vaughn from his wealthy contacts in the Syndi-

cate.

 

On Nov. 23, 1949, Pearson noted in his Diary that he

had a phone call from J. Edgar Hoover demanding that he

kill a story about a White House employee or go to jail. "I

told Edgar he was nuts; Hoover said Steve Early made him

do it."

 

With Clyde Tolson at his side, J. Edgar Hoover had long

been a regular visitor to the more lavish Syndicate vacation

spas. The couple were a winter regular at the notorious Florida

headquarters of the Syndicate, J. Meyer Schine's Roney Plaza

Hotel in Miami. On the West Coast, they were wined and

dined at the Del Mar racetrack because of its Syndicate connec-

tions. In return for these favors, J. Edgar Hoover held national

press conferences each year, during which he routinely denied

that there was such an entity as a national crime syndicate.

In response to an inquiry from Assistant Attorney General

Theron Caudle (who later attained national fame as "mink

coat Caudle' ' for his role in a payoff scheme), J. Edgar Hoover

wrote Caudle a personal memorandum, dated Oct. 13, 1948,

 

 

 

356 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

"Please be advised that a search of the records of this Bureau

fails to reflect that Zwillman has ever been the subject of an

investigation conducted by the FBI." As that time, Zwillman

was reputed to be the No. 2 man in the national crime syndicate!

 

In the fall of 1958, according to Victor Navasky in his

book, "Kennedy Justice," fifty-two numbered copies of an

FBI report on the Mafia, apparently prepared without J. Edgar

Hoover's knowledge or consent, were distributed to the twenty-

five top officials in the government who were directly con-

cerned with law enforcement. This was the first time that

the FBI had officially recognized the existence of a national

crime syndicate. When he learned of the report, the day after

it had been distributed, J. Edgar Hoover was furious. He

immediately had each copy of the report recalled and destroyed.

He denounced the report as ' 'baloney. ' ' It was never mentioned

again.

 

In the mid 1930s, J. Edgar Hoover embarked upon a massive

public relations campaign, portraying himself as a fearless

crime fighter wielding a machine gun as he mowed down

the criminals. In fact, he had never fired a gun at anyone

during his career, nor did he do so at any later time until

his death. Pressure from opponents on Capitol Hill — at that

time, he had not yet attained his later ascendancy over Con-

gress — ^forced him to become more involved in criminal mat-

ters. Longtime friends of Senator Burton Wheeler and Tom

Walsh had vowed to get Hoover because of his illegal use

of FBI agents in a frenetic campaign to have these Senators

indicted on charges of taking bribes. Their friends made impas-

sioned speeches on the floor of the Senate, not only denying

the charges agednst them, but also making pointed comments

 

 

 

THE CASE OF THE STRANGE DIRECTOR 357

 

about Hoover's lack of personal experience in the field of

law enforcement. Although they avoided direct charges that

Hoover was operating a political police force in the United

States, one critic noted that it was a matter of record that.

Hoover had never participated in an arrest during his entire

career! Stung by this criticism, and facing a possible wide-

spread demand on Capitol Hill for his removal. Hoover notified

his agents that they should delay the arrest of any prominent

criminal, his famous "Public Enemy" category, until he was

summoned to arrive on the scene. A few weeks later, he

received a wire from New Orleans that FBI agents there had

trapped Alvin Knrpis, Public Enemy No. 1. Hoover flew to

New Orleans, where his agents assured him that Karpis had

indeed been secured. Hoover rushed up the back stairs and

burst into the room. Karpis was already surrounded by FBI

agents, who had disarmed him. Hoover tried to put the hand-

cuffs on him, and was informed that no one had remembered

to bring them. One agent whipped off his necktie, and the

most dangerous man in America was hustled out to the car,

his hands secured by an ordinary necktie!

 

Hoover realized that Karpis could make the story of his

arrest a matter of public record, if he was ever released from

prison. The Director notified the Bureau of Prisons that under

no circumstances was Karpis ever to be given parole. The

result was that an embittered Karpis spent much of the rest

of his life in prison. When he was finally released, he did

write a book, in which he referred to the Director in unprintable

terms, describing both his reputed racial origins and his sexual

habits.

 

President Franklin D. Roosevelt considered Hoover's per-

 

 

 

358 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

sonal life a matter of great amusement. Roosevelt himself,

despite his crippled condition, was an inveterate heterosexual.

He often regaled his dinner guests with comments on Hoover's

personal life. After one of these dinners, the British Ambassa-

dor noted in a memorandum to the Home Office in 1938,

 

"FDR fancies himself the reincarnation of a Byzantine Em-

peror; in keeping with this image, he has placed a eunuch in

charge of his household, as Hoover's FBI is principally con-

cerned with keeping the government employees in rein."

 

Some of the more daring Congressmen on Capitol Hill

were no less scathing in their references to the Director. Repre-

sentative John Rankin of Mississippi, who was wellknown

for his iconoclastic remarks both on and off the record, incurred

Hoover's wrath by a pointed reference to requests for huge

increases in the annual FBI appropriations bill. Speaking on

the floor of the House, Rankin quipped, "A lot of these statis-

tics sound like fairy tales to me."

 

As administration after administration came and went in

Washington, Hoover remained imperturbably fixed in his seat

of power, seemingly impregnable to the changing moods of

the voters. At the beginning of each new administration, there

were loud demands for his removal from office. One of the

more vociferous of President Truman's leftwing aides. Max

Ldwenthal, rushed into Truman's office shortly after the demise

of FDR. "Whatever priorities you may have lined up, MrT

President," he said, "you must realize that at the earliest

possible moment, you should remove J. Edgar Hoover from

the FBI, replacing him with someone more amenable to our

Democratic program. And you certainly must be aware of

his ah, proclivities." Truman listened without comment.

Weeks went by, and he took no action. Lowenthal had failed

 

 

 

THE CASE OF THE STRANGE DIRECTOR 359

 

to realize that Hoover's impregnable position rested not only

on the famed Black Cabinet, a file of photos and telephone

tape recordings of Congressional sexual peccadilloes and finan-

cial maneuvers, but also on the fact that J. Edgar Hoover

was one of the nation's most powerful Masons. Truman himself

owed his entire political career to the years he had put in as

chief Masonic organizer for the state of Missouri. Hoover's

companion, Clyde Tolson, was also a high ranking Mason.

Truman ignored Lowenthal's demand.

 

Lowenthal then wrote a book denouncing Hoover and the

FBI, primarily because of his supposed anti-Conmiunist activ-

ity. Like most liberals in the United States, Lowenthal had

accepted without question the public relations campaign which

portrayed J. Edgar Hoover not only as the greatest crime

fighter in the nation, but also as its most active anti-Communist.

This was the first of a succession of books on the FBI by

Washington's professional liberals. All of them ignored the

true basis of his power, his Masonic affiliation. Lowenthal

would never have believed that it was Hoover and his mentor,

Harlan Stone, who had successfully sabotaged the national

campaign against the Communists in 1924. This movement

lay moribund until Senator Joe McCarthy revived it briefly

in the 1950s. Like his forerunners in this movement, McCarthy

was hounded until he died in disgrace, having been officially

reprimanded by the Senate of the United States for having

dared to oppose the Communist Party in this country.

 

Although President Truman officially ignored Lowenthal's

book, his personal assistant, David Niles, wrote him a glowmg

letter, "You are doing a wonderful service to the country

by writing a book of this sort."

 

Even if he had been sincere in his opposition to Communism,

 

 

 

360 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

J. Edgar Hoover would have had to accept the fact that the

new administration in 1933 consisted of a Democratic Party

which had been captured by the fanatical Stalinist wing of

the world Communist movement. Not only did Roosevelt come

into office with a prepared agreement to officially recognize

the Soviet government of Russia; he also surrounded himself

with dedicated Communist espionage agents. His three closest

confidants were Alger Hiss, later sent to prison for lying about

his activities on behalf of the Communists; Lauchlin Currie,

who was named by Elizabeth Bentley and other ex-Communists

in testimony before Congress as a Communist agent, and

Harry Dexter White, personal assistant to Secretary of the

Treasury Henry Morgenthau in the Roosevelt administration,

who shipped the U.S. plates for printing American occupation

currency in Germany to the Soviet Union. The Soviets ran

off some $35 billion in U.S. occupation marks, which enabled

them to pay the costs of their occupation of Germany. All

of these marks were later paid for by American taxpayers.

Hoover's files bulged with documented information about

the Communist activities of many leading members of the

Roosevelt administration, most of which he prudently kept

under wraps. Roosevelt understood the situation, and knew

that Hoover, as an accomplished bureaucrat, would do nothing

as long as the Democrats were in power. During the Second

World War, General Wild Bill Donovan, anxious to please

Roosevelt, staffed the new Office of Strategic Services, (now

the CIA) with many known Communist agents. To needle

his rival. Hoover sent to Donovan some of the more damaging

dossiers about his closest lieutenants in the OSS. Donovan

reported the ploy to Roosevelt, with the wry comment, "Of

 

 

 

THE CASE OF THE STRANGE DIRECTOR 361

 

course I knew they were Communists; that's why I hired

them!"

 

As a sop to the Stalinists who controlled Washington, J.

Edgar Hoover hired none other than the founder of the Commu-

nist Party of the United States, Jay Liebstein, or Lovestone,

as the ghostwriter for his projected book on Communism.

The resulting book was artfully titled "Masters of Deceit."

Perhaps as a joke on Hoover, Lovestone had included in the

book a complete Communist manual for organizing local chap-

ters of the Communist Party throughout the United States.

Hoover apparently remained unaware of the deception, proba-

bly because he never read it. He was content to collect the

considerable sums which the book, an immediate best seller,

brought into his bank account. All of the expenses, including

Lovestone's fee, had been paid from the FBI's special infor-

mant funds.

 

J. Edgar Hoover's famed state of chronic paranoia was

not due to the fact that he suspected people around him of

being Communists or Nazis; he was always suspicious that

they might use their position to amass information which would

help his enemies to get rid of him. His Maginot Line of

protection against this much wished for event was his Black

Cabinet of incriminating information on the leading political

figures in Washington. Only his longtime personal secretary,

Helen Gandy, had access to it. Jack Anderson and other Wash-

ington journalists might boast that they could gain access to

any FBI file in Hoover's headquarters by offering favors or

a discreet payment, but none of them could get to the material

in the Black Cabinet. When a new President came into office,

J. Edgar Hoover always made a point of sending him over

 

 

 

362 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

some of the choicest tidbits about his political rivals. The

President would be made aware that if Hoover had such infor-

mation on others, he probably had equally damaging informa-

tion on the present incumbent. The ploy served both as an

offer of ingratiation, and as a warning. Of postwar Presidents,

Lyndon Johnson probably appreciated these tidbits more than

anyone. Known to his political intimates in Texas as "Dry

Gulch Lyndon" because of the fate of those who threatened

his political rise, his personality was closely related to that

of the Director himself, totally dedicated to greed, lust and

power.

 

Having secured the White House and Capitol Hill, J. Edgar

Hoover was now free to indulge his inordinate appetite for

luxury. He and Clyde Tolson continued to be wined and dined

by the nation's crime leaders. A 1957 cover story on Hoover

by Time magazine noted that when he and Tolson went to

New York, they were usually met at thek reserved table at

the Stork Club by none other than Frank Costello, the acknowl-

edged head of the national crime syndicate. While Hoover

was in Washington, the colunmist Walter Winchell served

as the official courier between Hoover and the Mafia. If a

particular "family" was causing law enforcement problems

anywhere in the United States, Winchell would arrange for

a family member to meet with Hoover at the Stork Club.

With the gregarious Costello sitting in as referee, the problem

would be ironed out in a convivial manner.

 

J. Edgar Hoover developed a small circle of multi-million-

aire patrons, who cemented the friendship by showering him

with expensive gifts. Hoover expected nothing less than solid

gold cufflinks, sterling silver candelabra, and rare Oriental

 

 

 

THE CASE OF THE STRANGE DIRECTOR 363

 

carvings of precious jade. At Christmas, the unofficial president

of the J. Edgar Hoover fan club, Louis Marx, would deliver

to Hoover expensive train sets and other high priced items

from the Marx Toy Co. , which Hoover, as Santa Claus would

then pass out to the children of FBI employees. Marx had

profited greatly from the looting of conquered Germany. His

firm took many intricate toy patents from German manufactur-

ers, and reproduced them profitably in the United States.

 

FBI agents also were expected to favor Hoover with expen-

sive gifts. One agent borrowed money to have a Persian rug

custom made for "the Boss" with the initials "JEH" woven

into the center. This agent later enjoyed a meteoric career

with the FBI. Hoover launched the practice of an annual birth-

day party at his office, at which the agents, who received

modest salaries, were expected to present him with solid gold

or sterling silver gifts. No one was compelled to do so, but

those agents who ignored the festivities were sometimes trans-

ferred to Boise, Idaho, the legendary Siberia of the FBI.

 

Although no one ever dared to fire a shot at Hoover during

his legendary career, he maintained at government expense,

($30,000 each), a fleet of five heavily armorplated Umousines.

Two were kept in Washington, one in Miami, one in New

York, and one in Los Angeles. Hoover frequently circulated

photos of himself brandishing a machine gun, although he

had never been known to fire it except on the firing range.

 

J. Edgar Hoover's gilded existence ended suddenly, when

he was found dead in bed by his longtime housekeeper, Annie

Fields. This unexpected event (he had had no previous health

problems) was linked by Washington insiders to the Watergate

scandal, which was then at its height. An FBI agent in Mexico

 

 

 

364 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

City had come up with some photos which directly linked

top officials in Washington with the inner operations of

CREEP, President Nixon's confidential reelection team. Some-

one apparently decided that Hoover could only be prevented

from using these photos for his own advantage (that is, by

offering them to the highest bidder) by bringing a halt to his

long career. This was done.

 

J. Edgar Hoover's last will and testament did little to dispel

the Capitol Hill rumors and ribald comments at the National

Press Club about his personal life. He seemed to confirm

longtime conjectures by resolutely cutting off his relatives in

his will, and leaving his entire estate, with the exception of

a few bequests to other associates, to his consort, Clyde Tolson.

Tolson was also named executor of the will. Five thousand

dollars was left to his secretary, Helen Gandy; three thousand

to his housekeeper, Annie Fields, and two thousand to his

chauffeur, James Crawford. The millions of dollars worth of

gifts which Hoover had received over the years were appraised

at a fraction of their value. His important collection of Oriental

jade, said to be worth more than a million dollars, was listed

at a few thousand dollars. In the published list of the appraisals

of hundreds of items from his estate, we find Hoover's personal

gold FBI shield Usted at five dollars. A collector would proba-

bly pay $ 1 500 for it. Hoover's leather bill fold with the Depart-

ment of Justice seal set with thirteen diamonds was Usted at

$50.00. This would probably bring three thousand dollars at

auction. A jade Phoenix bird on stand was listed at $35.

This would be a thousand dollar item. The appraisal, which

was duly notarized by Clyde Tolson as "a true and perfect

inventory" listed a collection of one thousand books, most

of which had been autographed by the authors to J. Edgar

 

 

 

THE CASE OF THE STRANGE DIRECTOR 365

 

Hoover, at one dollar each. The collection included books

by a number of Presidents, from Herbert Hoover to Richard

Nixon, and from many other prominent figures. At autograph

value alone, these would be worth hundreds of dollars each.

Dozens of sterling silver items were listed at $5 or $10 each.

Two sterling silver candelabra were listed at $16 for the pair;

these would probably bring $350. Fifty-two pieces of Masonic

flatware, the "Royal Arch Mason" pattern in heavy sterling

silver, were Usted at $166 for the lot. Four yellow gold Masonic

rings, one with diamond, were listed at $80 for the lot. Even

at these deflated prices, Tolson inherited more than half a

million dollars from J. Edgar Hoover.

 

Hoover's successor at the FBI, Acting Director L. Patrick

Gray III, an AnnapoUs graduate, admitted burning many FBI

documents. Hoover's secretary, Helen Gandy , appeared before

a special Congressional Committee to testify that she had

shredded Hoover's secret files, the contents of the dreaded

Black Cabinet. Instead of having her tried on criminal charges,

as was later done with Col. Oliver North, the Congressmen,

greatly relieved, all but commended her for a job well done.

The Washington Post, on Jan. 19, 1975, carried a lengthy

story that she had given twelve file cabinet drawers of ' 'particu-

larly sensitive files" to Assistant Director of the FBI W. Mark

Felt, who was rumored to be the Deep Throat informant of

the Watergate massacre. Despite this documented testimony,

the New York Times carried a story from its huge Washington

bureau on Feb. 9, 1975 that "Unconfirmed reports claim that

Mr. Hoover's friends removed or destroyed the files in the

hours before Mr. Gray took office." Apparendy the Times

Washington bureau never read the Washington Post.

 

Basking in the heartfelt approval of the Congressional inves-

 

 

 

366 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

tigators, Helen Gandy retired to Florida. She died of cancer

in an Orange City nursing home on July 7, 1988, at the age

of 91, leaving no survivors.

 

Clyde Tolson died April 14, 1975. The Washington Post

printed a photo with his obituary, which turned out to be a

photo of Louis Nichols. The error was corrected on April

16. Like his friend, J. Edgar Hoover, Clyde Tolson also disin-

herited all of his relatives. The Washington Post commented

that Tolson's will, disposing of some $540,520 (June 22,

1975), represented the Hoover bequest. Tolson left $200,000

to other Hoover cronies; another $4,000 to Helen Gandy;

Tolson's secretary, Dorothy Stillman, received $27,000. The

No. 3 man in the FBI, John Mohr, was named executor; he

received $26,000. Hoover's former employees, Annie Fields

and James Crawford, received $32,000 each. One might con-

jecture that these bequests, which deliberately cut off Tolson's

relatives in favor of Hoover's cronies, could be considered a

tribute to the late Director's memory; they might also be consid-

ered a reward for continued discretion.

 

A further imbroglio developed when Mohr attempted to

carry out Tolson's bequest of J. Edgar Hoover memorabilia

to "the J. Edgar Hoover room in the new FBI building."

The problem was that there was no J. Edgar Hoover room

in the new FBI building, nor was there likely to be, due to

spirited opposition on Capitol Hill. A few Hoover mementos

were on display in one area of the guided tour, but officials

were wary of setting up a special room in J. Edgar Hoover's

memory. Disturbing rumors about his personal life were still

circulating throughout the city, and considerable opposition

had been voiced by Congressmen, media personalities and

 

 

 

THE CASE OF THE STRANGE DIRECTOR 367

 

other spokesmen. They feared that at any moment, a national

news story might break, which would document the rumors

about Hoover's personal life. This might necessitate renaming

the building, and declaring J. Edgar Hoover a "nonperson,"

in the accepted Stalinist style. The present writer had already

filed a lawsuit against the estate of J. Edgar Hoover, and

the possibility of a court hearing, and the presentation of

witnesses and documented evidence, caused some Congress-

men to demand that the new FBI building should not bear J.

Edgar Hoover's name. The media cooperated in banning all

further mention of my lawsuit, while the United States court

system closed ranks to prevent any trial of the action. It was

quietly dismissed, with no evidence, no witnesses, nor this

writer ever being permitted to enter the courtroom. Justice

(the Department of Justice, that is) had been served.

 

The only living person who had dared to oppose J. Edgar

Hoover at the FBI had been given the bum's rush by Hoover

when Sullivan, who had long been the No. 2 man at the

FBI, finally summoned up the courage to ask Hoover just

when he planned to retire and relinquish his position to Sulli-

van. For eight consecutive years, Hoover had made a solemn

pledge to Sullivan at the beginning of each new year, that

this would be his last year at the FBI, and that his only

desire was to retire and live quietly at home with his pet

dogs. The morning after Sullivan delivered what amounted

to an ultimatum to Hoover, he arrived at the FBI headquarters

to find that the locks had been changed on his door. His

parking space and secretary were gone, and his personal effects

were later delivered to him by a flunky.

 

Sullivan later wrote a revealing book about the Boss, which

 

 

 

368 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

was published under the title, "The Bureau." It skirted many

important issues, which Sullivan had planned to treat in a

later and more startling book. Sullivan had been Hoover's

personal choice for the director of the controversial COINTEL-

PRO program, a campaign of unparalleled hatred and vindic-

tiveness against targets chosen by Hoover himself, including

the present writer. In 1977, Sullivan was to be subpoenaed

about COINTELPRO's operations, which included many ille-

gal acts, including political conspiracy, black bag jobs or

burglaries, the manufacture of phony evidence, and stories

planted to harass innocent victims, illegal wiretaps, seizure

of mail, and many other crimes which had led to great suffering

and often death of the victims. Many details of the COINTEL-

PRO operations were contained in some 52,000 pages of FBI

files which had been obtained by the Citizens Investigation

Bureau of Ohio through the Freedom of Information Act.

Shortly before he was due to testify about COINTELPRO,

Sullivan was shot and killed in a mysterious "hunting acci-

dent." He was shot in an open field, in broad daylight, ostensi-

bly by the son of a law enforcement official, while wearing

bright red safety hunting clothes. The "accident" occurred

when a shot was fired from a high powered rifle, using a

telescopic sight. It had all the manifestations of a professional

hit job, but the FBI resolutely resisted all demands for an

official investigation into the death of its former No. 2 official,

claiming that it was "a local matter."

 

Hoover's successor, L. Patrick Gray III, hurriedly decamped

when the present writer filed suit against Hoover's estate.

He was replaced by a former FBI agent, Clarence Kelley,

who was then serving as the police chief of Kansas City.

 

 

 

THE CASE OF THE STRANGE DIRECTOR 369

 

Kansas City was a notorious Mafia controlled city, yet Kelley's

wife refused to move to Washington, claiming that the city

had too high a crime rate. (It was only a fraction of the

present rate, which has won Washington the title of "murder

capital of the world.") Kelley had to go home to Kansas

City every weekend, leaving the running of the FBI to Hoover's

longtime cronies.

 

The Bureau was then presented to a federal judge with

liberal credentials, William Webster, whom the present writer

also sued for thirty-three years of harassment and surveillance.

Webster was moved to the CIA, and replaced by another

judge, a Texas protege of Senator John Tower, William Ses-

sions. He also became known as an absentee director, spending

most of his time travelling around the United States and visiting

the field offices. The FBI was run in his absence by one of

the old crowd. Assistant Director Buck Revell. Oliver (Buck)

Revell, one of the FBI's Old Guard, had been in line for

the position of director when Webster left for the CIA. He

had developed a close relationship with Col. Oliver North;

when the Iran-Contra story broke in Washington, Revell was

deemed to be too compromised by this relationship, and was

passed over in favor of Sessions. After repeated criticism of

Sessions as an absentee director, and newspaper stories that

Revell was actually running the FBI, Sessions hurriedly named

a new Assistant Director, and suggested that Revell should

retire.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 10

 

 

 

The Strange Case of

 

the Schizophrenic

 

Driver

 

 

 

In 1979, the war of attrition against me was intensified by

furtive officials lurking on my home front. I was arrested

and charged with driving 50 mph in a 35 mph zone. At the

time, I was driving about 4 mph, trying to locate a side street

on which I wished to turn. I was convicted and fined in a

local court, as the scene was described in a letter to the local

newspaper under the heading "Shades of the Old West."

 

"Admirers of the code of the Old West and the rough-

and-ready six-gun justice administered by such courts as Judge

Roy Bean's might not realize that this era has not yet vanished

from American life. I had a taste of it when I answered a

speeding charge in a local court. Although my case was posted

as first on the docket, I sat on the bench for three hours,

while every other case was heard. The court was then cleared

 

 

 

370

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SCHIZOPHRENIC DRIVER 371

 

of 'civilians,' that is, anyone who niight later corroborate

my version of events. Apparently I am reputed to be very

dangerous, as I gave my testimony in an otherwise empty

courtroom, surrounded by heavily armed bailiffs. . . . The

nearest 35 mph sign is 1.1 miles away, but a 55 mph sign

is clearly visible where I was stopped. The officer falsely

testified that this 55 mph sign was 'out of sight on the other

side of the hill.' Judge Roy Bean, where are you?"

 

I sued the Mayor and the Chief of Police, who then answered

under oath that they had no responsibility for the actions of

any policeman in the city. They requested a Bill of Particulars,

which I filed, stating in part,

 

"1. As a chief instigator and prosecutor of government

officials in the Nuremberg Trials in Nuremberg, Germany,

the Federal Government of the Utiited States firmly established

as legal precedent the precept that officials such as city mayors

and police are wholly responsible, actionable and Uable under

a law for acts committed by their agents and underlings whether

said officials have specifically commissioned and required such

acts from said underlings or not, and the Federal Government

of the United States convicted said officials and exacted the

death penalty although none of the said officials had personally

participated in the acts of which they were accused. The indi-

cated defendants, while not personally present at the scene

of the acts of assault against plaintiff, did commission, instruct,

uniform and send forth yon arresting officer to commit said

acts against plaintiff and defendants, by the precedents estab-

lished as law at the Nuremberg Trials, and by numerous other

legal precedents, are wholly and fully Uable for acts committed

against plaintiff by their official, conmiissioned, assigned and

 

 

 

372 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

instructed uniformed agents. . . . According to the Precepts

of the Nuremberg Trials, defendants are wholly and legally

liable and answerable for impeding plaintiff's progress on a

public street, and defendants have no evidence and cannot

exhibit any evidence that plaintiff was in violation of any

law when his progress was impeded by an armed agent of

defendants on a public street."

 

This case also dragged on for some three years; much of

plaintiff's complaint was printed verbatim in the local press.

An interesting development occurred when the judge refused

to grant a demurrer, (a dismissal as insufficient cause of action)

for the city. He was exiled to a remote village where, presum-

ably, he remains today. A "ringer" was brought in on the

day of the trial, as a more malleable substitute. He allowed

me to testify, and then granted a motion to dismiss by the

city attorney. He benignly announced that I now "had had

my day in court," a half hour having elapsed since the trial

began. I filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment, which was rou-

tinely denied.

 

MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT

 

Now comes plaintiff, Eustace C. Mullins, as attorney pro

se, and respectfully moves the Court to Vacate the judgment

of February 11, 1982 in this action, on the following grounds:

 

1. 49 Corpus Juris Secundum 265. "Courts of record or

of general jurisdiction have inherent power to vacate or set

aside their own judgments." Pavelka v. Overton, Civ. App.

47 S.W.2d 369.

 

2. 88 Corpus Juris Secundum 139. "A motion to strike

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SCHIZOPHRENIC DRIVER 373

 

evidence is premature if addressed to evidence, the competency

or relevancy of which may thereafter be made to appear."

Keber v. American Stores Co. 184 A.795, 116 N.J. Law

437. And plaintiff deposes that the competency and relevancy

of his testimony would have been corroborated by the testimony

and subsequent cross-examination of the defendants in this

action, and that the premature motion of the defendant to

strike plaintiff's evidence and dismiss this action prevented

plaintiff from curing any defects in his evidence. 30 A Corpus

Juris Secundum, 262. Equity. "Defects cured by subsequent

pleadings, proof or proceedings. Aided by the evidence."

Kemp V. Kemp, 63 So. 2d 702, 703, 258 Ala. 570.

 

3. 88 Corpus Juris Secundum 143. "A motion to strike

evidence is too broad where a part thereof is admissible and

the motion does not point out specifically the particular part

objected to." Paparazzo v. Perpel, 84 A.2d 11, 16 N.J. Super

128. And plaintiff deposes that defendant's motion to strike

was too broad, and flawed in that it did not specifically cite

any part or parts of plaintiff's evidence as grounds for said

motion.

 

4. 88 Corpus Juris Secundum 144. "Unless the right to

have the evidence stricken clearly appears, the court is not

bound to strike it." Scarlett v. Young, 183 A. 129, 170 Md.

358. And plaintiff deposes that defendant's motion to strike,

being flawed, the Court was not bound to grant it.

 

5. 88 Corpus Juris Secundum 134. "As a general rule,

evidence competent for any purpose and relevant to any issue

should not be stricken." Lewes Sand Co. v. Craves, 8 A. 2d,

21 1 Terry 189. "The fact that evidence does not come up

to the offer of proof, provided it is material, does not constitute

 

 

 

374 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

ground for striking it." Smith v. Martin, 106 A. 666, 93

Vt. 111. And plaintiff avers that his evidence was competent

and relevant to the issues in this action, and that it was material,

and that it should not have been stricken.

 

6. 88 Corpus Juris Secundum 237. "A motion to strike

or exclude all the evidence, sanctioned imder the practice of

some states, is in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence

and had the effect of such a demurrer in so far as it tests the

sufficiency of the evidence." McCauU-Dinsmore Co. v. Ste-

vens. 194 P.243. 59 Mont. 206, 64 C.J.P. 390 note 62. "It

must be tested by the same rules as a demurrer to the evidence. ' '

Hawley v. Dawson, 18 P. 592, 16 Or. 344. "A motion to

strike all evidence of the plaintiff from the tecord on the

ground that the petition has failed to show a cause of action

is not the equivalent of a motion to dismiss, with a statute

providing for such a motion after plaintiff has completed pre-

senting of his evidence." Munday v. Austin, 218 S.W. 2d

624, 358 Mo. 959. And plaintiff deposes that defendant had

previously submitted a Demurrer on the same grounds and

that the Court had on September 14, 1981 denied defendant's

Demurrer. 88 Corpus Juris Secundum 235. "A demurrer is

properly overruled where the petition is sustained by competent

evidence." Cargill Commission Co. v. Mowery, 161 P.634,

162 P. 313, 99 Kan. 389. Thus we have a situation where

plaintiffs evidence is ruled competent on September 14, 1981,

and the same evidence is ruled incompetent in the same Court

on February 11, 1982.

 

7. "Demurrers are no favorites of courts of equity." Harlan

V. Lee, 9 A. 2d 839, 177 Md. 437. Plaintiff, after defendant's

motion to strike his evidence, pointed out to the Court that

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SCHIZOPHRENIC DRIVER 375

 

defendant's motion was in the nature of a demurrer, as cited

above in par. 6, and that said demurrer had already been

denied by the Court, but the Court took the position that

defendant's motion to strike was not in the nature of a demurrer,

and plaintiff prays the Court whether its decision of September

14, 1981 denying the demurrer should not take precedure

over its decision of February 11, 1982 to grant a motion to

strike plaintiffs evidence, said motion being in the nature of

a demmxer.

 

8. 88 Corpus Juris Secundum 237. "A motion by defendant

to strike plaintiff's evidence should be reserved until plaintiff

has rested his case." Burke v. Gale, 67 S.E. 2d 917, 193

Va. 130. And plaintiff did not state that he had rested his

case, as plaintiff was expecting to make more of his evidence

explicated to the jury during the cross-examination by defen-

dant, which cross-examination was not forthcoming, and by

plaintiff's cross-examination of the defendants, and said motion

by defendant to strike plaintiff's evidence, which was not

complete, constituted denial of due process. 16A Corpus Juris

Secundum 591. "Suppression of evidence may be a denial

of due process where it is vital evidence, material to the

issue of guilt or penalty." Thompson v. People, 102 N.E.2d

315, 410 III. 256.

 

9. Defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs evidence, and

to dismiss this cause, constituted irregular judicial proceedings

because plaintiff had no prior notice of defendant's motion

or any opportunity to prepare to argue it. Although said motion

does not in itself constitute "surprise" in its judicial definition,

in this instance it definitely qualified as surprise because plain-

tiff, having already seen defendant's demurrer denied by this

 

 

 

376 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Court, had no occasion to expect or to prepare for a motion

to strike plaintiif's evidence which was "in the nature of a

demurrer."

 

10. "The declaration, complaint, or petition, or a count

thereof, will be sustained if it is good on any theory." City

of Madison v. Drew, 265 N.W. 683, 220 Wis. 511, 104

A.L.R. 1387. And plaintiff avers that he was and is prepared

to sustain all counts of his petition before a jury. In his opening

statement to the jury, plaintiff stated that the jury would be

asked to decide fundamental features of oiu- civil law , including

the question of agency, violations of civil rights, involuntary

servitude, the right to due process, the right to equal protection

of the laws, and a consideration of whether radar, admittedly

hearsay, could be accepted as valid evidence. Yet the jury

was not allowed to consider or decide any of these questions.

 

11. Defendant's motion to strike plaintiffs evidence and

to dismiss this cause was based on the claim that defendants

had no connection with this cause, which in effect denied

the entue body of civil law which enunciates the doctrine of

agency. "The master made the pledge of his servants. Omnes

qui servientes habent." Edward the Confessor, Bract, fol. 124

b. "If I make a deputy, I am always officer, and he performs

the office in my right and as my servant." Y.B. 11 Edward

 

IV. 1, pl.l. "The driving of the servant is the driving of

the master." Smith v. Shepherd, Cro.Eliz. 710; M. 41 &

42 Eliz. B. R. "Under Charles 11 it was laid down that the

high sheriff and the under sheriff are one officer." Cremer

 

V. Humberston, 2 Keble, 352 (H.19 & 20 Car. II). "For all

civil purposes the act of the sheriff's bailiff is the act of the

sheriff." Lord Mansfield. Ackworth v. Kempe, Douglas 40,

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SCHIZOPHRENIC DRIVER 377

 

42 (M.19 G.m, 1778). 2A Corpus Juris Secundum 1. "The

law of agency is based on the Latin Maxim, 'Qui facit per

allum, facit per se.', which may be translated 'One acting

by another is acting for himself.' " Gustavson v. Rajkovich,

263 P.2d 540, 96 Aris. 280. 27A Corpus Juris Secundum 4.

Agency. "In its broadest sense, it includes every relation in

which one person acts for or represents another by his author-

ity." State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Industrial Accident Commis-

sion, 14 P.2d, 306, 310, 216 Cal. 351. Yet defendant has

this action dismissed on the claim that the Chief of Police

of Waynesboro has nothing to do with any activity of the

Waynesboro Police Department!

 

12. 88 Corpus Juris Secundum 136. Trial. "As a general

rule, where a party consents to the introduction of evidence

or where no objection is made to evidence when offered, or

to a question when asked, or no proper or timely objection

(Lewis V. ShiflFers, Mun. App. 67 A. 2d 269) or no proper

or timely objection, specifying the grounds thereof, is made

(Berry v. Adams, App. 71 S.W. 2d 126, a motion made,

after the evidence is admitted or the question answered, to

strike may properly be denied." Terwilliger v. Long Island

R.R. Co. 136 N.Y.S. 733, 152 App. Div. 168, affirmed

106 N.E. 1114, 209 N.Y. 522. And plaintiff deposes that at

no time during plaintiff's opening statement to the jury or

his subsequent testimony did the defense offer any proper or

timely objection to any of plaintiff's testimony, yet the defense

then moved to strike all of plaintiff's testimony in toto, no

prior objection having been made to any of it, and to obtain

a dismissal of this cause thereby.

 

13. The decision of the Court to dismiss this action was

 

 

 

378 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

also partially based on the cited refusal of the plaintiff to

appeal his conviction in Waynesboro District Court on July

16, 1979, but at that time plaintiff had akeady filed his Motion

for Judgment with the Circuit Court of the City of Waynesboro,

which would have heard said appeal, and said Motion for

Judgment dealt with the question of plaintiffs guilt or inno-

cence of the speeding charge, and said question was sub judice

in the Waynesboro Circuit Court during the entire period when

plaintiff supposedly had refused to refer said action to the

Waynesboro Circuit Court, thus the Waynesboro Circuit Court

dismisses an action for failure to appeal it to the Waynesboro

Circuit Court, when the question was before the Waynesboro

Circuit Court during the entire period.

 

14. The decision of the Court to dismiss this action on

the grounds that plaintiff had refused to appeal his conviction

in Waynesboro District Coiut to the Waynesboro Ckcuit Court

bases a decision in a civil action on a step in criminal procedure.

The Oxford English Dictionary, under "civil," states, "16.

Law. Distinguished from criminal. 1611 COTGR. civilizer

V. criminal, to change his Indictment into an Action; to tume

a criminall into a civille cause. 1764. BURN Poor Laws 289.

Civil, implies an offence of a private nature between party

and party, and not where the king is party. 1844 H. H. Wilson

British India II 395. In the administration of civil law, Pancha-

yats were had recourse to, while criminal cases were investi-

gated by the British functionaries in person. ' ' Thus the question

is raised whether a civil action can properly be decided by

the rules of criminal procedure.

 

15. Although he was appearing as attorney pro se, plaintiff

was not properly instructed by the Court at the conclusion

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SCHIZOPHRENIC DRIVER 379

 

of this action of his right to request that the decision be set

aside.

 

16. Corpus Juris Secundum 16. 178. "Statute conferring

the police power on municipalities, however, should be con-

strued as not to authorize an unreasonable exercise thereof."

Father Basil's Lodge v. City of Chicago, 65 N.E. 2d 805,

393 111. 246. And plaintiff avers that his arrest was a violation

which prevented him from engaging in his lawful occupation.

16 Corpus Juris Secundum 224. "One has to carry on his

business free from all unlawful interference, ' ' Wallace v. Ford,

D.C. Tex. 21 F. Supp. 624.

 

17. 16 Corpus Juris Secundum 199. "The police power

must at all times be exercised with scrupulous regard for

private rights guaranteed by the Constitution and even then

only in the public interest." Okla. Natural Gas Co. v. Choctaw

Gas Co. 236 P.2d 970, 205 Okla. 255. And plaintiff avers

that the police power exercised in his arrest was not in the

public interest and violated his private rights.

 

18. Plaintiff was threatened with imprisonment for debt,

in violation of his Constitutional rights. 16 Corpus Juris Secun-

dum 204. "Ordinarily, a debt owed to a governmental unit

is no exception to the Constitutional provision." Clark v.

City of Cincinnati, Com. PI. 121 N.E. 2d 834.

 

19. 53 Am. Jur 435. "The courts are generally agreed

that an employer may be held accountable for the wrongful

act his employee committed while acting in his employer's

business and within the scope of his employment, although

he had no knowledge." Palmer v. St. Albans, 60 Vt. 427,

13 A 569.

 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully moves the Court to

 

 

 

380 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

grant his Motion to Vacate Judgment on the grounds that it

is contrary to law and the evidence.

 

Meanwhile, at a meeting of Freemasons at a local syna-

gogue, other matters were shelved while an agitated discussion

took place as to what ' 'could be done about Eustace MuUins. ' '

One member stood up and bravely offered that he would "do

something." A few days later, while I was driving down a

side street, a huge Lincoln came roaring out of a business

lot, and crashed into the side of my car. As my complaint

later stated,

 

"3. On Sept. 19, 1979, at about 1 P.M. defendant did

feloniously and with great force crash his automobile into

the side of the vehicle owned and operated by plaintiff, and

did strike plaintiff's vehicle on the right hand front and rear

doors, crushing them in, and plaintiff did suffer great bodily

harm and property damage thereby."

 

"7. Plaintiffs vehicle, an Oldsmobile 98 sedan, which was

severely damaged, is a rare surviving example of a collector's

vehicle known as the Chappaquiddick Special, a model in

which a girl met her death during an association with a promi-

nent upstanding figure, and this vehicle could be worth a

large sum during a forthcoming political campaign and must

be fully restored.

 

"Defendant stated to plaintiff that defendant was at fault

and would assume full responsibility for all damages, but

when police were called, defendant stated he did not wish

to talk to the police, and as police drove up, defendant fled

the scene of the accident."

 

"Plaintiff remained at the scene of the accident, and gave

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SCHIZOPHRENIC DRIVER 381

 

police full details of the circumstances of the accident, where-

upon the investigating officer stated that defendant should be

charged with hit and run and leaving the scene of an accident

before an investigation was completed."

 

"Plaintiff was overcome by intense chest pain, nausea,

vomiting, dizziness, fainting spells and intense back pain,

whereupon plaintiff went directly to the Emergency Room."

 

Powerful fraternal influences immediately went to work

for the defendant, who was never subsequently charged with

any offense. There were interesting ramifications which I did

not learn for several years. First, the driver had been suffering

from advanced schizophrenia for years, and under state law,

he should have turned in his license. He had avoided this by

going to private mental instimtions, as state institutions would

have required that he turn in his driving license.

 

Second, at the time of the accident, the defendant had for

years been taking a number of powerful drugs, according to

his physician, among them Dilantin, Phenobarbital, Tolinase,

Dyzazide, and Haldol. His physician later stated in a sworn

deposition that "Mr. S. has diabetes mellitus type two, he

has a seizure disorder, he has an organic brain syndrome,

he has hypertension essential, and he has manic depressive

illness and a complication of medication called tardive dyskine-

sia, resulting in uncontrollable movements."

 

In short, the defendant's insurance was inapplicable because

of these problems. City officials and attorneys now embarked

on a weird three year campaign to keep the case from being

heard. The result was one of the most amazing legal three

ring circuses ever recorded in this nation. The attorneys first

sent me a 54 question set of Written Interrogatories, supposing

 

 

 

382 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

that, as an attorney pro se, I would refuse to answer them,

and the case would be dismissed. I answered with eighty

pages of single spaced legal size forms, which more than

answered their questions. Their next step was to "discover"

a witness to the accident. They "found" an elderly black

alcoholic and mental patient, who claimed to have been drink-

ing in an alley near the scene of the accident with some of

his buddies. This good citizen was brought in for deposition.

The attorney asked him, "Is this Mr. MuUins here beside

you?" Answer. "I don't believe it is. I think he was a taller

man. In my opinion, it looked like he was a taller man."

Question. "Do you remember what kind of car it was?"

Answer. "Now that, I would not know. It was just an automo-

bile, in my opinion."

 

Although this witness could neither identify me nor my

automobile, he was still listed as the defendant's principal

witness. I had the court order his police and mental hospital

records, which disclosed that he had been arrested for carrying

a concealed weapon, that he had been arrested numerous times

for being drunk in public, and that he had been sent to the

mental institution ' 'on detention order from wife for threatening

behaviour and abuse of her. Threatened with axe. Drinks

cheap wine or whiskey all day. Was convicted of shooting

and maiming a woman. Has been on probation since that

time."

 

This pillar of the community remained the defendant's chief

witness, until fraternal ties brought in another one. This relative

and notorious black sheep of our family came in on deposition

 

to give hearsay testimony that I had told him I ran into 's

 

car, and that it was my fault. I had not spoken to him for

months. On cross-examination, I asked him what drugs he

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SCHIZOPHRENIC DRIVER 383

 

was on. He refused to answer. I asked him what drugs he

had taken that day. He still refused to answer.

 

By this time, I had filed suit against the attorneys.

 

"As and for his complaint, plaintiff respectfully alleges

that, for the promise of large money, defendants did conspire

and act in concert to attack, injure and destroy plaintiff, by

speaking, writing and filing false statements and false accusa-

tions against plaintiff which are false, defamatory and prejudi-

cial against plaintiff, as follows:

 

(a) At a Pretrial Conference, defendant did state

 

to the Court that plaintiff, in his pleadings, had repeatedly

referred to defendant's client as being "of the Hebrew race"

and as "being of the Hebrew religion," and as "that Hebrew,"

and defendant wished to inform the Court that he resented

the references to his client. This allegation, made before six

persons, was immediately denied by plaintiff, who truthfully

stated that nowhere in his pleadings had he made such state-

ments . . . defendant persisted, stating to the Court, "I know

it's in there somewhere," although those present, searching

through the file of plaintiffs pleadings, could not find said

allegations."

 

This was typical of the vicious tactics of this outstanding

law firm. They immediately filed Demurrer, whereupon plain-

tiff cited the statute, "Liability for words used in proceedings

concerning conduct. No lawyer, or association or corporation

composed of lawyers, shall be held liable in any civil action

for words written or spoken in any proceeding . . . imless

it be proved by plaintiff that such words were used with actual

malice, were false, or were used without any possible or

probable cause."

 

I further stated, "Defendants err in their presumption that

 

 

 

384 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

a license to practice law is a license to gratuitously attack

and injure other persons without cause."

 

The friendly judge nevertheless granted dismissal to his

close associates, whereupon I refiled and forced him to dismiss

it again.

 

Although the judge repeatedly tried to aid his colleagues

in their blatant attempts to prevent the case from coming to

trial, I forced the motion through. At the trial, the attorneys

came up with another miracle witness. They claimed that

defendant, who had been alone in the car with his wife, had

her sister sitting in the back seat! I later learned she had

been in a Hadassah meeting in Norfolk on the day of the

accident. The judge had warned me that the strange statutes

forbade the mention of "insurance" in an accident trial. The

attorneys then announced that their star witness, the black

alcoholic, had conveniently been reommitted to the mental

institution hours before the trial. I insisted that he be brought

in. After a delay of a half hour, he was brought in under

heavy armed guard. I then took the stand, where the attorneys

tricked me into mentioning the word "insurance." The senior

attorney leaped to his feet, screaming, "Mistrial!"

 

I filed Motion to Vacate Order of Mistrial, which went

the way of all of my motions.

 

MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF MISTRIAL

 

Plaintiff, Eustace C. MuUins, respectfully moves the Court

to vacate the Order of Mistrial issued on July 29, 1981 in

this action, for the following reasons:

 

1 . The Order of Mistrial requested by the defendant, because

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SCHIZOPHRENIC DRIVER 385

 

of the inadvertent mention of the word "insurance" in the

presence of the jury, and apparently in violation of statutes

prohibiting same, and which was subsequently granted by

the Court on July 29, 1981, has, in effect, added a new party

to these proceedings, the entity of insurance, and a party

whose interests must be safeguarded by casting over them

an impenetrable armor of silence. This insurance entity, whose

presence, although known to the parties, and being known

to the Court, was not to be made known to the jury, although

Virginia statutes, which require compulsory motor vehicle

insurance for all residents of the State of Virginia, which

the members of the jury qualified to be by reason of their

being called to service on this jury, was therefore already

known to the members of this jury before plaintiff's inadvertent

mention of the compound noun "insurance agent" presumably

revealed to the jury a hitherto unknown and unacknowledged

presence in the courtroom. Statutes thus prohibited the mention

of an entity which was already known to the Court, to the

parties, and to the jurors, a peculiar presence, like Banquo

at the feast, haunting the proceedings in the manner described

by Paul Valery, in the Cimitiere Marin, as quoted by William

Butler Yeats in "A Vision" as "a seaside cemetery, arecoUec-

tion, some commentator explains, of a spot known in child-

hood. The midday light is the changeless absolute and its

reflection in the sea 'les oeuvres purs d'une cause etennelle.'

The sea breaks into the ephemeral foam of life; the monuments

of the dead take sides as it were with the light and would

with their inscriptions and their sculptured angels persuade

the poet that he is the light, but he is not persuaded. The

worm devours not only the dead, but as self-love, self-hate.

 

 

 

386 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

or whatever one calls it, devours the living also." Thus plain-

tiffs cause is devoured by the all-conquering worm of an

unseen entity, the entity conjoured up by the defense, the

entity of insurance.

 

2. By requesting a mistrial because plaintiff inadvertently

used in his giving of evidence the compound noim "insurance

agent," the defendant effected a transfer of liability, and was

no longer liable because an entity had been conjoured who

simultaneously relieved defendant of further defense of his

liability at this trial, and transferred it to an entity who was

not liable at this trial.

 

3 . A statute denying plaintiff the opportunity to give evidence

in which the compound noun "insurance agent" is mentioned

thus enthrones insurance corporations and their private stock-

holders and insulates them against paying due awards from

their profits, thus granting them a title of nobility and creating

a nobility class. The Constitution of the United States, Art.

1. Sec. 10, expressly forbids the establishment of such a

nobility class, as follows: "No state shall grant any title of

nobility." The establishment of insurance companies as im-

mune from legal mention not only violates the Constitution,

but renders plaintiff out of law, or dead in law.

 

4. A state statute denying plaintiff the opportunity to give

evidence in which the compound noun "insurance agent" is

mentioned, violates the Constitution of the United States in

these several particulars: That it creates an involuntary servi-

tude forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment; That it abridges

the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States;

That it denies to the plaintiff the equal protection of the laws;

That it denies plaintiff due process of the law. The Fourteenth

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SCHIZOPHRENIC DRIVER 387

 

Amendment says, "No State shall make or enforce any law

which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens

of the United States. Nor shall any State deny to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In

16 Wall. 36, 21 L.Ed.394, Mr. Justice Field stated, "It is

nothing less than the question whether the recent amendments

to the Federal constitution protect the citizens of the United

States against the deprivation of their common rights by State

legislation. In my judgment the 14th amendment does afford

such protection, and was so intended by the Congress which

framed and the States which adopted it."

 

5. If such state statutes prevent plaintiff from presenting

evidence before a jury, the question is raised as to whether

plaintiff should transfer his case to a federal court in which

such statute would not apply.

 

6. It is a well-established precept of trial procedure that if

the defendant sees that he is losing the case, any opportunity

for a mistrial must be seized upon, as occurred on July 29,

1981 . It was defendant's lack of a viable defense which caused

plaintiff to file a Motion for Summary Judgment on June 9,

1980.

 

7. In plaintiff's Reply to Grounds of Defense filed by defen-

dant, plaintiff stated on Nov. 7, 1979, "Defendant had

promptly given the name of his insurance agent and the tele-

phone number of said agent to plaintiff but defendant did

not request plaintiff's insurance agent as defendant had as-

sumed full responsibility and had no intention of seeking any

payment from plaintiffs coverage." It was this evidence,

which is crucial to plaintiff's case, which plaintiff attempted

to inform the jury as to the issues of fact which were to be

 

 

 

388 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

determined by them, but plaintiff was prevented from doing

so by defendant's motion for mistrial. In future hearings of

this action, if statute still prevents plaintiff from informing

the jury of the facts of the case, due process will not occur,

plaintiff will be out of law, or dead in law, and by not giving

said evidence, plaintiff will be guilty of withholding evidence

from the jury, and of obstructing justice, even if in so doing,

plaintiff is following the express instructions of the Court

and is in accordance with statutes prohibiting the mention of

insurance in the presence of the jury. 71 Corpus Juris Secundum

4: "What Constitutes Pleadings. It covers all proceedings

taken during the progress of the trial. Snelling v. Darrell,

17 Ga. 141.

 

(a). 46 Corpus Juris Secundum 1308. "Plaintiff must prove

every material allegation or fact in issue. Christ v. Pacific

Mut. Life Ins. Co. 231 II., app. 439, affirmed 144 N.E.

161, 312 111. 525, 35 A.L.R. 730. Plaintiff alleges that he is

prevented from proving the facts in issue.

 

(b). 71 Corpus Juris Secundum 525 C. "Matters eliminated

from case or admitted. The pleadings on which trial is had

are determination of whether evidence is admissible. Pecos

R.R. Co. V. Crews, civ. app. 139 S.W. 1049." Plaintiff

alleges that said evidence had already been included in his

pleadings without objection.

 

(c). 71 Corpus Juris Secundum 528. "Generally, any evi-

dence is admissible under the general issue which contradicts,

or tends directly to contradict, the allegations which the adverse

party must establish to sustain his claim. Sylvis v. Hays, 6

P.2d 1098, 1100, 138 Or. 418. Plaintiff alleges his evidence

is thus admissible.

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SCHIZOPHRENIC DRIVER 389

 

(d). 71 Corpus Juris Secundum 2. Statutory Provisions.

"Codes of civil procedure and rules promulgated thereunder

are designed to simplify pleading and to eliminate some of

the technicalities of pleading at common law; but generally,

except as modified by such provisions, the common law rules

of pleading are deemed to remain in force. Stinson v. Edgemoor

Iron Wks, D.C. Del. 53 F.Supp. 864." Plaintiff alleges that

his evidence is admissible under common law pleading, and

that common law precedent overrides any statute designed

to protect insurance entities from legitimate awards.

 

8. Although plaintiff had filed a Motion to Bar Inadmissible

Testimony before the trial was heard, defendant did not file

such a motion and thereby indicated no inadmissible testimony

was expected from plaintiff.

 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Order of Mis-

trial should be granted.

 

The judge then intimated to me that the attorneys wished

to negotiate a settlement, but they did not wish to negotiate

with me because I was not an attorney. He promised that if

I hired an attorney, they would settle. I was still naive enough

to believe this judge. I inquired around, and hired a young

attorney who would frequently break out into strange equine

giggles. When we met to negotiate with the defendant's stellar

attorneys, he promptly jumped up and ran to the men's room.

"What's wrong with him?" I asked a Mend who was sitting

in with us. "Oh, he just went to throw up," he replied.

"It's his first negotiation." When he returned, he promptly

agreed that I should pay witness' fees to the sister-in-law,

some $400. No other negotiations were concluded. I fired

 

 

 

390 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

him that afternoon, and sent the following notice to the defen-

dant.

 

NOTICE

 

Plaintiff, Eustace C. MuUins, as attorney pro se, hereby

serves notice to the defendant that your position at the pretrial

conference of April 11, 1983 was openly and positively and

definitely reaffirmed, that you have refused and continue to

refuse to negotiate any pretrial agreement or settlement with

the plaintiff, a position you have steadfastly maintained for

the past three and a half years. You are hereby placed on

notice that the mounting legal costs of this action are and

have been and continue to be solely due to your refusal to

enter into any pretrial negotiations with plaintiff, and that,

on recovery of these costs, plaintiff will demand that said

legal costs in this action be deemed punitive in assignment

and arrogation to defendant, and thus doubled by decree of

this Court, because the large costs of this action are and have

been and continue to be solely consequent to defendant's re-

fusal to negotiate any pretrial agreement or settlement with

plaintiff, and plaintiff reiterates that he has been and continues

to be willing to negotiate a pretrial settlement at any time

since this action was filed on October 1, 1979, and that any

and all legal costs since that date should be attributed, assigned

and arrogated to defendant as his Uability because of his refusal

to enter into any pretrial negotiations with plaintiff.

 

After months of further deliberations, I succeeded in having

the case brought to trial again. The attorneys introduced the

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SCHIZOPHRENIC DRIVER 391

 

deposition from the defendant's physician, stating that defen-

dant was now in a psychiatric hospital and would not be

appearing at the trial. The judge then ruled that I could not

make any reference to the drugs or schizophrenic and manic

depressive condition of the defendant, ruling the entire physi-

cian's report "inadmissible."

 

Two days before the trial, the policeman who was my sole

witness died suddenly in a local hospital, of medical treatment.

I was warned by my automobile mechanic, a black man well

versed in the vagaries of small town existence, that the jury

would be stacked. ' 'They got this same list, ' ' he said. "Nobody

else ever gets on that list."

 

Without my only witoess, and denied any opportunity to

present to the jury the evidence that the defendant had been

driving illegally, while under the influence of seizure-causing

drugs, and suffering from schizophrenia, my case did not

take long to present. The judge suggested that I bring my

car up so that the jury could examine it. The jury filed out,

made a lengthy examination of the two smashed-in side doors,

and returned to the jury room to deliberate. Eight minutes

later, they returned to find for the defendant. In effect, they

had ruled that I had indeed backed my car into the front

fender of defendant's car, which, in some manner, defying

the laws of physics, crushed in the two side doors!

 

 

 

^1

 

 

 

Chapter 11

 

 

 

The Strange Case of

the Senile Millionaire

 

 

 

In 1982, the present writer received a telephone call regard-

ing his book on the Federal Reserve System. An elderly gentle-

man suggested, in a quavering voice, that he would be inter-

ested in financing a new edition. I promptly informed him

that all previous arrangements regarding this book had been

a personal disaster for me, and that I was not interested. He

gave me his name, one that I had never heard of. A few

evenings later, he called again. He was very persistent, and

he informed me that he had resolved to finance the book,

with all proceeds to go to me, because of the unfortunate

experiences I had had with previous publications. I had re-

searched his name, and found that he was one of the wealthiest

men in America. I agreed to meet with him.

 

I found that he was indeed a very elderly man, and that

he had been donating money to some conservative causes

for years, although he had never donated to anyone I was

acquamted with. One of the recipients of his largesse was a

 

392

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SENILE MILLIONAIRE 393

 

Lebanese lawyer with the improbable name of Dr. Peter Beter.

It was Dr. Beter' s thesis that all of the prominent personalities

in the world had been shot through the forehead with one

bullet, including President Jimmy Carter, and that they had

been replaced by robots. Because they had always been robots

for the World Order, no one but Dr. Beter had noticed that

anything was amiss. It should have been a warning to me

that the old gentleman was impressed by this type of fertile

imagination, but by that time, I had sold myself on the idea

that I was now a writer who had at last found his patron.

The fact that the patron was a little loose in the upper story

did not concern me. I would write the book, he would have

it printed, and turn over all the proceeds to me.

 

I began work on the book with my usual energy and enthusi-

asm. Within a few weeks, I had made considerable progress,

renewing my trips to the Library of Congress, where I had

done my original research almost four decades earlier. It was

then that I received a sign, one which should have alerted

me to later developments. The old gentleman's chief assistant,

a man much younger than myself, suddenly died of a heart

attack. I had already seen that my benefactor was extremely

demanding on all those who worked for him; this did not

bother me, because I always worked at top speed, seven days

a week. I ignored a very obvious warning, and plunged ahead

with the book. We had made no formal agreement, but he

was advancing small sums for my expenses. I completed the

manuscript, and at that time, he informed me that his lawyers

had drawn up a Joint Venture Agreement. Although I never

saw or talked with his lawyers, who were in another state,

the agreement contained a very attractive paragraph:

 

"The publisher (as my partner was referred to throughout

 

 

 

394 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

the agreement) shall receive five per cent of the gross receipts

from the sale of the book and the author shall receive all of

the net profits from the sale of the book."

 

I had been doing my own legal work for years, and the

agreement seemed very straightforward. He informed me,

rather apologetically, that his lawyers had told him the agree-

ment would not be legal unless he would receive something,

hence the five per cent of the gross receipts which he had

opted for. He also assured me that he Would never try to

collect it.

 

There was another clause in the agreement, which struck

me as somewhat odd; "Upon the death of either party, this

agreement shall terminate and all interests herem shall belong

to the survivor."

 

Because he was almost two decades beyond the Biblical

limit, and bom long before my father, it seemed odd that he

would include this clause, but I privately supposed that it

would assure my receiving all interests in the book if he

should die before me. Here again, I was given another warning,

which I failed to heed.

 

After the book had gone to press, he became even more

demanding upon me, setting up meetings with people he

thought I should meet, trips I should take, and frequently

calling me at home in the evenings and on weekends. His

secretary informed me that he constantly did the same with

her; she then reminded me of the sudden death of his manager.

We began to call each other when we wished to discuss things

in the book which he had challenged. She suggested we use

the code name, Fagin, to refer to him, which we did henceforth.

 

The book was published, and because the new edition had

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SENILE MILLIONAIRE 395

 

been awaited for many years, it began to sell very fast. I

banked all of the receipts, without drawing on them, because,

according to our agreement, they were all mine anyway. Sud-

denly he began to demand considerable sums, for ' 'expenses. ' '

By this time, I was totally dominated by him, and I wrote

the checks and handed them to him. Over several months, I

gave him $25,000, most of what had come in, because of

his insistence. He seemed to exercise a hypnotic influence

over me, and I never balked at anything he demanded. When

I arrived at his home, he would now rush into the kitchen

and prepare me a cup of coffee, not allowing his housekeeper

to do it, as she had done on prior visits. On one occasion,

after leaving his home, I passed out at the wheel. I thought

it was exhaustion. Other drivers had begun honking wildly,

and I came to and regained control of the car. On my next

visit, this happened again. I drank the coffee, and on the

way home I lost consciousness, and slumped over the wheel,

at seventy miles an hour. I came to to find that I was almost

touching the side of a car on my left, as I veered towards

him. I avoided the accident, but, after I got home, I recalled

the strange clause in om* agreement that the survivor would

receive all interests in the book.

 

I then received an alarming letter from England, from a

financier named Alex Herbage.

 

"Dear Mr. MuUins:

 

I have just read a review in the National Educator of your

new book, "The World Order." I assume this is an update

of 'The Federal Reserve' and would be most grateful if you

would forward me a copy. I have recently had some correspon-

dence with E.D. (my partner, ED.) who led me to believe

 

 

 

396 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

he controlled the rights over your books , as I could be interested

in re-publishing these over here, for distribution in Europe."

Alex Herbage.

 

The entire picture was now revealed to me. Not only was

Fagin determined to finish me off, in order to have sole rights

to my Federal Reserve book, but, in anticipation of my early

demise, he was already making arrangements to repubUsh

all of my books, both in the United States and Europe. Once

I was out of the way, who would challenge him?

 

Shortly thereafter, Alex Herbage was much in the news.

The Washington Post headlined "High Society Financier In-

dicted."

 

"A British financier with ties to some of the country's

top Conservative politicians was indicted yesterday on charges

of defrauding 3,000 Americans of $46 million through a mail-

order investment scheme. Alex Hermage, a 450-pound figure

who has entertained the cream of British society at his million-

dollar estate, was charged with falsely promising to invest

the Americans' money in gold bullion, commodities and Euro-

pean currencies. Instead, according to an indictment returned

in Orlando, Fla., Hermage spent the funds on a 'lavish life

style' that included chartered jets. Rolls Royce and Mercedes

Benz automobiles, an expensive art collection, the 44 acre

estate in England and villas in Scotland, France and the Nether-

lands."

 

Herbage, which the Post insisted on spelling "Hermage,"

(which is pretty close, as critics of the Post will allow), was

later sent to prison. Herbage was typical of the swindlers

and criminals with whom Fagin was involved. I called his

secretary and informed her that I would have to file suit against

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SENELE MILLIONAIRE 397

 

Fagin, unless he withdrew from our agreement. She said that

she had repeatedly told him that I should have some of the

proceeds from the book, whereupon he retorted, "There ain't

gonna BE any profits!"

 

I sent Fagin a copy of a standard Termination Agreement,

which he refused to sign. I was left with no alternative but

to file suit against him. He responded by employing, not

one, but two, of the state's most influential and expensive

counsels. Obviously he intended that I would have to pay

for all this. Both firms were well connected with such agencies

as the FBI and the CIA, and could count on these alUances

to obtain as much damaging information about me as possible.

This did not bother me. I was akeady planning to publish

some 120 pages of my FBI file in my next book.

 

I charged Fagin with intent to defraud, embezzlement, con-

spiracy to defraud, violation of copyright, making false state-

ments, and misrepresentation, for starters. Much more would

come later. All of my charges were documented. His lawyers

responded with the standard tactics intended to trip up and

get rid of an attorney pro se. They filed a Decree with the

Court, but did not send me a copy. I checked the court file

at least once a week, and discovered it. I inmiediately filed

a Motion stating I had not been sent a copy of pleadings.

There was never an apology from this highly-esteemed firm,

but undoubtedly chagrin that their obvious tactic had failed.

I then filed a Motion to Amend Complaint.

 

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

 

Now comes the Plaintiff, Eustace C. MuUins, appearing

for himself, and respectfully moves the Court for permission

to amend his Complaint, for the following reasons:

 

 

 

398 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

1. Plaintiff has uncovered numerous further violations by

said defendant of the statutes which should be heard by the

jury in this action.

 

2. Defendant, as chairman of Co., con-

tinues to wage a war of attrition against plaintiff.

 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully moves the Court for

permission to Amend his Complaint.

 

The courts will always grant at least one request for amend-

ment of complaint, and sometimes more than one. It is all

part of the legal hopper, and keeps the wheels turning.

 

I filed an amended complaint, and, to protect my life's

work, my writings, I filed a Motion for Injunction.

 

"Now comes plaintiff, Eustace C. MuUins, as attorney pro

se, and moves the Court for an injunction against the defendant,

 

, ordering defendant to refrain from assigning

 

or conferring re-publishing rights of any or all of plamtiffs

published works, on the following grounds:

 

1 . Defendant, according to correspondence with one Alex

Herbage (Exhibit A attached) is claiming the rights to plaintiff's

published books, and making arrangements to lease, sell or

otherwise convey said rights to others,

 

2. Defendant, in awarding said rights, is once again dealing

with the confidence men, tricksters, and double agents with

whom he prefers to deal, and whom plaintiff has repeatedly

tried to avoid, despite defendant's repeated orders that plaintiff

shall meet with and work with persons of this type."

 

When Fagin had corresponded with Herbage, he had as-

sumed that by that time I would have been disposed of, by

special treats of coffee, or by other means. It was hardly his

fault that his plan had gone awry, or that his confidante was

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SENILE MILLIONAIRE 399

 

now facing a long prison term for embezzlement. Despite

my documentation of my motion with copies of Herbage's

letter, and the Post article detailing his criminal career, the

judge refused to grant my Motion for Injunction, on the incredi-

ble excuse that "He hasn't yet actually re-published any of

your books, and his attorneys assure me that he will not."

This was in the accepted tradition of never granting a motion

from an attorney pro se. I was to see it again and again

throughout the next three years of this proceeding. An injunc-

tion against the defendant would be damaging in the record

of the case, and would be prejudicial against him with a

jury.

 

One of the most sadistic actions of Fagin against me occurred

shortly after I met him; he persuaded me that rare early editions

of my books were unsafe in my home, and that they would

be "protected" in his safe deposit box. He was right; they

are still there today. Although the books were worth thousands

of dollars, I was never able to recover them. One of them

was a first edition of "MuUins on the Federal Reserve,"

which I had inscribed to my father. It was my only memento

of him. I pleaded with Fagin to return it, but he ignored

me.

 

Fagin had noted one payment of $12,500 to his personal

lawyer for drawing up the Joint Venture Agreement, a standard

four page agreement. This was included in some $90,000

which he claimed to have invested in the book; he had actually

spent about four thousand dollars in its production, and I

had repaid him almost $25,000. He was eventually to cost

me more than three hundred thousand dollars on this book

alone. During my legal researches, I found that his lawyers

 

 

 

400 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

had neglected to consult the state statutes, which gave the

following requirement under "Partnership Certificates: No two

or more persons shall carry on business as partners unless

they sign and acknowledge a certificate setting forth the full

names of each and every person composing the partnership,

with their respective post office and residence addresses, the

name and style of the firm, the length of time for which it

is to continue, and the locality of their place of business,

and file the same in the office of the clerk of the court in

which deeds are recorded in the county or corporation wherein

the business is to be conducted."

 

No such certificate had ever been drawn up, signed, or

recorded. I thereupon filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.

 

"Plaintiff, appearing for himself, moves the Court to grant

the Plaintiff Summary Judgment against the Defendant, on

the grounds that defendant had failed to answer or deny the

documentary evidence which Plaintiff submitted with his Com-

plaint."

 

I had filed photostats of the statutes requiring the signing

and filing of the Partnership Certificate, a requirement of which

Fagin's attorneys were not aware. This should have been a

routine judgment in my favor, but the judge denied my motion

without comment. At no time did Fagin's attorneys ever try

to explain why he had never executed the requisite Partnership

Certificate, which rendered the Joint Agreement invalid, and

gave me full reason for judgment in my favor.

 

Fagin's attorneys were now in full cry after me with the

usual pre-trial discovery demands for depositions and produc-

tion of documents. I had countered with my usual Motions

for Protective Orders. As always, my motions were denied

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SENILE MILLIONAIRE 401

 

by the court, and I was ordered to proceed with the depositions

and production of documents. I realized that I was trapped

in a court in which every decision would be against me, and

that this was primarily due to the pernicious Masonic influence

which guided the court. It was imperative that I move out

of this court. I filed a Motion to Remand to Federal Court,

citing the number of federal questions involved in the case,

copyright law, interstate fraud, etc. The judge replied to my

motion with a personal letter that he would not hear the motion!

This was astounding, because the United States Code cites

many pages of precedents for remanding to federal court when

federal questions are involved. I debated bringing an action

against the judge for refusing to hear my motion, but I realized

this would be useless, given the state of our legal system. I

then filed a Motion for Voluntary Nonsuit; if I could obtain

nonsuit, that is, drop my suit in the state court, I could then

refile it in federal court. However, I had little hope that this

would happen; the court had routinely denied all of my motions.

My dilemma was solved by one of those miraculous events

which take place just when it seems that I have nowhere to

turn. The day before the hearing on my Motion for Voluntary

Nonsuit, a friend called on a radio talk show, mentioning

that she knew someone who was due to appear in court the

following day, and that he had no chance, because the lawyers

and the judge were all Masons. The next morning, when we

appeared in chambers, I noticed that the judge's eyes looked

like boiled liver. I sat down and waited for the usual decree,

Motion Denied. Incredibly, the judge began by saying, "I

am inclined to grant Mr. MuUins' motion." Fagin's lawyers

were amazed. "But, Your Honor" one of them exclaimed,

 

 

 

402 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

"it's too late in the case for that. We have these other matters

pending (referring to Discovery)." I thought his point was

well-taken, but the judge seized a volume of statutes from

the shelf, opened it at random, and pretended to consult it.

"No," he said, "it's right here. It's all right. I am granting

the Motion for Nonsuit."

 

I left chambers, jubilant that at last I had had something

decided in my favor. My friend, to whom I owed this develop-

ment, was also smiling. Fagin's lawyers were so angry that

they refused to get in the elevator with us. Instead, they

stomped down the stairs.

 

I promptly filed my complaint against Fagin in federal court.

More than a year had gone by, with my suit bogged down

in a court where I had no chance. Now I could argue the

federal questions in my suit. Fagin's lawyers answered the

complaint with their usual Motion to Dismiss. I then filed a

Motion to Amend Complaint, which was granted. In my

amended complaint, I upped my request for damages to $25

million, with an additional $25 million in punitive damages.

My complaint documented every item. Fagin's description

of his $12,500 payment to his private lawyer stated "Profes-

sional services — ^Tax planning for publishing venture, opinion

on joint ventiu^e, and drafting joint venture with Eustace C.

MuUins." I pointed out that this read as though I had been

in consultation with Fagin's lawyer, when in fact I had never

met or talked with him. Fagin had also diverted considerable

funds from receipts of the Federal Reserve book to publish

one of his personal pamphlets; large sums paid for his personal

phone bills, payments to his secretaries, and to his other em-

ployees and acquaintances for private work having nothing

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SENILE MILLIONAIRE 403

 

to do with the joint venture. Fagin also sold one thousand

of the books to his personal financial counselor below cost,

in order to curry favor with him, despite my strong objections

to the transaction. He opened a private bank account with

proceeds from his sale of the book. None of this money was

ever accounted for.

 

During hearings in state court, I had filed several Motions

for Censure against Fagin' s attorneys for their improper ac-

tions. We now engaged in more than a year of federal court

maneuvers, during which I again repeatedly filed Motions

for Censure. One of Fagin' s attorneys frequently called me

at my home, trying to trap me into agreeing to some procedure

or to make a damaging admission. I complained of this in

one Motion to Censure, which put a stop to the telephone

calls. In each instance, however, the judge would deny my

Motion to Censure, trying to laugh it off as a whimsy, instead

of a flagrant violation of ethical procedure.

 

I then came down with a painful kidney stone attack, proba-

bly due to the daily stress of fighting this action. The day

after I came out of the hospital, I was due for deposition. I

appeared, but informed Fagin's attorney that I was still too

ill to answer extended questions. The attorney promptly de-

manded sanctions against me from the judge, which he refused.

I then filed a Petition for Public Trial, as follows:

 

PETITION FOR PUBLIC TRIAL

 

Now comes plaintiff, Eustace C. MuUins, as attorney pro

se, and petitions the Court for a public trial of this action.

Plaintiff prays said petition as a citizen of the United States

 

 

 

404 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

of America and the domiciled voter of the State of Virginia,

under Article 4. Sec. 4, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED

STATES, and under Article I, Sect. 11, CONSTITUTION

OF VIRGINIA.

 

1. The object of said public trial would be to determine

the validity of plaintiffs claims against defendant by a jury

of his peers, and to determine the innocence of said defendant

by said jury if defendant is able to prove said innocence.

 

2. Plaintiff prays said petition as a necessary step in maintain-

ing the public order, in maintaining the courts as an essential

part of the public order, so as to avoid anarchy and a general

breakdown of law and order.

 

3. The public must remain sovereign, and the public cannot

have sovereignty without public trial.

 

4. Plaintiff paid substantial court fees for a request for

jury trial, and neither wishes to be defrauded of said payments,

nor does he wish his fees to pay for a closed trial in which

the plaintiff is not only the defendant, but in which the plaintiff

had previously paid the court fees for the defendant to attack

him.

 

5. Said closed trial would be a Bill of Attainder against

plaintiff, which would violate the Constitution of the United

States, Art. 1 Sec. 9.

 

6. Said closed trial would violate Article L, Sec. 1 1 , Consti-

tution of Virginia.

 

7. Said closed trial would violate the 13th Amendment to

the United States Constitution.

 

8. Said closed trial would violate the 14th Amendment to

the United States Constitution.

 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully moves the Court to

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SENILE MILLIONAIRE 405

 

remand this action for jury trial as provided by the Constitution

of Virginia, with plaintiff as the plaintiff and with defendant

as the defendant.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Eustace C. MuUins

 

 

 

This Motion was also denied, and Fagin's lawyers pressed

on with their demands for discovery. Despite my health prob-

lems, I was very confident of the suit, looking forward to a

jury trial where I could present the documentation of my

complaint for damages. Fagin's lawyers were equally deter-

mined that the case would never go to trial. As I suspected,

Fagin was now hopelessly senile, and would never be able

to appear on the witness stand. I no longer had any contact

with his secretary. Our telephone conversations ended when

she made an obvious attempt to trap me into making a misstate-

ment. I realized that the conversation was monitored, and

never called her again.

 

We had now entered the third year of proceedings. At no

time did Fagin ever make a personal appearance in the action.

Time was on my side, and I was not pushing for a trial

date. In any case, I could not have obtained it without comply-

ing with the pre-trial discovery procedures. However, I realized

that I needed to get on with my other books (I now had

twenty-two projected volumes which I must write over the

 

 

 

406 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

next twenty years), and it seemed time to speed up the legal

process. I did this by filing a Motion for Joinder of Additional

Parties. This is a very technical motion which must be phrased

just so, or the court will deny it. I did what any paralegal or

legal secretary would do; I copied it verbatim from West's

book of legal forms. Fagin's lawyers were amazed that I

could have produced this motion. They informed the judge

that I must have obtained legal counsel without having in-

formed the court, as I was still attorney of record. As the

hearing on the motion, the judge sternly asked me, "Mr.

MuUins, do you now have a lawyer?" I was surprised by

the question, but answered, "No, Your Honor." He then

had no choice but to grant the motion. I had named Fagin's

son, his accountant, and the treasurer of his firm as co-defen-

dants Although they were deeply involved in Fagin's swindle,

I knew that they would not wish to appear and be questioned

about their activities. It seemed that at last I was on the verge

of forcing Fagin into a settlement. However, I reckoned with-

out the depths to which the attorneys would sink. They immed-

iately devised a plan of counter attack which proved success-

ful.

The judge had ruled as follows:

 

1. Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint

shall be, and it hereby is, denied.

 

2. Plaintiff's motion for sununary judgment shall be, and

it hereby is, denied.

 

3. Plaintiff's motion to censure shall be, and it hereby is,

denied.

 

4. Plaintiffs motion for a protective order with respect to

production of documents shall be, and it hereby is, denied.

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SENILE MILLIONAIRE 407

 

5. Plaintiff's motion for a protective order with respect to

depositions shall be, and it hereby is, denied.

 

6. Defendant's motion to compel discovery shall be, and

it hereby is, granted. Plaintiff shall respond to defendant's

request to produce documents on or before Oct. 14, 1986.

Plaintiff shall present himself for deposition on Oct. 15, 1986,

at 9:30 A.M., at a location mutually convenient to the parties.

Defendant's motion for attorney's fees in connection with

this motion shall be, and it hereby is, denied.

 

7. Ruling is deferred on the motion for an accounting made

in defendant's counterclaim.

 

8. Plaintiff's motion to join , ,

 

and as defendants in this action shall be, and it

 

hereby is, granted."

 

My Motion for Protective Order Against Deposition noted

that

 

"2. Said defendant used the same tactic against plaintiff

in a previous action, aided and abetted by counsel in a vicious

campaign of attrition against plaintiff, forced plaintiff to cancel

all his speaking engagements for the months of April and

May by continuing demands for appearances at depositions

in order to force plaintiff to drop proceedings against defendant,

and cost plaintiff many thousands of dollars in lost income,

in the great tradition of the practice of law as laid down by

Roy Cohn when he appeared on Sixty Minutes, 'I make it

so damned expensive for the S.O.B.s that they have to drop

out.'

 

3. Defendant has scheduled said deposition so that his hired

man can act as judge and jury, and conduct a private trial of

this action, thus denying plaintiff the jury trial which he has

 

 

 

408 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

requested. In a previous action, defendant managed to have

plaintiff's complaint moved into chancery for private trial,

although plaintiff had requested jury trial.

 

4. Corpus Juris Secundum 26A 1. 'As a word of legal

terminology it (deposition) is usually limited to the testimony

of a witness, taken in writing, under oath or affirmation, before

some judicial officer. ... At common law, the right to take

depositions in law actions was unknown in the absence of

consent. ' The plaintiff deposes that he objects to said private

trial without jury before counsel for defense as a proceeding

in chancery.

 

5. CJS 26 A9: Grounds for Taking. The statutes . . . limit

the power to take testimony out of court to clearly marked

emergencies and situations. Thus an application to take deposi-

tions may and shall be granted only where one or more of

the established grounds therefore exist, where there is some

reasonable ground for believing that actual necessity requires

it." And plaintiff deposes that defendant's demand to take

deposition cites no emergency or necessity for said demand.

 

6. CJS 26A cites as basis for demanding deposition the

nonresidence or distant residence, disability, or that it is un-

likely that the person will appear at the trial, yet defendant

cites none of these bases as none are applicable.

 

7. Defendant has a proven record of seeking deposition

from plaintiff solely for the purpose of harassing and embarrass-

ing him, oppressing plaintiff with undue burden and expense

and as a threat to plaintiff's health. Defendant has deliberately

set the stage for such oppression by calling for the deposition

 

to be held in the office of one , with whom plaintiff

 

has been in litigation since 1979, and plaintiff as personally

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SENILE MILLIONAIRE 409

 

sued and is considering further action against said

 

, thus forcing plaintiff into a hostile atmosphere, in

 

which the hired hand of defendant can freely oppress him.

Since defendant persuaded plaintiff to begin association with

him in 1982, plaintiff subsequently became gray-haired and

developed a heart condition and high blood pressure solely

due to said association and defendant's manager dropped dead

of a heart attack during this same period.

 

8. Defendant has not established jurisdiction over the person

of plaintiff.

 

9. Defendant Command to take deposition is an integral

part of defendant's ongoing campaign to ruin, impoverish

and destroy plaintiff, the many details of which plaintiff will

duly present before a jury as a revelation of the incredible

malice and malevolence of said defendant."

 

It had long been obvious to me that I had fallen into the

clutches of a truly demonic being, who for a time exercised

total control over me, and who had provably attempted to

murder me and seize control of all of my life's work. I had

filed Written Interrogatories and Requests for Admission to

Fagin, which he had refused to answer, with no sanctions

being levelled against him by the court. He had responded,

but without direct answers. During the three years of this

action, I had been saving the revelations of the true nature

of this demonic being for the jury, and had been holding

back the most shocking evidence of his behaviour.

 

The judge had now placed me under Federal Court Order

to take Deposition, and for Production of Documents. Although

I still had no inkling of danger, the plan of Fagin' s attorneys

had now begun. The first strike was a completely new request

 

 

 

410 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

for Production of Documents, which demanded that I produce

" 1 . Originals or, if not available, copies thereof, of all Federal

and State Income Tax Returns filed for the years 1952 and

through, 1985.

 

2. All documents, writings and records of every kind and

description which m anyway relate to income received, and

any expenses related thereto, from 1952 through the date hereof

in relation to the publication of the book "MuUins and the

Federal Reserve."

 

Fagin's attorneys could not even get the title of the book

accurately, it was "MuUins on the Federal Reserve."

 

I immediately filed Motion to Censure — ^Abuse of Process.

There was no question that the judge would see that the request

was impossible. I had akeady submitted testimony that during

many of those years, I was homeless. The FBI agents had

had me fired from job after job. I slept by the side of the

road, or in empty buildings, or stayed with friends. I had no

doubt that the judge would throw out the substituted request.

 

"The Plaintiff, Eustace C. MuUins, appearing for himself,

moves the Court to Censure Counsel for Defense for violating

the integrity of this Court (a bit of sarcasm on my part. ED).,

open defiance of a Court Order, and malicious abuse of process ,

as follows:

 

1. On June 2, 1986, counsel for defense filed a Request

for Production of Documents. Plaintiff then filed a Motion

for Protective Order on same, which was duly argued in open

court on Sept. 16, 1986. The Court denied Plaintiff's Motion

for Protective Order, but deferred defendant's motion for an

accounting.

 

2. Counsel for defense later substituted a different Request

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SENILE MILLIONAIRE 41 1

 

for Production of Documents from the one which had been

argued on Sept. 16, 1986, serving this new request on Plaintiff

on Sept. 26, 1986.

 

3. Counsel for defense switched Request for Production

of Documents commanded plaintiff to bring all his Federal

and State income tax returns for the years 1952 to and including

1985, to counsel for defense's associate counsel's office on

Oct. 14, 1986, and all of plaintiff's expense accounts connected

with the book which is the subject of this action for the years

1952 to the present date. Counsel for defense had not argued

this request before the Court in response to plaintiff's Motion

for Protective Order. Counsel for defense had no legal basis

for this illegal request, because the earliest date mentioned

in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is October 15, 1982, which

counsel for defense apparently misread as 1952 and called

for records from 1952. By demanding an accounting from

plaintiff of tax returns and accounting of expenses connected

with said book from 1952 through 1985, counsel for defense

openly and flagrantly and contemptuously defied the decision

of this Court on Sept. 16, 1986 and the Order of this Court

that 'Ruling is deferred on the motion for an accounting.'

 

4. Counsel for defense's demand that plaintiff produce said

accounting records for the past thirty-four years is malicious

abuse of process with a two-fold purpose: First, to invent

conditions impossible for plaintiff to meet, as it is unlikely

that any individual can produce Federal and State tax returns

and detailed expense accounts for the past thirty-four years,

during much of which time plaintiff slept in empty buildings

and by the side of the road, and cannot return to said empty

buildings and retrieve detailed expense accounts therefrom,

 

 

 

412 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

and counsel for defense filed such demand with the Court in

expectation that plaintiff would drop this proceedings because

of inability to meet said demands. In over two years of litiga-

tion, counsel for defense has not been able to answer plaintiff's

documented charges against defendant, who continues to avoid

any physical appearance in Court, remaining secluded on his

vast estates like a latterday Howard Hughes while daily order-

ing out his paid hirelings to attack and destroy anyone who

dares to oppose his malignant operations; and second, counsel

for defense's associate counsel, with whom plaintiff has been

in litigation for ten years, and whom plaintiff has sued for

improper conduct, desires plaintiff's income tax returns so

as to involve plaintiff in a second vendetta with the Internal

Revenue Service, as said associate counsel succeeded in doing

when plaintiff sued said associate counsel's client for damages,

and said associate counsel boasted, 'Don't worry about Mullins

now; I've seen to it that the IRS will handle him,' and shortly

thereafter, plaintiff was summoned by the IRS for an audit,

whereupon plaintiff was forced to file suit against the IRS,

litigation continuing for many months, and dismissed without

trial by jury against plaintiff's wishes.

 

5. Malicious abuse of process is designed solely to force

plaintiff to drop this action against said defendants, as evi-

denced by the Washington Post, May 19, 1980, "Discovery

Cases Abuse Due Process": U.S. District Judge John F. Grady

on April 17, 1980 said much of discovery in the ATT case

was irrelevant and immaterial. U.S. District Judge Harold

H. Green said the discovery process had become 'a trial by

combat,' in which the litigant most able to afford the necessary

expense or willing to spend funds will eventually prevail by

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SENILE MILLIONAIRE 413

 

hiring a law finii willing to engage in endless and needless

rounds of discovery . . . maneuvers. . . . Useless discovery

. . . must be curtailed if justice is to be done.' The Post

commented, "Abuse of discovery clogs up the courts and

unnecessarily inflates attorneys fees." 17 CJS 10. "Abuse

of legal processes or proceedings is a contempt. " in re Toepel,

102 N.W. 369, 139 Mich. 85.

 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully moves the Court to

censure counsel for defense for the above detailed violations

and to award plaintiff full summary judgment against the defen-

dants because of these abuses of process."

 

I never doubted that the judge would order the defendant

to withdraw the demand for Production of Documents as exces-

sive and unreal. I was stunned when he upheld the demand

that I produce thirty-four years of state and federal income

tax forms. During most of those years, the state had not even

had a state income tax!

 

On the appointed day, I and a friend hauled two huge

boxes of documents to associate counsel's office. I obtained

a receipt from them for delivery of 10,000 documents. To

this day, there is no record that any of those documents was

ever returned. Included in the boxes were some, but obviously

not all, of the tax returns and expense receipts which I had

been placed under Federal Court order to produce. The set-

up, with cooperation on the highest levels, was now in place.

 

I then appeared for the Deposition. I was expecting an

interrogation of from a half hour to an hour. Instead, I was

subjected to a ruthless assault of some nine hours of the most

intensive grilling I have ever undergone. I was recovering

from another kidney stone attack, and had gone on record in

 

 

 

414 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

my pleadings as having developed high blood pressure and

heart trouble due to Fagin's persecution. The attorney, a vigor-

ous man in his thirties, expected that I would collapse and

perhaps die from the stress of such a prolonged third degree.

After some hours, he began to subject me to pointed question-

ing about my sex life, hoping to develop something damaging

about a relationship with a married friend. She was present

at the deposition, and had faithfully supported me throughout

the proceedings. I objected, but he pressed harder than ever,

as he questioned me about my sex life over the past thirty

years. I anticipated filing suit against him on this line of

questioning, but when I paid an enormous sum for the tran-

script, all of these questions had carefully been edited out,

as had my responses to them.

 

Few laymen realize that the supposedly sacrosanct deposi-

tions, which are given under oath, are frequently edited by

the attorneys before being typed in their final form. There

are numerous deletions and alterations, all of which are illegal,

and all of which are done with the full cooperation of the

court reporter, who depends upon the lawyers for all income.

It is but one more development in the total corruption of the

legal process.

 

In previous depositions, the attorneys had usually found

me unshakeable, and had given up after a half hour or so. I

had had one equally intensive deposition some years earlier,

when I sued the Washington Post for a million dollars for

criminal libel. Their columnist, George Sokolsky, had pillo-

ried me as a "subversive." Sokolsky died of a heart attack

shortly after I brought suit against him. The Post remained as

a defendant. Their attorneys, Covington and Burling, which

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SENILE MILLIONAIRE 415

 

employed Alger Hiss' brother Donald, and a host of other

pillars of Washington's liberal Establishment, were the corpo-

rate counsel for the Post, one of the properties owned by

the international bankers, Famille Meyer, who bought the

paper with the proceeds from printing and selling Liberty

Bonds in duplicate during World War I, through the War

Finance Corporation. At that deposition, I had an attorney,

who sat by and said nothing while the Post's attorneys merci-

lessly threatened and hounded me for several days. Your attor-

ney is supposed to object when the questioning becomes obvi-

ous harassment, but this dummy refused to do anything to

help me. I fired him the next day.

 

As the afternoon wore on, Fagin's attorney began to wilt.

He became increasingly red-faced, and excused himself several

times to go out into the hall. It was apparent that he was on

some sort of drug, as he became back refreshed and full of

vigor. However, this only lasted a half hour or so, and he

would have to go out again. I sat in my uncomfortable chair,

totally at ease, making certain my answers contained as much

damaging information as possible about the incredible malevo-

lence of the demonic Fagin, who of course was not present.

The fact that this material was going into the record infuriated

his attorney, who began to scream and shout at me. As the

sun sank over the horizon, he suddenly collapsed, and halted

the deposition. As we were leaving the building, he came

up to me, and with considerable respect, for he had been

soundly beaten at his own game, he said, "I think it is time

we got together and settled this thing, don't you?" I agreed,

and we set a date for the following week. I was jubilant,

because I expected a reasonable settlement. I was asking for

 

 

 

416 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

fifty million dollars, and a tenth of that was now a good

prospect.

 

When I arrived at the attorney's office, I noticed that he

seemed calm, rather than downcast, as I had expected. We

sat down, and he immediately said, "You haven't produced

the tax returns or the expense accounts, have you?" I replied,

"No." He said, "You know you are under Federal Court

order." I said, "You know, and I know, and the judge knows

that I don't have those records for thirty-four years." He

said, "In that case, we have to go to the judge for sanctions.

That means you will be remanded to custody until you comply

with the order."

 

I understood why the judge had refused to grant my Motion

for Abuse of Process , and had upheld the demand that I produce

thirty-four years of records. Fagin's associates were desperate,

after I brought them in as co-defendants, and their only chance

was to have me put in a box. I was now to be committed

indefinitely to prison. Since I could not produce the records,

I would be in for life. The attorney now offered an alternative.

"I mentioned the other day that we should settle this," he

said. "I've prepared this quit-claim."

 

The quit claim stipulated that I drop all claims against Fagin,

allow him to keep $16,000 that he had illegally banked from

the sale of my book, and that I turn over the entire $23,500

I had kept in the bank without drawing upon a cent of it.

He was confiscating all of the proceeds from my book.

 

I realized that this was extortion and blackmail obtained

under duress. I signed the quit claim. This same judge had

already dismissed two suits with prejudice which I had brought

before him; I knew that he would agree, and had probably

 

 

 

STRANGE CASE OF THE SENILE MILLIONAIRE 417

 

already agreed, ex parte, to carry out the indeterminate jail

sentence until I produced the nonexistent records. I believed

that I now had sufficient evidence to have the entire crew

prosecuted under criminal statutes. However, after leaving

the office, I reconsidered, and decided not to give the attorney

the check after all. I went to Charlottesville to consult pertinent

statutes in the law library, and returned to my home late in

the evening. After I sat down, my front door suddenly was

flung open (I had neglected to lock it), and Fagin's attorney

came rushing in. He was red-faced, breathless, and extremely

distraught. It seemed obvious that he was going to attack

me, and my gun was upstairs. He was standing between me

and the stairs.

 

"What do you want?" I asked.

 

"You've got to give me the check, right now!" he ex-

claimed. There were only the two of us in the room, but I

suspected he might have U.S. Marshals waiting outside to

take me to prison. I decided the check would be the final

evidence I would need to institute criminal charges, and I

wrote it out. He insisted it be made out to his firm, not to

Fagin. This again was evidence which I wanted. I wrote him

the check.

 

I then wrote to two United States Attorneys in the states

we had been operating in, and to the Department of Justice,

as follows:

 

"The statutes governing misprison of a crime require me

as a citizen of the United States to report to you the following

offenses: interstate conspiracy to defraud and injure; violations

of use 17; violations of USC 18 245, unlawful coercion,

blackmail and extortion, (documents attached) showing Racke-

 

 

 

418 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

teer Influenced Corrupt Organization." I included documenta-

tion, including Fagin's lawyers' assurances that they would

obtain rights to all my published books and articles, the receipt

for 10,000 documents from the attorneys, the check and its

endorsement by Fagin's attorneys, as well as a number of

other documents from the file of the case.

 

I reckoned without Fagin's widespread political influence.

Like most very wealthy men, he made regular campaign dona-

tions to prominent officials. One U.S. attorney replied to my

letter, "You have settled your case, and there is nothing we

can do." The registered complaint of extortion, blackmail

and undue duress was ignored. I had seen the American legal

system in action.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 12

 

 

 

Freedom of Speech,

Anyone?

 

 

 

I was uniquely qualified to found the American Council

of Freedom of Speech Organizations, because I not only was

the only person ever fired from the staff of the Library of

Congress for political reasons; I also was the only writer who

had had a book burned in Europe since 1945. The announce-

ment that my history of the Federal Reserve was to appear

in a German edition was greeted with horror by U.S. High

Commissioner James B. Conant. I have repeatedly memorial-

ized James B. Conant as the most notorious war criminal of

the Second World War, a title which no one has sought to

wrest from him. As a chemist, he developed an anthrax bomb

on request from Winston Churchill, which would have killed

every human being and every animal in Germany. The war

ended before the bomb, (which Conant succeeded in perfect-

ing) could be used. He then returned to Washington, where

he advised President Truman to drop the atom bomb upon

Japanese women and children. After the war, he became the

 

 

 

419

 

 

 

420 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

ruthless Gauleiter of the conquered German people. I made

legal objection to his wanton act of book-burning by filing

the following complaint:

 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS

 

 

 

EUSTACE C. MULLINS,

Plaintiff

V. ) No.

 

THE UNITED STATES,

Defendant

 

 

 

PETITION FOR DAMAGES

 

As and for his Petition, the plaintiff, Eustace C. Mullins,

seeks redress from the defendant for the following acts commit-

ted by defendant:

 

1, On or about July 10, 1955, defendant, acting through

its duly appointed agents and respondent subsidiaries, did

cause and order to be confiscated and seized and destroyed

the property of defendant, the entire German edition of a

book, "DER BANKIER VERSCHWORUNG VON JEKYL

ISLAND," by Eustace C. Mullins, Plaintiff. The only recorded

instance of a book being burned in Europe since 1945, defen-

dant's act has been termed "one of the most barbarous acts

of the twentieth century." The said seizure and destruction

was duly reported by Reuters News Agency, the Washington

Post, and other international news agencies.

 

2. From July 10, 1955 to the present date, defendant has

 

 

 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ANYONE? 421

 

continuously, consecutively and concurrently acted to cover

up said crime of burning or destroying plaintifFs books, and

has continuously conspired to obstruct justice by refusing plain-

tiff any compensation for said act of burning plaintiff's books,

and has conspired to deny that said book burning took place,

said conspiracy having been in effect from July 10, 1955 to

the present date.

 

3. Said act by defendant of burning plaintiff's books took

place as part of defendant's military occupation of a defeated

nation. West Germany, and constitutes a WAR CRIME as

defined by the Nuremberg Trials of which defendant was a

participant and signatory.

 

4. Said order to bum plaintiff's books issued from the office

of James Bryant Conant, in his capacity as United States

High Commissioner of West Germany, and said order by

defendant's principal agent to officials of a defeated and occu-

pied nation constitutes a WAR CRIME.

 

5. Defendant, through its duly appointed agents and respon-

dent subsidiaries, did further cause the said book to be continu-

ously banned in West Germany from July 10, 1955 to Novem-

ber 1980, thereby causing the death of the publisher, Guido

Roeder, Widar Verlag, in Oberammergau, Germany, from

shock, harassment and impoverishment. Plaintiff's book has

been published in Oberammergau, the home of the Passion

Play of Jesus Christ, as an act of Christian piety.

 

6. Said agent of defendant, one James Bryant Conant, did

act and seize plaintiff's book from hidden motives in his capac-

ity as the second ranking Communist agent in the United

States, to forestall any resurgence of anti-Communist feeling

in Germany, because plaintiff's book exposed the financial

origins of the Communist rise to power.

 

 

 

422 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

7. Said agent of defendant acted illegally because plain-

tiff's book had been widely circulated in the United States for

three years, in two editions, with no legal action from any

United States official, and had been publicly praised by

such great Americans as Congressman Wright Patman of the

House Banking and Currency Committee (letter of Nov. 23,

1953).

 

8. In November, 1980, Roland Bohlinger, WobbenbuU-

Husum, West Germany, did defy the illegal ban instituted

by defendant, and did publish and circulate plaintiff's book

in West Germany, with the approval of the present government

of West Germany, solely because defendant, its agents and

respondent subsidiaries, no longer have the power to demand

obedience from West German officials or to bum plaintiff's

books in West Germany. Said sequence of events proves sole

guilt of defendant in the seizing and burning of plaintiff's

books in West Germany on or about July 10, 1955, and in

the subsequent conspiracy to injure plaintiff by the continued

ban to November, 1980, and the conspiracy to obstruct justice

in covering up this crime, and defendant is solely Uable for

all damages resulting from said act.

 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff seeks damages from defendant

for losses from sales of this book in West Germany from

1955 to 1980 of deprived royalties of six million dollars

($6,000,000.00), plus an additional six million dollars

($6,000,000.00) which plaintiff would have earned from the

sale of plaintiff's other books and articles in the market in

West Germany and Europe which would have been created

by the circulation of the destroyed book, plus punitive dam-

ages in an amount to be determined by the Court.

 

In further pleadings, I referred to this action as follows:

 

 

 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ANYONE? 423

 

Nature of the Case

 

"Plaintiff's petition is the oldest and most historic civil

rights case now in litigation. Plaintiff came to the U.S. Court

of Claims because plaintiff has been consistently denied a

hearing of this case and legal redress. Plaintiff had not ex-

hausted legal remedies but had been denied legal remedies.

. . . The Dept. of Justice has repeatedly and illegally refused

to act on plaintiff's complaints of violations of his civil rights,

as evidenced by attached copy of letter from Jerris Leonard,

Asst Atty Gen, Civil Rights Division, dated March 5, 1970,

which concludes, "If you believe your rights have been vio-

lated, you may wish to retain a private attorney to determine

what remedies, if any, are available to you.' "

 

This case was dismissed without a hearing.

 

I had also sought vainly for reinstatement to the staff of

the Library of Congress since I was discharged in 1952, I

had been discharged by the pathetic drunkard, Luther Evans,

on charges that I had used the letterhead "Aryan League of

America," and that I had been the American correspondent

for "The Social Creditor," a small English newspaper. The

American Library Association had risen in anger at the specta-

cle of numerous plays, movies, and television productions

which showed courageous Bette Davises battling prejudice

as leftwing small town librarians. The ALA Council announced

that it had formed two new committees to deal with the clear

and present danger. ' 'The Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF)

and the Intellectual Freedom Conmiittee (IFC) will announce

that they are ready, willing and able to take action on com-

plaints of violations of the Library Bill of Rights whether

from ALA members directly through the State Intellectual

Freedom Committees, or indeed, from anyone else."

 

 

 

424 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Unfortunately for the ALA, the OIF and the IFC, I was

the only person who had been fired from a library for political

reasons, and I was a known anti-Communist! They dashed

for the exits each time that I contacted them, and have been

running ever since. As I wrote to the redoubtable head of

the American Library Association OIF, Judith Krug,

 

Judith F. Krug,

 

Office for Intellectual Freedom

American Library Association

50 E Huron St Chicago 111

 

Dear Mrs. Krug;

 

Thank you for your letter of January 8, 1970, which contains

the statement that I did not exhaust the administrative remedies

available. After receiving Mr. Mason's letter, I requested the

hearing before the Librarian of Congress, Dr. Luther Evans,

and was granted this hearing. Dr. Evans stated that he had

no choice but to discharge me. This exhausted the administra-

tive remedies available. The following week. Dr. Evans made

a speech before the American Library Association defending

the principle of freedom of speech, and displaying a remarkable

moral agility after his action in my case. I do not know how

you obtained information that I did not exhaust the administra-

tive remedies.

 

As for being a probationary employee, I have heard this for

seventeen years, but no one has ever explained to me why a

probationary employee can be denied his civil rights, as I

know of no other probationary employee who was denied

tiiem. A probationary employee means one who is allowed

 

 

 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ANYONE? 425

 

to work a certain length of time while his qualifications are

evaluated in order to reach a decision as to his fitness to

hold the job. My competence and my moral background, as

well as my relationships with customers and fellow employees,

was never questioned. The exercise of totalitarian Fascism

in this instance by Dr. Evans and Mr. Mason is an outrage

that will be remedied, although from your response I am

beginning to wonder if the Office for Intellectual Freedom is

seriously interested in this case. For the record, I believe

your office will stand or fall by its decision in this case, as

it is a historic case which will be pressed in every possible

manner as an exposure of totalitarian Fascistic activity by

Dr. Evans and Mr. Mason, who reached a personal decision

to deny me my civil rights and in so doing violated Section

241 Title 18 of the United States Code in a criminal violation.

 

sincerely,

 

Eustace Mullins

 

In my thirty year campaign for reinstatement to the Library

of Congress, I wrote to Luther Evans' successor, L. Quincy

Mumford,

 

7-31-69

 

L. Quincy Mumford,

Librarian of Congress,

Washington, D.C.

 

Dear Mr. Mumford;

 

Your letter of July 16, 1969 to Senator William B. Spong

Jr. carefully avoids discussing the facts of the case in my

 

 

 

426 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

discharge from the staff of the Library of Congress. You do

not mention that no public expression of prejudice was made

to any staff member or customer of the Library of Congress,

or that said "prejudice" had not prevented me from carrying

out my duties and maintaining satisfactory working relation-

ships in a racially integrated group for six months prior to

my discharge.

 

Nor do you mention that the complaint, coming from outside

the Library by persons who had never seen or spoken to

me, was drawn up by J. Epstein, an active member of the

Communist Party then serving on the staff of Senator Herbert

Lehman, D.N.Y., and sent to the Library over Senator Leh-

man's signature. These persons did not appear in person to

make a complaint.

 

Is it not a fact that no member of the Communist Party has

ever been discharged from the staff of the Library of Con-

gress?

 

Is it not a fact that if I had expressed pro-Communist views,

instead of the anti-Communist ones in the article in dispute,

I would have received no disciplinjuy action?

 

Your letter to Senator Spong shows a total amorality and

complete disregard of my rights as an American citizen and

as a human being. Although the great majority of Federal

employees are loyal, decent, hard-working American citizens,

it is regrettable that the department heads are still being drawn

from the sinister cabal organized during the 1930s by Harry

Dexter White and Lauchlin Currie, and that employees not

in sympathy with their amoral, foreign allegiances are dis-

 

 

 

FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ANYONE? 427

 

charged, in the same ruthless manner as I was discharged

from the Library of Congress.

 

I have been informed that persons ordering any of my eight

titles from the Library stacks invariably have the slips returned

marked, "Not on Shelf." Is this not the accepted practice

of book-burning? The next step will probably be to deny me

access to Library facilities, which I frequently use in research

for my books on Christian themes.

 

I seek justice, not only for myself, but for the vast majority

of disenfranchised American citizens.

 

sincerely,

 

Eustace MuUins

 

I then filed suit against Mumford, as follows:

"Defendant has wilfully, maliciously and capriciously re-

fused to reinstate plaintiff as a member of the staff of the

Library of Congress because of personal pique and prejudice

even after being informed of the distorted and false claims

advanced in plaintiff's letter of dismissal, and said claims

were initiated by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

in open and flagrant violations of plaintiff's civil rights."

 

The following press release, sent to all major news media,

was never printed anywhere.

 

CIVIL RIGHTS SCANDAL

 

A historic civil rights scandal surfaced here with the filing

of a suit asking two and one half million dollars in damages.

E. MuUins, 51, has sued L. Quincy Mumford, Librarian of

 

 

 

428 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Congress, charging that Mumford, in refusing to reinstate

MuUins on the staff of the Library of Congress, has shown,

"pique, prejudice and violation of his civil rights."

 

The only person ever fired from the Library for political rea-

sons, MuUins was given a letter of dismissal stating that he

had used a letterhead named The Aryan League of America,

and that he had written an article on foreign aid for The

Social Creditor of England, a now defunct monetary journal

which had a circulation of eight hundred, and which was

not circulated in the United States.

 

MuUins had earlier received two promotions during six months

on the Library staff, and had been personally hired by the

Librarian, who had heard him give a reading of his poetry.

 

Since his dismissal, MuUins has repeatedly requested reinstate-

ment, but Mumford has ignored these requests, taking the

position that, as a "probationary" employee, MuUins had

no civU rights.

 

"This legal confrontation is of vital importance to every Fed-

eral employee," says MuUins. "The courts must decide

whether the bureaucrat is answerable to the law."

 

Judge June L. Green, famous for her capricious decisions,

dismissed my suit with prejudice Jan. 14, 1975.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 13

 

 

 

Taxation Without

Hope

 

 

 

During much of my adult life, the years spent in research

and study, I had no contact with the Internal Revenue Service,

because I had nothing to report. My first taste of the financial

rewards of a writing career came when I received a $1500

advance for my biography of poet Ezra Pound, in 1961. In

exchange for my room and board, I was teaching at a small

Christian school in the mountains, when I received a summons

to travel to the city. I was called into an IRS office, where

the agents indignantly demanded a reason why I had not paid

$500 of this sum as income tax. I contacted my brother,

who was an excellent tax adviser. He informed me that I

need only file a revised return, proving that I had spent more

than $1500 in researching the book. I did so, and the IRS

was satisfied.

 

Some fifteen years passed before I heard from them again.

I had been embroiled in several lawsuits, during the course

 

 

 

429

 

 

 

430 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

of which I was forced to file suit against an attorney for the

defense. He had persisted in repeating outrageous and mali-

cious lies about my pleadings to the judge, in order to justify

the judge's one hundred per cent denial of all of my motions.

I sued under the statutes, which provide legal redress when

an attorney makes false statements. This not only caused con-

sternation (apparently no one had ever sued a lawyer in my

town before), but also doubled his malpractice insurance. He

seemed anxious to convince me that my effrontery had not

gone unnoticed, and one morning when I was passing by

his office, he was trudging towards the door. "Mr. MuUins,"

hesaid. "Oh, good morning," I replied, without halting stride.

For those who persist in claiming that there is no God, this

attorney, at the very moment he was uttering vicious lies

against me, was stricken, and his face began to rot away

from a malignant and rapidly spreading growth. I had little

desire to come closer to this apparition, a head of Medusa,

and a reminder to all that God is not mocked, when he said,

"Just a minute," "Yes?" I asked.

 

"You may think you are getting somewhere by filing

these lawsuits," he said, "but you won't be a problem much

longer."

 

"How is that?" I asked.

 

"The IRS will be taking care of you," he said.

 

"I have no problem with the IRS," I told him.

 

"You do now," he said. He tried to smile, with the result

that his decaying features contorted into a grin which would

have done credit to a corpse.

 

The next day, I received a summons from the IRS to appear

for an audit. I appeared at the office with a tape recorder,

 

 

 

TAXATION WITHOUT HOPE 431

 

which I did not know how to turn on, and two truculent

friends. After a brief encounter, we left the office. I had

abeady filed suit against the IRS agent for damages, asking

$300,000 for terrorism. The govenunent promptly remanded

my suit to federal court. I then filed a petition for remand to

state court.

 

PETrriON FOR REMAND TO STATE COURT

 

Comes now plaintiff, as Attorney pro Se in this action,

and moves the Court to remand this action to State Court

for the following reasons:

 

1 . Plaintiff filed this Motion for Judgment against an individ-

ual in a State Court.

 

2. Plaintiff filed a Motion of Opposition to defendant's

Petition for Removal to federal court.

 

3. Defendant has admitted in Motion for Summary Judgment

dated March 10, 1980 that federal court lacks jurisdiction

over the subject matter of this action.

 

4. Plaintiff denies that the United States District Court has

jurisdiction pursuant to Title 28, U.S. Code Section 1346

(a) as plaintiff denies that this is a claim against the United

States.

 

5. Plaintiff denies that defendant was "acting within the

scope of his office or employment. N.C.St Hwy Comsn v.

U.S. D.C. N.C. 1968 288 F. supp. 757 affirmed 406 F 2d

1330.

 

6. Plaintiff denies that the United States of America can

be substituted as defendant in place of C. L. Wright Jr. pursuant

to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2679 (d) and plaintiff

 

 

 

432 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

cites Title 28, United States Code, Section 2680. "Exceptions,

(c) Any claim arising in respect of the assessment or collection

of any tax or customs duty or the detention of any goods or

merchandise by any officer of customs or excise or any other

law enforcement officer, (h) Any claim arising out of assault,

battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecu-

tion, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit,

or interference with contract rights. (1). Any claim for damages

caused by the fiscal operations of the Treasury or by the

regulation of the monetary system."

 

7. Plaintiff cites Title 28, Section 1446-2, United States

Code. "Construction. Grounds and procedure of removal will

be strictly construed in effort to preserve jurisdiction and comity

of state and federal courts. Wood v. DeWeese D.C.Ky 1969

305 F Supp. 939. This section should be strictly construed

in favor of state court jurisdiction. Vilas v. Sharp D.C.Mo.

1965 248 F.Supp. 1019. Higson v. North River Ins Co.

C.C.N.C. 1911 184 F.165. Daugherty v. West Un Tel Co

C.C. Ind 1894 6. F. 138. Proteus Fds & Industries Inc v.

Nippon Reizu Kabushiki Kaisha D.C.N.Y. 1967 279 F Supp

836 Ziegler. V. Hunt D.C.La. 1941 38 F Supp 68 Soldifar

V. Heiland Res Corp D.C.Tex. 1940 32 F. Supp 248."

 

8. Plaintiff further cites Title 28, United States Code, Section

2680, note 67 . ' 'Test of whether government officer is immune

from tort suit depends on whether individual defendant was

exercising a discretionary function. Gamer v. Rathbum

D.C.Colo. 1964 232 F Supp 508. affirmed 346 F. 2d 55.

Note 14. Abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion does not

impose liability on the United States under this chapter and

section 1346 (b) of this title. U.S. v. Morrell C.A. Utah

 

 

 

TAXATION WITHOUT HOPE 433

 

1964 331 F 2d 498 certiorari denied 85 S Ct 146 379 U.S.

879 13 L Ed. 2d 86.

 

9. Plaintiff denies that this proceeding is a tort action brought

against the United States as defined by Title 28, United States

Code, Section 2671 et seq.

 

10. Plaintiff cites Title 26, United States Code, Section

7214 (a). "Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents. Any

officer or employee of the United States acting in connection

with any revenue law of the United States (1) who is guilty

of any extortion or wilful oppression under color of law.

... 4. whoever conspires or colludes with any other person

to defraud the United States. . . . shall be dismissed from

office, fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or imprisoned

not more than five years, or both."

 

11. In "MY LIFE IN CHRIST," Faith and Service Books

1968, by Eustace Mullins, plaintiff has written, on p. 87,

' 'The secret of Christ Power lies in the nature of human poten-

tial." Defendant's action in singling out plaintiff's poverty-

level tax return for "special attention" is due solely to plain-

tiffs Christian work, to plaintiff's work as officer of a taxpayer

organization, and to plaintiff's authorship of numerous articles

such as "WITHHOLDING TAX IS ILLEGAL," Christian

Vanguard, Issue #86, Feb., 1979, and reprinted by popular

demand in the March 1980 issue of the Christian Vanguard,

and thereby defendant's prejudicial actions against plaintiff

were outside the scope of his office and employment.

 

12. On Feb. 24, 1980, on the program "60 Minutes" Paul

Strassels, former Internal Revenue Service official and nation-

ally-recognized authority on the operations of the Internal

Revenue Service, stated that any citizen reporting an income

 

 

 

434 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

of below $15,000 had little chance of being audited, and

that any citizen reporting ssi income of less than $10,000

had NO chance of being audited, yet defendant bypassed the

established procedures of the Internal Revenue Service to order

an audit of plaintiffs poverty-level income.

 

13. Plaintiff has requested a jury trial of this action, and

remand to state court would preserve plaintiff's constitutional

right to jury trial.

 

14. Defendant acted beyond the scope of his official duties

m singling out plaintiff's poverty-level income for "special

attention" because plaintiff is listed as No. 2 on a list of

American patriots who have publicly opposed the subversion

of the legd government of the United States by the State of

Israel, and said list was compiled by Mossad, the Israeli Intelli-

gence Service, and turned over to the Internal Revenue Service

by said alien saboteurs with the demand that the Internal Reve-

nue Service take immediate action against plaintiff and other

patriots.

 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays the Court to remand this

action to state court as originally filed by plaintiff.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

 

I then filed a request for my IRS file.

 

MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF ESSENTIAL DOCU-

MENTS

 

Comes now plaintiff, Eustace C. MuUins, a citizen of the

assembled States of the Republic of the United States of Amer-

ica, with all rights and privileges attendant, and moves the

Court to order defendant to produce for plaintiff all pertinent

 

 

 

TAXATION WITHOUT HOPE 435

 

records of the Intelligence Division of the Internal Revenue

Service concerning plaintiff in any way, for plaintiff's due

perusal and study as an essential part of plaintiff's prosecution

of this action.

 

In almost two years of litigation, the IRS never produced

any documents. I also filed Written Interrogatories to the Com-

missioner of Internal Revenue. I never received any answer

to these Interrogatories.

 

I then filed a motion for injunction to prevent the government

from sending the fraudulent 1040 form through the mail.

 

MOTION FOR INJUNCTION TO DENY DEFENDANT USE

OF MAILS FOR FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS

 

Comes now plaintiff, Eustace C. MuUins, as attorney pro

se in this action, and moves the Court to issue an Injunction

against Defendant To Deny Use of Mails for Fraudulent Docu-

ments (1040 Forms), for the following reasons:

 

1. The 1040 Form which is mailed to citizens of the United

States by the Internal Revenue Service, Department of the

Treasury, is a fraudulent document because it is a legal sum-

mons, but nowhere on this form is the recipient notified that

this is a service of a legal sununons, thereby creating a fraudu-

lent act by sending said document through the mail improperly

and illegally lacking any identification as to its true nature,

nor does it warn the recipient of the penalties for disobeying

said summons: United States Code Title 26-7210. Fail to obey

summons will result in fine of not more than $1000.00 and

imprisonment of not more than one year, or both.

 

(a). Corpus Juris Secundum, v.83, p.795. A Summons is

 

 

 

436 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

defined as "A call to attend, or to act, as at a particular

place or time." The 1040 form is a call to attend, or to act,

as at a given place or time, and is a legal summons.

 

(b). 1672 Rec. Proc. Justin, crt Edinb. (S.H.S.) 11 77 A

Messenger executing a Summonds must shew his warrand.

 

(c). 1578 Lindsaye, (Pitscottie) Chron. Scot. (S.T.S.) 1.150

Than was send ane summondes of foirfaltour.

 

2. The 1040 form is a legal warrant, but nowhere on this

form is the recipient informed that this is the service of a

warrant, and it thereby becomes a fraudulent act to send said

document through the mails improperly and illegally lacking

identification as to its true nature. United States Code 26-

5557 authorizes internal revenue agents to issue search warrants

but said warrants must be properly identified. United States

Code 26-7608 (b) also authorizes internal revenue agents to

execute and serve search warrants, but does not authorize

the service of same without proper identification. United States

Code 18-2234, Authority exceeded in executing warrant.

"Whoever, in executing a search warrant, wilfully exceeds

his authority or exercises it with undue severity, shall be

fined not more than $1000.00 or imprisoned not more than

one year. " Je 25 48, C645 62 Stat. 803. The action of defendant

in sending the 1040 search warrant through the mail without

proper preliminaries is a violation of United States Code 18-

2234, because it exceeds statutory authority for sending a

search warrant without proper legal preliminaries. United

States Code 18-2235. Search warrant procured maliciously.

Whoever maliciously and without probable cause procures a

search warrant to be issued and executed should be fined

not more than $1000.00 or imprisoned not more than one

 

 

 

TAXATION WITHOUT HOPE 437

 

year. Code of Virginia 19.2-52 When search warrant may

be issued: 19.2-55 issuing general search warrant without affi-

davit deemed malfeasance. 19.2-59 Search without warrant

is a misdemeanor. Plaintiff, a citizen of the sovereign State

of Virginia, is protected against said violations.

 

(a) Corpus Juris Secundum, sec. 932. "The guaranty of

the Fourth Amendment to the federal Constitution against

unreasonable searches and seizures includes searches and sei-

zures under, or in connection with, internal revenue laws.

Amos V. U.S. S.C.41 S.Ct.266, 255 U.S.313, 65 L.Ed. 654.

U.S. V. Costner, C.C.A.Tenn. 157 F. 2d 23 U.S. v. Swan

1 D.C.Cal. 15 F.2d 598 U.S. v. One Kemper Radio, D.C.Cal.

1 8 F.Supp.304." The burden of these decisions is that the

16th Amendment to the Constimtion authorizing the income

tax does not confer upon defendant any authority to violate

other provisions of the Constitution.

 

(b) Corpus Juris Secundum, sec. 933. "An affidavit on

which a warrant is issued must conform to the statutes and

to the Fourth Amendment. ... In view of the provisions

of the Fourth Amendment, a showing of probable cause is

necessary to justify the issuance of a warrant."

 

(c) Corpus Juris Secundum, Sec. 934. "A search without

a warrant contravenes the Fourth Amendment."

 

3. The 1040 form is a legal contract between the party of

the first part, the citizen who makes out and signs the form

as a statement of debt and promise of payment, and the party

of the second part, the defendant who receives payment but

does not sign the contract, and said contract is therefore invalid.

O.E.D. A contract is defined as "to enter into mutual obliga-

tions." L. contractus, an agreement enforceable by law, an

 

 

 

438 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

agreement which effects a transfer of property, a conveyance. ' '

(a) 1588 A.King tr. Canisius Catech. 39. All unluachfuU.

. . . vsurping of vthir mens geir be thift. , . . usurie, inust

winning, decept, and vther contractis." The 1040 form effects

a transfer of property from the party of the first part to the

party of the second part, even though the party of the second

part does not fulfil its obligations, and is therefore a fraudulent

document, and cannot legally be sent through the mail.

 

4. The 1040 form of defendant, demanding monies with

the tacit and implicit use of force, is legally an extortion

note, and is in violation of United States Code 18-875, 876,

872, 606, 607, 597 and 602. Because the 1040 form attempts

to extort monies from citizens of the United States by force

in order to give or pay tribute to foreign potentates and princes

with said monies, said extortion is in violation of United

States Code Chapter 11, Section 18-201.

 

5. The 1040 form of defendant contains a section for the

Presidential Election Campaign Fund, "Do you want $1 to

go to this fund?" This violates United States Code 18.606.

Intimidation to seciure political contributions, 607, Making

political contributions, 597, Expenditures to influence voting,

and 602, Solicitation of political contributions. This also vio-

lates the fundamental Constitutional principle of secrecy of

the ballot, a basic principle of our Republic, because the

citizen who refuses to offer $1 to this fund publicly indicates

his political preference as a political dissident who does not

support either of the government financed and controlled politi-

cal parties, and the citizen thereby becomes subject to audit

by the Internal Revenue Service, as plaintiff was selected

for audit solely for said reason. Thus the 1040 form, which

 

 

 

TAXATION WITHOUT HOPE 439

 

is in violation of the principle of secrecy of the ballot, cannot

legally be sent through the mail.

 

In further support of said Injunction, plaintiff cites Title

26, United States Code, Section 7426 (b) (1) and Title 26,

Section 2613, Note 28.

 

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs Motion for Injunction should be

granted.

 

Included in some 38 motions filed during this lawsuit were

five Motions for Injunction to halt the collection of income

tax, one of which is as follows:

 

MOTION FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST DEPARTMENT

OF THE TREASURY/INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE TO HALT FORCIBLE

COLLECTION OF MONIES TO BE PAID AS TRIBUTE

TO ALIEN PRINCES

 

Comes now plaintiff, as attorney pro se in this action, and

moves the Court to issue an Injunction against Department

of the Treasury/Internal Revenue Service Commissioner of

Internal Revenue, to halt collection of monies by force and/

or intimidation from citizens of the assembled States of the

Republic of the United States of America if any portion of

such monies are designated to be paid as tribute to foreign

princes and alien potentates, for the reason that plaintiff cites

in paragraphs 5 and 13 of his Motion for Judgment, the subver-

sion of the Internal Revenue Service by aliens and collaborators

and the ensuing harassment of plaintiff and other American

 

 

 

440 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

patriots and patriotic organizations who have publicly opposed

the subversion of the legal government of the United States

by said collaborators who are in violation of Chapter Eleven

of the United States Code, and that cited activities of defendants

are in violation of Chapter 105 of the United States Code,

"Sabotage," and that defendants may be held under the Emer-

gency Detention Act of 1950, Sections 811, 813 and 825,

and that this injunction shall remain in effect until such times

as the defendants are no longer in violation of said Sections

of the United States Code and said violations are corrected.

 

In support of this Injunction, plaintiff cites Title 26, United

States Code, Section 7426 (b) (1). "Injunction. If a levy or

sale would ureparably injure rights in property which the

court determines to be superior to the rights of the United

States in such property, the court may grant an injunction to

prohibit the enforcement of such levy or to prohibit such

sale."

 

Plaintiff further cites Title 26, United States Code, Section

2613, Note 28. "Apart from this motion permitting injunction

restraining making of assessment or levy where taxpayer has

not received proper notice, suits to restrain assessment or

collection of tax may be maintained despite Section 7421 of

this title prohibiting maintenance of suit to restrain assessment

or collection of a tax."

 

Thus, plaintiff's Motion for Injunction should be granted.

 

I also filed a Petition for Remand for Jury Trial:

PETITION FOR REMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 

 

 

TAXATION WITHOUT HOPE 441

 

Eustace Clarence MuUins, Defendant, as attorney pro se,

respectfully petitions the Court to remand this cause for a

jury hearing, for the following reasons:

 

1. The Virginia Bill of Rights provides (8) ". . . jury of

his vicinage ..."

 

2. The English Act of 1309, restraining chancery jurisdiction

without jury. 3 Ed II.

 

3. An impartial jury, being fundamental to a fair hearing

in a fair tribunal, is a basic requirement of constitutional due

process. Durham v. Cox, 328 F. Supp. 1157 (W.D.Va. 1971).

 

4. Magna Carta (1215) Cap 35, "the writ called praecipe

shall not in future be issued so as to cause a freeman to lose

his court."

 

5. Magna Carta (1215) Cap 39. "No free man shall be

taken or imprisoned or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or

anyways destroyed; nor will we go upon him, nor will we

send upon him, unless by the lawful judgment of his peers,

or by the law of the land."

 

6. ' 'THE LAW OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTI-

TUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES," by Frederic Jesup

Stimson, The Boston Book Co., Boston, Mass. 1908, p. 11.

"The Right to Law. The law required by this general right,

furthermore, must be the Common Law of the English people.

That is to say, in origin, the body of their free customs and

usage, made by themselves, not by a king, and also, in earliest

days, enforced by themselves; and furthermore, it must be

the Common Law, not the Roman or Civil Law, nor the

Canon or Church Law, nor any supposed Administrative Law,

or orders of decrees of the king, or king in Council. Even

 

 

 

442 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

chancery jurisdiction, which rests originally on the royal power

as wielded by the king's chancellor (whence the writs of injunc-

tion, mandamus, prohibition etc. are called Prerogative writs)

is hardly an exception. For many centuries we find statutes

restraining or limiting chancery jurisdiction, p. 12. In early

English trials, therefore, what was tried was rarely whether

the man did the deed (it was usually admitted or known) but

whether he was right in doing it; that is to say, was he in

his law? Was he acting upon a state of facts whereon the

unwritten law gave the right of reparation or vengeance into

his own hands? If not, he was out of law, outlaw; that is,

he had lost his right to law as against anyone molesting him

in person or property, p. 24. The common law sounds in

damages. . . . Thus, the earliest codes of statutes merely

fix a scale of penalties. The notion of compelling a freeman

to do something or to abstain from doing something was foreign

to Anglo-Saxon ideas of liberty. Like the doctrine of free

will carried to its extreme, a freeman was lord of his own

acts; only liable for the consequences of same, to the person

injured; later, only to the Crown if a criminal act, and to

the individual injured if a private wrong. Even when the judg-

ment of the court went against him, the defendant was never

compelled to do a thing, or even, in ordinary cases, to make

restitution, as in the Oriental system of rendering justice.

This principle must never be lost sight of, for it explains

many things noted in local history and in popular prejudice.

Probably the power of the chancellor to issue injunction writs

went as far towards prejudicing our ancestors against the courts

of chancery and the Star Chamber (which was merely its

criminal side) as the absence of the jury and the local county

 

 

 

TAXATION WITHOUT HOPE 443

 

court. Repeated attempts to limit or do away with this jurisdic-

tion are found in the States of the Realm, and the general

prejudice against chancery courts came to our ancestors by

direct inheritance. As is known, some States, notably Massa-

chusetts, for some time withheld chancery jurisdiction entirely,

and when adopted it was in a limited and tentative way. . . .

Bearing in mind firmly the principle that the EngUsh law

sounds only in damages, and that the notion of ordering or

even forbidding any act (except under a criminal statute) is

utterly foreign to its system; and the cardinal principle that

no fact can be found without the intervention of the petit

jury; we shall be able to understand both the historical reason

and the present meaning of the objection of the American

people to the injunctive powers of chancery and ex parte

sentences for contempt made by the judge who issued the

injunction and upon the facts found by him showing the in-

fringement of the same. . . . Many further authorities can

be cited to sustain this position; but these are sufficient to

establish the general principle that the injunction process and

contempt in chancery procedure, as well as chancery jurisdic-

tion itself, is looked on with a logical jealousy in Anglo-

Saxon countries as being in derogation of the conunon law."

 

7. In "THE AMERICAN CONSTrrUTION AS IT PRO-

TECTS PRIVATE RIGHTS" by Frederic Jesup Stimson,

Scribner's, New York, 1923, p. 22.:

 

The Anglo-Saxon people have a genius for ruling them-

selves. Their laws are the most ancient of modem law, they

extend in unbroken line from Ethelbert, the first Christian

king of Kent. p. 59. Chancery jurisdiction rested originally

on the royal powers as wielded by the King through his Chan-

 

 

 

444 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

cellor (in civil matters) or Justiciar (in criminal). These high

officials were usually clerics, hence familiar with canon or

Roman law rather than the Anglo-Saxon common law, which

they probably despised. The common law knew only one

remedial process, punishment for doing wrong; it could not,

as a priest might do, order a litigant to do right. . . . From

the Chancellor grew his court of chancery and all our courts

of equity. Mitigating or supplementing the somewhat clumsy

and uncompromising common law was well and good; but

the Chancellor also shared this extraordinary, un-English, Nor-

man and tyrannical power of ordering a free citizen to do

something that he did not wish to do. . . . For what we

may call the Continental notion, derived from the Roman, is

that all law rests on the order of a sovereign to his subject,

couple with a threat of punishment if he does not obey; to

make a man do something or not do something. This is still

more the Oriental notion. , . . But this notion had absolutely

no place in the common law of England. An Englishman

was a freeman, responsible for his acts; he could be punished

for them by the state, or made to pay damages for them by

the individual; but he could not be ordered to do anything

else. In the earliest days of all, when in Saxon tribes each

man executed his own law, the 'courts,' i.e. the assembly

of his neighbors, only tried the question whether he was in

his right in so doing, and if not, he paid a regular fine, at

first fixed by custom, later, and most elaborately, by the earliest

written laws we have preserved in England. . . . so no one

was ever ordered to do anything by court process."

 

WHEREFORE, defendant claims the right to a jury hearing

of this action.

 

 

 

TAXATION WITHOUT HOPE 445

 

The federal judge finally dismissed my suit without argu-

ment, on the incredible grounds that

 

"It appears that the plaintiff attempted to claim a deduction

for business losses on the ground that the annual inflation

rate exceeded his 7% return on investments. Accrued interest,

of course, should have been reported as gross income on the

plaintiff's income tax return, USC 26 sec 61, and the failure

to do so constituted a legitimate basis for IRS review."

 

The judge's opinion proved his total incompetence. I had

fully reported all interest income on my tax return (it was

interest on a savings account of $2100, and amounted to less

than $200); the judge, or his clerk, became confused by the

fact that I had filed a Motion for an Injunction to Halt the

Collection of Income Tax on Savings Interest Income. He

apparently thought that this meant I had refused to report it,

although my suit had stipulated that I had filed and reported

all sources of income. The judicial error was so flagrant that

I had no doubt, on appealing it to the notorious "Rocket

Docket," the leftwing U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th

Circuit, that they would find in my favor. In my appeal, I

explained in detail the error of the judge. On April 3, 1981,

the appeUate court stated "MuUins maintains he fully reported

his interest income. Even if MuUins' statement is correct,

the district court did not err in granting the government's

motion for summary judgment."

 

Note the brilliant legal scholarship flaunted in the observa-

tion "Even if MuUins' statement is correct." This is a bold

admission that the appellate court did not even bother to ascer-

tain whether I had told the truth about reporting the interest

income. Such sloppy judicial work, showing a callous disre-

 

 

 

446 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

gard for the appellate rights of the citizen, leads one to wonder

what sort of actual judicial work would be done if I were

appealing a death sentence.

 

On Nov. 20, 1987, I was advised to send Certified to the

Department of Justice a brief record of the circumstances

leading to the denial of income from my writings. I sent the

following notarized statement, which was also sent to the

Internal Revenue Service. There was no response.

 

AHFIDAVIT OF EUSTACE C. MULLINS

 

I, the undersigned, Eustace C. MuUins, residing at 126 Madi-

son PI. Staunton Va. 24401 hereby swear and affirm the follow-

ing facts:

 

On or about 15 June, 1953, I was being driven from my

Manhattan apartment by Charles Smith (Smetonius) to his

office in Union, N.J., where he managed Common Sense,

an anti-Communist paper. During this drive. Smith informed

me that his employers (he was a double agent working for

the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation

League of B'Nai B'Rith) were upset by my articles circulating

widely. They authorized Smith to make this offer: I would

continue to write whatever I wished, but all articles would

be submitted to Smith and his employers prior to publication.

In return, I would be paid handsomely. If I refused this offer.

Smith's employers would see to it that I never received any

further income from my writing. I declined the offer, because

I wished to be independent, and I could not believe any group

had power to deny me all income from my work. Smith then

 

 

 

TAXATION WITHOUT HOPE 447

 

issued 100,000 copies of my book, The Federal Reserve Con-

spiracy, without payment of royalties. Other publishers also

began to issue large printings of my books, which continues

to the present. I filed two suits with the U.S. Court of Claims,

because federal agents were active in these printings, but these

suits were never argued in court. I complained to federal

agencies continually since 1953 and in every case was rebuffed.

I filed suits in federal courts but the judges refused to uphold

Title 17 use, copyright law, even though I held valid copy-

rights. In thirty-four years, I have suffered approximately

$25,000,000.00 loss of income from my books because of a

criminal conspiracy to violate the laws of the United States,

and a criminal conspiracy to violate my civil rights by a private

government which regards itself as being beyond the reach

of due process, composed of the above-named groups, and

in which federal agents and federal agencies have played an

active role to deny me all income from my writings. You

are duly notified.

 

 

 

11

 

 

 

Chapter 14

 

The Taxing Power

 

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." So spake

the Supreme Court, in the early days of the American Republic.

However, the power to destroy not only carries a like power

to refrain from destroying, but its punitive power has the

obverse role of granting privileges and immunities, otherwise

known as rewards. The political genius of the secretive Canaan-

ite mechanism reached its apogee in 1913. Not only did it

award control of the money and credit of the people of the

United States to its most trusted henchmen; it also carried

the admiralty powers conferred by the Sherman Anti-Trust

Act, carefully phrased to protect the monopolies, by making

new and rival monopolies illegal, to a new high with the

16th Amendment to the Constitution. This "income tax"

amendment achieved the enviable goal of turning anyone who

opposed the regime into a "criminal," while it simultaneously

erected a vast bureaucratic maze in which the criminals could

forever conceal themselves, immune from any punitive action.

 

The nineteenth century political observer, Lysander

Sqooner, wrote,

 

448

 

 

 

THE TAXING POWER 449

 

' 'Whoever desires liberty should understand. . . . that every

man who puts money into the hands of a 'government' (so

called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used against

himself, to extort more money from him."

 

1913 was the year in which Americans handed over to

the international financiers control of their money and credit,

and also allowed the passage of a tax amendment which in

operation would allow the government to say who is a criminal

and who is not. The result is that millions of law-abiding,

hard-working, productive Americans are now toiling on a

treadmill of taxation which seizes by extortion from fifty to

eighty per cent of their earnings and assets each year. Lenin

laid down the dictum, in "The Threatening Catastrophe,"

1917, that "concealment of income will be punished by confis-

cation of assets." This became the official program of the

Internal Revenue Service. The tax billions which are hauled

in by the IRS from working Americans are inmiediately trucked

to the nearest Federal Reserve Bank — not to the U.S. Treasury!

Any minor league IRS agent has the power to declare any

American a criminal, and to seize his money and property.

The legal redress against such declarations is almost nil. The

majority of the assessments for "deficiencies" are figures

which would cost the taxpayer as much or more to dispute

by hiring a lawyer. As a bargaining figure, the IRS usually

claims a deficiency at least four times greater than any possible

amount "owed." The Washington Post noted, April 16, 1989,

that in 1988, the IRS, with all of its seizure power and totalitar-

ian tactics, recovered only 26 per cent of the total deficiencies

it had claimed it in vases that were closed." These were

claims that were actually settled. In many cases, the IRS

 

 

 

450 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

claims astronomical sums from taxpayers, claims of millions

of dollars against citizens whose net worth may be ten or

fifteen thousand dollars. The IRS knows that this money will

never be collected, but it is a useful figure to bring before

Congress. Budget increases are based upon such claims; the

IRS can state that it has ten billion dollars in outstanding

claims for deficiencies; Congress votes additional funds, so

that the IRS can hire more people to collect the money, having

no idea that two-thirds of the figure is mere hot air, with no

possibility of its ever being collected.

 

The Post quotes Chief Judge Arthur L. Nims ID, "They

(the IRS) set up some big numbers once in a while, totally

unjustified." However, these are the numbers which are reli-

giously quoted in the media, as "evidence" that many Ameri-

cans are "evading" billions of dollars in income taxes. In

fact, the IRS is collecting every dollar it can claim, using

techniques of seizure, garnishee, and outright theft. IRS abuses

led Congress to pass a Taxpayers Bill of Rights. Such a bill

was totally unnecessary, because we already had a Bill of

Rights. The IRS violations of the Bill of Rights caused Con-

gress to pass a measure enormously popular with the voters,

which promised to get the IRS "off their backs." In fact,

the bill was an absolute fraud. Paul des Fosses, a former

IRS agent, who now leads the National Association of IRS

Whistleblowers, revealed in an interview in the Post, April

29, 1989, that the Taxpayers Bill of Rights was passed by

Congress as a tongue in cheek measure. The Congressmen

accepted the gratitude of their constituents for passing it, while

at the same time notifying the IRS to ignore it. Des Fosses

stated that "The reality is quotas (of tax collection) are still

 

 

 

THE TAXING POWER 451

 

being maintained and enforced, and the problem lies in the

fact that IRS is under tremendous pressure from Congress to

provide the funds Congress needs."

 

One of the most forceful warnings against the 16th Amend-

ment came from Richard E. Byrd, Speaker of the Virginia

House of Delegate, on March 3, 1910. Father of the political

leader, Senator Harry Byrd, Richard E. Byrd warned,

 

"It (the 16th Amendment) means that the state must now

give up a legitimate and long established source of revenue

and yield it to the Federal Government. It means that the

state actually invited the Federal Government to invade its

territory, to oust its jurisdiction and to estabUsh Federal domin-

ion within the innermost citadel of reserved rights of the com-

monwealth. This amendment will do what even the 14th and

15th Amendments could not do — ^it will extend the Federal

power so as to reach the citizens in the ordinary business of

life. A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed

upon every man's business; the eye of a Federal inspector

will be in every man's counting house. The law will of necessity

have inquisitorial features, it will provide penalties. It will

create a complicated machinery. Under it businessmen will

be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines

imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly

menace the taxpayer. An army of Federal inspectors, spies

and detectives will descend upon the State. They will compel

men of business to show their books and disclose the secrets

of their affairs. They will dictate forms of book keeping.

They will require statements and affidavits. On the one hand

the inspector can blackmail the taxpayer and on the other,

he can profit by selling his secret to his competitor. When

 

 

 

452 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

the Federal Government gets a stranglehold on the individual

businessman, state lines will exist nowhere but on the maps.

Its agents will everywhere supervise the commerce of the

states."

 

Note that State Senator Byrd speaks only of the businessman.

The original propaganda for the income tax amendment sug-

gested that it would only apply to businessmen, who would

be required to maintain tax records. Senator Byrd would have

found it beyond the wildest imagination that Federal tax inspec-

tors would require newsboys and scrubwomen and waitresses

to record every nickel earned by their toil, and hand over

more than half of it to the Leninist tax inspectors. Another

of the five points of Lenin's 1917 program, which swept

him into power in Russia, was "the abolition of commercial

secrets." This goal could easily be attained by the tax agent

program of the IRS . Although Lenin could hardly have foreseen

it in 1917, another great benefit of the tax program has been

the steady stream of U.S. taxpayers' funds which have been

collected by the IRS and turned over to the Soviet Union.

This is obviously illegal, because no government agency has

any constitutional power to tax an American citizen for the

benefit of a foreign power. The engines of government, most

of which have been in existence for less than fifty years, are

dedicated to maintaining their flow of fuel, that is, tax money.

Some of the revenues are taken from one group of citizens

and given to another group; this is the famed policy of ' 'redistri-

bution of wealth" which originated on the gaming tables of

Europe. Much of the revenue is spent by the agencies on

themselves, and on their further self-aggrandizement, or on

programs which have been created deliberately to spend these

 

 

 

THE TAXING POWER 453

 

revenues. Such programs have only one basic requirement,

that all the expenditures be wasted.

 

Few Americans realize that the basis of "wasteful govern-

ment," as well as its oppressive policies, is our debt money

system, which can be traced back to the cult of Baal and

the Babylonian money system. Money is created from debt;

the payment of the debt extinguishes the money. Therefore,

the sole purpose of our present manipulated government is

to create inextinguishable debt, and to maintain the debt money

machine. They continually waste this money in boondoggles

whose creators live only for today, hoping in vain that tomor-

row will never come.

 

One cannot understand the "income tax" or what sort of

tax is being laid on what type of income, without knowing

the history of the tax. A tax on incomes was demanded by

reformers after the Civil War, to supplement the revenues

raised by the tariff; the tariff revenues were more than sufficient

for the government expenditures of that period, but the reform-

ers wanted a government which would exercise more direct

control over the people. Congress imposed an income tax

on all incomes above $4,000 per year on Aug. 28, 1894.

This was the equivalent of $60,000 a year in today's dollars.

On May 20, 1895, the income tax law was declared to be

unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers

Loan & Trust, 1895. The Court ruled that 1. taxes on real

estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or

income of real estate were equally direct taxes. 2. That taxes

on personal property or on the income of personal property

were likewise direct taxes. The whole act was declared uncon-

stitutional and void.

 

 

 

454 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Despite this precedent, an income tax was enacted by consti-

tutional amendment in 1913, although many scholars have

noted that the amendment was never properly ratified by most

states. It was a necessary measure, required to fund the financ-

ing of the First World War by the United States. The European

nations were akeady bankrupt and had no money to finance

the war. Thus the income tax was properly a "war tax," a

fact which became more obvious during the Second World

War, when the withholding tax on incomes was passed by

Congress as a temporary wartime measure. Forty-five years

later, it is still in effect, having been regularly renewed by

Congress to feed its insatiable appetite for public funds. The

Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a scrip act, establishing a

privately owned bank, which was not federal, which had no

reserves, and which was not a "System," but a criminal

syndicate. The Act authorized the central bank, which was

thereby established to issue interest-bearing scrip. This was

done by book-keeping entries, thereby creating money out

of nothing, as King William in had authorized its predecessor,

the Bank of England, to do in 1694. The Federal Reserve

Act further authorized the use of "elastic currency," that is,

currency which could be expanded, in the great economic

tradition of the rubber check. However, this elastic currency,

inimitably expanded, had to be periodically retrieved, or the

entire Ponzi scheme would collapse. The salvage agency which

was created to handle this problem was the IRS. This agency

has the task of sopping up the flood of elastic currency, known

as counterfeit, or frauds, because it has nothing but p^)er

backing, being backed by paper bonds.

 

The salvage operation was not wholly successful until Con-

 

 

 

THE TAXING POWER 455

 

gress passed the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, now

known as the withholding tax. It has never been a "withhold-

ing" but it is an illegal garnishee of wages. A garnishee is

a legal notice served as a writ of attachment to attach the

wages of a debtor. Withholding named you as the debtor,

and the government as the creditor. However, the tax is not

collected by a legal notice, or by a writ of attachment. Second,

no debtor-creditor relationship exists. The IRS makes the un-

founded claim that the withholding system establishes "the

liability at the source." However, no debt is established until

the end of the year, long after the withholding has been col-

lected.

 

In collecting the withholding tax for the government, the

employer commits an illegal act against the employee. He

executes a hen, although this has never been allowed in U.S.

law. U.S . V. Hooe, 3 Cranch 73, established the legal precedent

that "The United States, in the mere character of a creditor,

have no lien on the real estate of the debtor. The priority to

which the United States were entitled, did not partake of the

character of a lien on the property of a public debtor. If the

priority existed from the time the debt was contracted, and

the debtor should continue to transact business with the world,

the inconvenience would be inmiense." Not only does the

employer have no authority to collect taxes; he collects taxes

as a condition of your employment; both functions are illegal.

 

The withholding tax plan originated during World War H,

ostensibly as the creation of the chairman of the Federal Re-

serve Bank of New York, Beardsley Ruml, a longtime Rocke-

feller Foundation employee. He boasted to a New York inter-

viewer that the withholding tax plan had been devised at a

 

 

 

456 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

luncheon meeting at the exclusive Plaza Hotel in New York,

by himself and some "fellow intellectuals," whom he refused

to identify.

 

Because of the strong arm methods of its agents, the IRS

is frequently accused of violating the Constitution. However,

the IRS does not operate under any provision of the Constitu-

tion, just as the Mafia does not operate under any provision

of the Constitution. The IRS operates under the principles

of the law merchant. Its victims are brought before the Tax

Court, which is an equity court. Because of their law merchant

framework, IRS agents seize property without legal authority,

conduct trials without juries, and harass citizens until they

die of heart attacks. American citizens facing "tax charges"

are never told that Constitutional safeguards do not apply.

The jurisdiction of these admiralty courts is based upon the

alleged "contract" which citizens enter into when they obtain

a Social Security number, or when they use Federal Reserve

scrip. However, such a contract cannot be valid if the party

of the second part, the citizen, has never been advised of its

provisions. Similarly, any conviction handed down in an admi-

ralty court proceeding can be overturned because the judge

failed to issue a Miranda warning to the defendant that he

would be allowed no Constitutional safeguards. In many tax

cases, judges have sternly warned defendants not to cite Consti-

tutional safeguards.

 

The IRS frequently goes public with its basic principle

that the Constitution does not apply in tax cases. In August

of 1988, Rosemary Campbell, a spokesman for the IRS, ap-

peared on Denver radio station KOA. She was asked by the

interviewer, Gary Tessler, if IRS agents were not required

 

 

 

THE TAXING POWER 457

 

 

 

nvAnMiNT or huum a human sut vices

 

 

 

TMEMMWrMl

POB«17tO

 

skwxratososriiT

3iauxf 10, 1938

 

 

 

ailBoixU9

HMkh, SD 57CSfc

 

Ottrl^. SshMta,

 

Ttar XM«at Ittttr ta th* itternqr Oemnl's oftle* hu btan femrded to

u to IMMr.

 

Beetal SMOittr la • TClnatuy •jrstw in that no on* Is nmliad to gat •

nafbor. Kairmt, prograM Mileh us* soeisl soeurtty nuabsia for eoBtral

pnpesM Biitst not allcw • paxsen without a soeld. saemitar aaibar to

paittetpata.

 

9m btanal laraoM Sardea nsas aeelal aaeniltgr aortai* aa taxpagrar

iMBttlleatlon oMban. P.!. <7-397 was passed en October 5, 1961 noulr-

ut aaeh taxpajrar to fionlah an idsntliying niaba* for tax laportlof

mposaa. Baeaisa of this, eaplLagreTa Kst hara the aoelsl saenrltgr mabaia

of thair weifcsn to lagaUor report thslr aaxnlngs. Ihagr eodld not eontlma

to asi^lagr an indlildual for whoa thagr eosld not lagallj' report eamlniB-

 

A bitk or laadlng lasUtntiea la not gomned ty soeiai aeeniltgr rales but

I doobt vsqr neh If Um^ would raAiss a loan sloply beeausa the appUeant

°~"» •;«i?,««»>ltsr mAar. Bowevar, a parson with no aoolal seeurlty

WwrwooW hate no tnaUU IneoM (eee paragraph abo«o) and I aa sax*

this fact would ka«* a beartng ca their deei2on.

 

!"Ji52*!2!!.i!'"?-!5?f *2i» **">*• *»" *«"*»• *>»• rmAvim to iwm

 

f J^fy ?y°*f ^ ""^ '"" "* pmrpoaes. Bia parson UaUng the tnherl.

tme would not be rentlied to ha** a aoetal security nurter Juat for this

pupoeea

 

i?2r^i'^'!,^5S^I2*^J2?**"' »>«»«^«or«irtherlafo«Mtlon,

jn wajr saU ua at 1^0(V452-O100.

 

aiasarsigr,

 

Vnqrltftoa V

 

nsias IsprsaaBtattf*

I hereby certify that the ebov* lettar from the Depertment of Heelth & Humen flervloee

to Jerome T. Bchlefen, iRRl, Box IMQ. Huadon. South Oekote 6703<l. deted Jemiery W. 1080.

la a true end correct copy of the original.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My oommlalcn explrea_

 

 

 

458 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

to abide by the same rules as police officers in making a

search. "We aren't protected by the Constitution (in income

tax cases)?" Tessler asked. "That's correct," Campbell re-

plied, going on record for the IRS.

 

The motto of the IRS is the ancient cry of the English

highwayman, "Stand and deliver." Robbery is their aim,

and the admiralty courts uphold their methods. Citizens are

frequently horrified and angered by the callousness and brutal-

ity shown by IRS agents against the public. This brutality is

explained by the underlying desperation which inspires every

action of the agents. They must recover the Federal Reserve

scrip from the citizens; this allows for the issuance of more

' 'elastic currency, ' ' and makes it possible to continue payments

to the Bank of England (which controls the Federal Reserve

System through five New York banks, who own 53% of the

Federal Reserve of Bank of New York stock).

 

Former IRS agent Mike Klein is preparing an explosive

revelation of the tactics used by the IRS in their dealings

with American citizens. When Klein joined the IRS, he was

stunned to hear agents boasting about how they threatened

people. One agent declared that he loved to "bust chops,"

others were openly vicious. After talking to a citizen, an

agent would brag, "Boy, did I make that guy jump. I had

that woman crying when I told her I'd put her out on the

street with her kids." Another agent was asked by a taxpayer

how he expected him to pay the tax after he had padlocked

his business. The agent rudely told him, "Go get your wife

to peddle her "

 

The number of citizens who have died of heart attacks in

IRS offices is not available, but it is believed to be in the

 

 

 

THE TAXING POWER 459

 

hundreds. Many of those targeted for investigation are what

the IRS terms "easy marks," that is, elderly people, in poor

health, who can be easily intimidated. Klein cites the fate of

one such taxpayer who was ordered to appear for an audit.

After a lengthy and exhausting interrogation, he collapsed in

the office and died of a heart attack. "They shoved the body

into a vacant office, and threw a blanket over it." An audit

is probably the most stressful ordeal any American can un-

dergo. A citizen comes in, knowing that he may lose his

business, his home, and all of his assets. The agent is also

under tremendous strain; he must produce more revenue, be-

cause his career depends on how much money he can bring

in.

 

One Criminal Investigation Division agent for the IRS was

a lifelong sadist. He was so brutal to his wife and children

that his son and daughter finally shot him. Despite the fact

that the circumstances were widely aured on television, a judge

sentenced the children to long prison terms.

 

Alarmed by the unconstitutional acts of the IRS agents,

many Americans were faced with a serious dilemma — could

they in good conscience continue to support a government

which had now exceeded the worst abuses of King George

ni two centuries earlier? Some of them began to protest against

the confiscation of property a la Lenin, without legal process.

They thereby exposed themselves to immediate retribution,

not only by the IRS, but also by other government agencies,

and by the admiralty courts. One "conservative" group took

an uncompromising stance — ^the John Birch Society thundered

that "good Americans" were bound to pay all taxes assessed.

They denounced any tax resistance. However, this move was

 

 

 

460 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

said to have been forced upon them by their longstanding

ties with the Council on Foreign Relations and other interna-

tionalist conspiracy groups.

 

The 1913 tax seemed a modest one, calling for a tax of

1% for couples with incomes over $4,000. By 1919, the mini-

mum income for filing had been lowered to $1000, and the

tax was increased by 77%. During the Great Depression, few

Americans had to pay any income tax, because most of them

were unemployed. By 1943, wartime employment made it

imperative for the criminal syndicalists to enact a measure

which would allow them to seize income "at the source,"

through the withholding tax. Although the Leninists' tax pro-

gram was in fiill swing, few citizens remembered that an

inalienable right of citizenship is the right to own property.

It is the great distinction between our Republic and the Marxist

nations, which forbid the ownership of private property. Prop-

erty stems from the word "proper," deriving from the Latin

"proprius, one's own, belonging to oneself," and from the

French verb "proprier," to have in possession. Thus it is

right to own property; one is not a proper citizen unless one

owns property. The Founding Fathers required property owner-

ship as a requisite to voting. Those who were not proper,

who owned nothing, could not be expected to vote in a responsi-

ble manner.

 

We fought the Revolutionary War as a tax protest; no taxa-

tion without representation. Most colonists regarded them-

selves as good Englishmen; they had no desire to separate

themselves from the British Empire. Indeed, slightly more

than one-half of the colonists remained loyal to England

throughout the war, the numerous Tories. Taxation was the

bone of contention, although the admiralty courts and the

 

 

 

THE TAXING POWER 461

 

denial of jury trial were also sources of unrest. Today, we

have both excessive taxation and the admiralty courts, yet

popular opposition is not nearly so great.

 

America's first tax revolt took place in 1632. The inhabitants

of Watertown, Mass. were outraged when the directors of

the Massachusetts Bay Co. levied funds for the fortification

of Cambridge. The revolt was ended when the settlers agreed

to the popular election of selectmen, who then levied the

taxes . Americans accepted taxation if it was done by a represen-

tative government. The present Congress is loyal only to the

monopolists, and to foreign governments.

 

President Andrew Jackson, who incurred the undying enmity

of the international bankers by his battle against their central

bank, the Second Bank of the United States, was so averse

to taxation that in 1836, he reduced internal tax receipts to

less than $500. In his Farewell Address, President Jackson

said, "Congress has no right under the Constitution, to take

money from the people unless it is required to execute some

one of the specific powers intrusted to the Government; and

if they raise more than is necessary for such purposes, it is

an abuse of the power of taxation and unjust and oppressive. ' '

 

William Gladstone observed that "I believe an Income Tax

does more than any other tax to corrupt the people." In the

face of this declaration, the House of Representatives noted

in the Congressional Record, July 12, 1909, "The income

tax is the most just because (it) takes from the backs of the

masses of the people some of the burden of taxation and

lays it upon the pockets of those who do not bear their just

share of the burdens of the government (i.e. the very

wealthy)."

 

Congress' 1909 claim that the income tax takes from the

 

 

 

462 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

backs of the masses should now read "takes from the pocket-

books of the masses." The principal victims of forcible IRS

collections are newsboys and scrubwomen, waitresses and

elderiy widows. Contrast the treatment of scrubwomen by

the IRS with the lengthy courtroom battles fought by media

moguls such as the Newhouse family. Their newspaper empire

is now worth $5.2 billion; the IRS seeks an estate tax of

$609 million, later upped to $914 million. The Newhouses

claim that the actual tax owed is $47 million. Insiders, accord-

ing to Business Week, believe they will eventually pay some

$50 million, plus several million in fees to their attorneys.

The elder Newhouse was an autocrat who believed he would

live forever; consequently, he refused to discuss estate plan-

ning. Now the heirs must bluff and cajole the IRS. One observer

comments, "Don't shed any tears for the Newhouse boys.

They will finally plant some trees in Israel, and the IRS will

accept the lowest figure for a settlement."

 

The Philadelphia Inquirer recently published a series, "The

Great Tax Giveaway," documenting that thousands of Ameri-

cans have received tax writeoffs of billions of dollars through

Congressional special tax "laws." One Califomian received

a tax break excusing him from paying millions of dollars in

taxes; he then applied for a second private tax law to gamer

millions more. These provisions were incorporated into TE-

FRA, the notorious "Tax Reform Act" of 1986, passed by

Congress in September of that year. The Act closed off long

established tax deductions for most Americans, but extended

them for a favored few. There was no altruism involved; the

recipients of these multi-million dollar tax breaks were those

who had previously donated to political campaigns. A donation

 

 

 

THE TAXING POWER 463

 

of a few thousand dollars could inspire gratitude amounting

to millions of dollars in tax breaks. The 1986 tax law gave

one company a $20 million tax break, even though it had

filed for Chapter 1 1 bankruptcy in 1981 and no longer existed.

It was disclosed that a New York lawyer is now reaping this

$20 million tax break. Two paragraphs inserted into the 1986

law allow certain companies to avoid payment of hundreds

of millions of dollars in federal income taxes. One company

was able to avoid payment of a half billion dollars because

of the special provisions incorporated into the "Tax Reform

Act."

 

While opening the sluice gates of special refunds and tax

breaks for chosen individuals and firms, the tax agents are

steadily tightening the screws on the wage-earning population.

Michael Milken can "earn:" $500 million in 1988 through

"junk bond" deals, but a $100 a week waitress must disclose

every dollar she receives in tips. Only the prostitutes can

still scoff at the tax laws.

 

However, the IRS toughest crackdown is scheduled for

the nation's children. New IRS guidelines have decreed that

every child over the age of five must have a Social Security

number. Most American children are now issued a Social

Security number when their parents register them for their

birth certificates. The teen-agers who mow lawns during the

summer, babysit or deliver newspapers in order to save money

for their college tuition must now report and pay taxes and/

or penalties on every nickel they receive; otherwise, they

become "tax evaders." The "kiddie tax" provision is an

essential part of the Congressionally drafted and enacted TE-

FRA, Tax Reform Act of 1986, the same "tax reform" act

 

 

 

464 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

which contains so many special multi-million dollar writeoffs

for the chosen few.

 

It has long been obvious that the income tax code is the

greatest weapon of the monopolists. Not only is it the spoils

system refined to an incredible degree, and, as such, the most

lucrative gold mine for politicians and their favorite lobbyists;

it is also the principal weapon against the productive American

middle class. Not only are the children of this class (in a

supposedly "democratic" government in which class distinc-

tions do not exist) taxed and penalized because they wish to

save money for their tuition — ^being "middle class," they

are not eligible for the many tuition giveaways which are

available to children from "special interest" families — ^but

they are also prevented from engaging in ' 'capitalist accumula-

tion," as Karl Marx termed it, that is, saving money to finance

any profit-making venture. The greatest problem facing any

of the monopoly corporations is the march of time; the replace-

ment of buggy whips by automobile horns. This explains

why the monopolists funded and gave political backing to

the world Communist movement. Under Communism, eco-

nomic development will remain frozen in time, as the cryogenic

economy of the world. People will be driving reproductions

of the 1938 Packard for the next three hundred years, as the

Soviets have been doing since that year. To prevent the Henry

Fords of the future from building a better automobile in a

rickety packing shed, the monopolists intend to see that they

will never be able to "accumulate" the couple of hundred

dollars they will need for tools and supplies. The IRS obligingly

fulfills this vital function, seeing to it that the American worker

remains restricted to the "bare subsistence wage." Under

 

 

 

THE TAXING POWER 465

 

this dictum of David Ricardo, the worker will never be paid

more than the minimal amount which he needs for himself

and his family. There would be no possibility of saving any

money from this hmited income. Ricardo (1772-1823) was

the third son of one Abraham Israel, a wealthy member of

the Amsterdam banking community which had financed the

Cromwell execution of the King of England, and the "Glorious

Revolution," which put William of Orange on the throne of

England, and resulted in the chartering of the Bank of England

in 1694. Israel emigrated to England as part of the chosen

influx of the Glorious Revolution. He soon became a prominent

member of the London Stock Exchange. His son David worked

closely with Nathan Rothschild, and amassed a large fortune,

which qualified him to become an economist. He not only

authored the infamous "subsistence wage" theory, but also

provided that if it became absolutely necessary to increase

the wages of the workers, for some reason, then the government

must step in and increase their taxes by a corresponding

amount. Ricardo's slave labor theories of wages and labor

were enthusiastically received by the more sinister elements

of the capitalist community, not the least of whom was Karl

Marx, a ' ' scholar' ' who subsisted off of donations from wealthy

entrepreneurs. Marx adopted Ricardo's theories, which became

the guidelines by which the workers of Soviet Russia are

enslaved today. Marx is even more renowned in the United

States for his invention of the progressive income tax, which

was first aired in his Communist Manifesto of 1848. The

Marxist tax was enacted into law in the United States during

the Civil War, shortly after Marx had authored it. A second

version of Marx's tax was enacted in 1894, but was promptly

 

 

 

466 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The monopo-

Usts were forced to take a new approach; they put the tax

through as an amendment to the Constitution.

 

Ricardo's dictum, which became known as "the iron law

of wages," became a standard feature of economists' proposals

throughout the world. His descendant, Rita Ricardo, came

to Washington in 1980 as part of the "Reagan Revolution,"

which was intended to be a re-enactment of the Glorious

Revolution of England. She promptly assumed the post of

Reagan's adviser on social security payments and workers'

pensions.

 

As the KGB of Ricardo's iron law of wages, the IRS not

only works to maintain the monopoly corporations in power

throughout the United States; it also protects the Marxist gov-

ernment estabUshment by routinely delaying any criminal in-

vestigations of other government agencies, and thus plays a

vital role in Drug, Inc., the international machine of the drug

czars and organized crime. Reader's Digest noted in an article,

in 1981, "How the IRS Helps the Mob," that a key provision

of the aforementioned TEFRA reform act of 1986 was its

special pronunciamentos purporting to protect the right of

privacy. The Digest noted that these provisions have proven

to be so protective of criminal rights that TEFRA is now

known as "The Organized Crime Relief Act." Government

agents who were investigating a narcotics case in Cleveland

requested IRS help in deciphering numerous financial records

which they had seized in their raids. They were told to send

the documents to the IRS. Months later, the IRS informed

the agents that not only would they refuse to discuss the

case any further, but that the records which had been sent to

 

 

 

THE TAXING POWER 467

 

them had now been classified as "confidential tax infonna-

tion," and they could not be returned!

 

Meanwhile, IRS agents continue to be the subject of an

ongoing House Government Operations Subcommittee on

Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs, chaired by Geor-

gia Representative Doug Barnard Jr. In their investigation of

IRS violations of civil and criminal statutes, the Committee

found that when the IRS learned that senior employees were

using their offices for private gain, and of other examples of

misconduct, little or no punitive action was taken against

the guilty parties. William Duncan, former Criminal Investiga-

tive Division agent of the IRS, testified that he felt like he

had been "in the Twilight Zone." He had been ordered by

superiors not to disclose information to the committee, and

he was told to lie to the Congressmen if certain matters were

brought up, including a money laundering operation. He then

quit. Fred Goldberg, the Internal Revenue Service commis-

sioner, sent a prepared statement to the Committee that he's

not ready to make a quick judgment about the IRS internal

security system. Duncan quit the IRS after 17 years of service.

 

IRS Manual on Revenue Procedure, 64-22 states, "It is

the duty of the Service to carry out that policy for raising

revenue by correctly applying the laws enacted by Congress.

... not to adopt a strained construction in the belief that

he is protecting the revenue." The IRS agents are in fact

forced to take a "strained construction" if they are to protect

their jobs; careers and promotions depend on the amount of

extra money they can bring in. On p. 145, the manual states

that there is no set definition of 'substantial compliance' on

producing records." Here again, the agent plays it by ear.

 

 

 

468 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

The citizen he is auditing will not have a copy of this manual

in front of him, and must do whatever the agent demands.

 

The Committee has publicized some notorious examples

from its investigations, including the incidence of criminal

conspiracy to obstruct the tax laws in the Los Angeles office

of the IRS. The former chief of the LA CED IRS was "per-

suaded" by Guess Jeans to investigate a tax fraud against a

competing designer jeans firm, Jordache. The IRS official

delivered the investigation, and then went to work for Guess.

He was later found to have "deterred or impeded" two other

tax investigations while he was head of the CID.

 

IRS agents have frequently played a crucial role in political

campaigns, intervening on behalf of one candidate against

another. The most famous victim of such abuse was Congress-

man George Hansen of Idaho. IRS tactics not only defeated

him for re-election, but later sent him to prison on flimsy

charges of "ethics violations." It was proven that he had

followed House guidelines in filling out the new forms, but

he was convicted and imprisoned in a political vendetta. When

his wife announced that she would run for his Congressional

seat, she was immediately threatened by IRS agents. They

informed her that if she would not turn over lists of her cam-

paign contributors, she too would be sent to prison. Her cam-

paign supporters then came under fire from the IRS, and she

was forced to abandon her race for Congress. All of these

acts are forbidden by law; they constitute illegal interference

with the electoral process, and at least five or six other criminal

acts. Nothing has been done.

 

For those Americans who still believe that they have some

Constitutional rights left, the Washington Post carried a demur-

 

 

 

THE TAXING POWER 469

 

rer on Feb. 26, 1989. The Post cited a Jan. 20, 1989 decision

by Judge Larry McKinney, who handed down a ruling that

there is no Constitutional right of privacy for bank accounts.

(Raikes v. Bloomfield State Bank). The decision gives the

IRS complete authority to continue its longtime practice of

furtive examination of citizens' private bank accounts. The

McKinney decision is merely part of a nationwide campaign

to tighten the screws on all Americans by the tax collectors.

Paul Craig Roberts noted in his syndicated column, Feb. 7,

1989, "Ever since Reagan and a handful of outsiders lifted

the oppressive tax burden on the American people, Washington

insiders and the capital's coterie of special interests have been

trying to hike taxes."

 

Andy Melechinsky touched upon this problem when he

recently stated

 

"Any person who lives by the Bill of Rights today, is 'at

risk' of being caged, and even worse, by a powerful, ruthless,

and insidious tyranny such as the world has never before

known."

 

Melechinsky points out the vital distinction between

"rights" and a "privilege" for those who depend upon their

"rights" when they go into an American court. "I should

point out that Fifth Amendment RIGHTS are not privileges

in a court of law (as opposed to equity). Only in a court of

equity do rights become privileges, and no one can be lawfully

brought into a court of equity unless he knows exactly what

he is getting into, and wants to be there."

 

Few Americans realize that if they elect to go into the

Tax Coiut, they are walking into an equity court whose judges

are chosen by the government taxing authorities. Under Presi-

 

 

 

470 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

dent Carter, the Tax Court Nominating Commission forjudges

was chaired by Robert Mundheim, the General Counsel of

the U.S. Treasury Dept. Second in conmiand was Jerome

Kurtz, director of the IRS. The other commissioners had like

backgrounds.

 

One of the more outspoken critics of the IRS has been

Virginia scholar and activist, Kenneth White, who has for

years headed the Virginia Taxpayers Association. White has

given documented evidence on IRS abuses before Congres-

sional committees and state legislatures. He has cited under

oath specific IRS violations of 26 USC 7214 (extortion); 18

use Sec 1001 (false and fraudulent documents); 18 USC

241 (conspiracy to injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate),

and 18 USC 1341 (mail fraud). White has also filed two

criminal complaints with former Atty Gen Edwin Meese III

against Raymond Keenan , director of the Memphis IRS Center,

and against other IRS employees for using false and fraudulent

documents.

 

American citizens such as Kenneth White are routinely vili-

fied by government propagandists, and their names placed

on special blacklists. They are given the derogatory term of

"tax protester" because they have dared to document criminal

activities by IRS agents. A citizen who voices a complaint

or registers a document stating that a crime has been committed

against him or against any other citizen is not a "protester";

he is merely complying with the law. Statutes define one

who fails to file information about a crime known to him is

guilty of "misprision," that is, of failing to notify the con-

cerned authorities about a crime which to his knowledge has

been committed. Like other concerned Americans, Kenneth

 

 

 

THE TAXING POWER 471

 

White is trying to clarify matters which have never been satis-

factorily defined — ^such as "Who is actually required to file

and pay an income tax?" "In what medium of exchange

should such a tax be paid?" and whether the U.S. government

is empowered to lay and collect taxes on American citizens

for the benefit of foreign governments. Atty Lowell H. Becraft

Jr. of Huntsville Ala. points out that the legal tender powers

of Congress are valid only in "its jurisdiction." He cites

the Revised Statutes, Title 39, Sec; 3588, the act which made

U.S. notes a legal tender, "United States notes shall be lawful

money, and a legal tender in payment of all debts, public

and private, within the United States, except for duties on

imports and interest on the public debt."

 

The last U.S. notes authorized to be printed in the United

States were authorized by President Kennedy, shortly before

his assassination in Dallas. On June 30, 1963, Kennedy signed

Exec. Order No. 11110, further amended E.O. Mo. 10289,

Sept. 1951, thereby giving the President authority to issue

the currency. He thereupon ordered the issue of $4,292,-

893,815.00 in lawful American money, which was not interest-

bearing currency , as are the Federal Reserve notes . The printing

order was rescinded as one of President Lyndon B. Johnson's

first ofiBcial acts after he succeeded Kennedy. At least he

knew why he had ascended to the Presidential chair. Despite

the fact that the Federal Reserve notes are issued by the pri-

vately owned Federal Reserve banks, they are still promissory

notes, obligations or promises to pay by the American taxpayer.

 

When the present writer was sent the dread sunmions to

appear at the IRS for a tax audit (unknown to him, the order

had been sent at the instigation of an attorney who had been

 

 

 

472 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

unable to defeat me in a lawsuit) I promptly sued the agent

for $350,000 for terrorism. The case was filed in a state circuit

court, but was immediately remanded by the government to

federal court, whereupon the plaintiff filed a motion to have

it remanded back to state court, citing numerous precedents

and stipulations from the U.S. Code. The case dragged on

for many months, during which time the plaintiff filed thirty-

eight motions, not one of which was ever answered by the

government, or allowed to be argued in court. Plaintiff also

filed Written Interrogatories with the IRS which were never

answered. "Question 8. Plaintiff has charged the IRS with

racial discrimination. Does the IRS practice racial discrimina-

tion against white taxpayers such as plaintiff, while allowing

black political leaders to avoid paying income taxes because

of these black leaders' threats to organize riots in the black

communities if they are forced to pay taxes? Question 9.

Why did an IRS official tell Drew Pearson that "We accept

noncompliance from black political leaders because this is

the price that Americans must pay to maintain racial peace

in American cities?" Pearson printed this dialogue verbatim

in his Washington Merry Go Round column.

 

Not only does the IRS function as a ' ' vigorish' ' or collection

arm for the Black Hand, as the Mafia operation called the

Federal Reserve System is known to insiders; not only does

the IRS function as the enforcement arm of Karl Marx's pro-

gram calling for a graduated or progressive income tax; not

only does the IRS function to maintain monopoly corporation

power throughout the United States, preventing American citi-

zens from competing by developing their own businesses under

our alleged "free enterprise" system; the IRS also functions

 

 

 

THE TAXING POWER 473

 

as the single largest negative force on the U.S. economy.

Michael Evans, in his ground breaking work, "Let's Abolish

the Income Tax," records that during the year of 1986, Ameri-

cans spent a total of 5.3 BILLION hours in maintaining finan-

cial records, documents, and the preparation of income tax

returns at the command of the IRS. If the average income

of these American taxpayers is computed at a reasonable figure

of $20 per hour, because most persons who earn less than

$10 an hour pay little or no income tax, we have a dead

loss to the American economy of more than $100 billion a

year, a figure which could significantly reduce our national

deficit. In 1988, the progressive or graduated income tax of

Karl Marx brought in some $400 billion of tax revenue to

the government from individuals, as compared to only $100

billion collected in corporate income taxes.

 

If we examine the aforesaid loss of $100 billion a year

from nonprofit activity of American citizens, from an econo-

mist's view of the phenomenon known as "velocity of circula-

tion," with an average turnover of five times per year in

velocity of circulation, we arrive at the true figure of a loss

to the American economy of $500 billion a year — to say noth-

ing of the psychological stress under which Americans are

placed as they toil over their income tax returns, knowing

that as an error of a few dollars may cost them everything

they own, in penalties and confiscations a la Lenin.

 

Because the IRS system itself has been for years on the

point of total collapse, Americans need not fear that they

will have to continue spending five billion hours per year on

their income tax returns. The IRS now has a 25 year plan

under which IRS agents will eventually fill out all tax forms.

 

 

 

474 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

They will compute your tax as a "simplified service" for

taxpayers. In view of the fact that 60% of all IRS advice

given to taxpayers about filling out their income tax forms

has been shown to be erroneous, and is so faulty that the

IRS itself will not allow the advice of its own agents to be

used as a legal excuse for filing a faulty or incomplete tax

return, we can only shudder at the chaos which will result

when the IRS agents prepare everyone's tax form, and notify

the citizen the amount he is expected to pay. The IRS 25

year plan also calls for "pay equality," an IRS refinement

of the ancient Marxist precept of "comparable worth," which

sets down guidelines for paying taxes from each according

to his worth and handing the proceeds out to each according

to his needs. Under the IRS plan, hardworking Americans

will be forced to accept "pay equality," that is, reductions

in pay, disguised as higher taxes, while favored special interest

groups will get special bonuses. Any challenge to such IRS

decrees would be interpreted as "Criticism of the state," or

by the accepted term in Soviet Russia, "Slandering the State,"

and would be punished accordingly. The contemplated IRS

plan would permanently enthrone it as the KGB of America,

an all seeing, all powerful secret police which would inflict

the maximum punishment on anyone who dares to criticize

Big Brother in our 1984 Socialist State. It is Orwell's vision

of the jackboot being stamped into the citizen's face, forever.

Although few Americans have expressed alarm at the specta-

cle of some of the most notorious leftwing Congressmen hastily

departing Washington only hours ahead of sunmionses and

indictments, the exodus may have greater import than those

revelations afforded us by the servile press.

 

 

 

THE TAXING POWER 475

 

The hegira of these professional politicians, although boding

well for the future of the Republic, may not have been alto-

gether inspired by the prospect of lengthy ethical hearings

followed by the usual slap on the wrist. For some time, there

have been rumors about a disturbing memorandum drawn

up by the Department of Justice, which outlines a strong

possibility that one or more of the Arab nations may request

the indictment of a number of our more prominent Congres-

sional leaders on war crimes indictments. The Department

of Justice memorandum cites the public activity of these Con-

gressmen in sponsoring and passing numerous appropriations

bills for the State of Israel, these funds then being used to

massacre Palestinian women and children in the vain efforts

of the Zionist terrorist leaders to crush the desire of the captive

Palestinians for freedom from their oppressors.

 

The memorandum makes it plain that these Congressmen,

by their own admission, have become liable under the Nurem-

berg trials guidelines for the "massacre of thousands of civil-

ians, including many women and children," for "confining

thousands of political prisoners in concentration camps, under

extremely inhumane conditions prohibited by the Geneva Con-

vention," and for "plotting and waging aggressive war"

against civilian populations.

 

The legal basis for the indictments is that these Congressmen

have provided all of the military and economic aid to Israel

which has made the Israeli occupation possible, which has

paid for every bullet fired into the body of each Palestinian

victim of Zionist atrocities, and which has paid all of the

expenses of the Israeli occupation government. Under the

Nuremberg guidelines, the Israeli government qualifies as a

 

 

 

476 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

military occupation force equivalent to Nazi occupation gov-

ernments in European countries in which they had set up

satellite states. Many officials of these occupation governments

were subsequently convicted and executed by decision of the

Nuremberg tribunals, although, in many cases, the evidence

of their liability was much less than that of U.S . Congressmen

in the sponsorship of the Israeli government actions.

 

The Department of Justice memorandum was prepared in

response to an inquiry from a Congressional staff member

about the possibility of war crimes charges being brought

against one or more members of Congress. Its conclusion is

that "We regret to inform you that, from the overwhelming

amount of evidence readily available for prosecution, that

defense against such a charge would be extremely difficult,

if not impossible. Even though conviction of charges of war

crimes would not necessarily result in the imprisonment or

other punishment of those charged, due to the absence of an

international force capable of carrying out such a sentence,

the mere airing of such war crimes charges would be very

damaging to the continuation of present United States foreign

policy commitments, and might well result in extensive re-

thinking of and revision of our outstanding commitments to

the State of Israel."

 

The memorandum went on to describe the "deleterious

propaganda value of such war crimes charges," because the

United States government would find it difficult either to defend

the accused or to cooperate in their prosecution.

 

Another Department of Justice legal position recently sur-

faced which has even more alarming potentialities. It suggests

that great obstacles now exist to further prosecution of Ameri-

 

 

 

THE TAXING POWER 477

 

can citizens who are indicted on charges of failure to file or

failure to pay income taxes, because of the possibility that

they can mount an unbeatable defense by citing the First

Amendment, (1791),

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment

of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

 

For some years, I had pointed out that Congress, by enacting

into law numerous appropriations bills which gave billions

of dollars to the State of Israel, were in violation of the First

Amendment. My argument had been that because the State

of Israel is publicly known as a theocracy, that is, as a religious

state with an openly religious government, and which excludes

from office members of other religions who are nevertheless

resident in and paying taxes in that nation, the Congress is

thereby guilty of violating the First Amendment, that Congress

shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

I had not yet had the opportunity to introduce this argument

in a legal action, but had long been hoping for the chance

to place a federal judge on the spot, forcing him to admit

that it was impossible to extort by force funds from American

citizens, when those funds were then appropriated by act of

Congress to be sent to a theocratic state, for the purpose of

maintaining a religious entity as a sovereign nation among

the family of nations. Indeed, the State of Israel seems to

be the only world power at the present time which is openly

and acknowledgedly a theocratic state, the tendency in modem

history having been for several centuries against theocracy

in government, and favoring governments which were open

to members of all religious beliefs, as in the United States.

 

Support for my legal argument emerged last year when

 

 

 

478 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

the hero of the Congressional political show trials of the Iran-

Contra debate, which has finally resulted in the conviction

of Col. Oliver North on vague charges of having "obstructed

Congress , " a charge , which if true , should cause him to receive

a medal from the American people, said hero, Senator Daniel

K. Inouye (D. Hawaii), who was then chairman of the Senate

foreign operations subcommittee, aroused a controversy by

yielding to the command of one of his campaign contributors

that he appropriate eight million dollars from the U.S. Treasury

to build religious schools for North African Jews in France.

Inouye, who had been notorious for his vicious attacks on

Col. North throughout the Iran-Contra hearings, eagerly agreed

to violate the Constitution of the United States by giving the

eight million dollars to the Zionist agitprop group, the Ozar

Hatorah organization. There was a brief discussion of the

appropriation in the servile media, although no mention was

made of the fact that it was a flagrant violation of the First

Amendment. Congressmen, like our judges, look upon the

Constitution as an outmoded document which, in any case,

has been totally replaced by admiralty law or the law merchant.

Under the law merchant, there is no legal stigma or prohibition

against U.S. taxpayers' funds being spent for Jewish religious

instruction, as the law merchant observes no Bill of Rights.

Most of the bills enacted into law by the United States Congress

base their legal validity upon the principles of the law merchant,

the most notorious being the enactment of the Federal Reserve

Act into law by Congress in 1913. The Federal Reserve Act

openly violated the Constitutional provision that only Congress

should have the power to coin money, regulate the value

thereof (Art I. Sec. 8), and may be said to have enthroned

 

 

 

THE TAXING POWER 479

 

the law merchant as the new and regnant law of the United

States.

 

The problem of funding Jewish religious schools is once

again raging in Washington, as a headline in the Washington

Post of July 18, 1989, duly noted, "AID Funding of Israeli

Rieligious Schools Hit" "Lawmakers Decry 'International

Pork Barrel. ' ' ' The story revealed that the Agency for Interna-

tional Development (AID) has earmarked $3.5 million for

the construction of two orthodox Jewish religious schools in

Israel and a teacher-training institution for Jewish settlements

in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. AID deputy administrator

Mark Edelman is now fielding protests about the "apparent

increased politicization" of AID's $35 million ASHA pro-

gram — ^American Schools and Hospitals Abroad. The story

goes on to condemn the ASHA program as "an international

pork barrel for pet projects of key pro-IsraeU senators and

their Jewish fundraisers." AID is also paying out one and a

half million dollars in construction funds to the Sha'alvim

Teachers College in Ayalon, Israel, to build dormitories for

Israeli students, who will then work as teachers in West Bank

Jewish settlements. The teachers college, founded in 1976,

is described as "a center for the teaching of Jewish culture."

Also scheduled for AID funds is the Machon Alte Institute

in Safed, Israel, part of a network of Jewish centers run by

the Chabad Lubavitcher Movement, an extremely orthodox

Hasidic sect which is headquartered in Brooklyn, and which

is wellknown for sponsoring local vigilante groups in Hasidic

neighborhoods. It also has one and a half million dollars ear-

marked by AID for the construction of dormitories. AID also

has set aside $500,000 for the Or Machayim Girls College

 

 

 

480 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

in Bnei Brak, Israel, whose stated purpose in its AID applica-

tion is "to raise the economic and cultural levels of Israel's

Sephardic population." The Israel Arts and Science Academy

in Jerusalem is also scheduled to get $1.5 million from AID

this fiscal year, and an additional one million next year for

dormitory construction. Its American sponsor is Robert H.

Asher, who, coincidentally, is also the chairman of Washing-

ton's most powerful political lobby, the American Israel Public

Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. With such influential backing,

it is understandable that the Agency for International Develop-

ment would be appropriating such large sums to institutions

in the State of Israel, even though its dedication to these

goals might lead some Americans to think that AID stands

for the "Agency for Israeli Development." Nevertheless,

Asher denied that AIPAC had any part in obtaining these

multi-million dollar appropriations for his ideological home-

land.

 

Several Congressmen have called for a review of these

appropriations, not from excessive zeal in protecting the Amer-

ican taxpayer from such outrageous exploitation on behalf

of a foreign theocratic power, but from fear that, as AID

becomes more identified in the public mind as an agency of

AIPAC and other Zionist lobbies in Washington, it could

endanger their multitudinous other pork barrel projects, public

revulsion against such wholesale raiding of the U.S. Treasury

leading to cutbacks in many other government funded opera-

tions.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 15

 

 

 

MuUins On Equity

 

 

 

The law merchant exists primarily to assure equitable deal-

ings in commerce. Or so we are told. In fact, the law merchant

exists to subvert all other legal systems in the world, and all

governments. It is primarily an instrumentality of plunder.

 

Frederic Bastiat writes, in "The Law,"

 

"Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number

of ways; hence, there are an infinite number of plans for

organizing it. Tariffs, protection, bonuses, subsidies, incen-

tives, the right to employment, the progressive income, tax,

free education, the right to profit, the right to wages, the

right to relief, the right to the tools of production, interest

free credit, etc. etc. And it is the aggregate of all these plans

in respect to what they have in common, legal plunder, that

goes under the name of SOCIALISM."

 

Communism's offer to "redistribute the wealth" is the ulti-

mate in political demogoguery. In "The World Order," the

present writer traced the origin of Communism to international

bankers who were embarked upon a universal program of

 

 

 

481

 

 

 

482 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

"levelling," that is, of reducing all things to a single manage-

able standard. Former Secretary of the Treasury William Simon

writes that "The redistribution of wealth from the productive

citizen has become the principal government activity." Of

course the "redistribution" of wealth means taking it from

producers and giving it to non-producers, in order to buy

the political support of the nonproductive element of society.

Samuel Adams, one of the Founding Fathers, wrote, "The

Utopian scheme of leveling, and a community of goods, are.

... in our government, unconstitutional."

 

Adams pinpoints the fundamental problem in America to-

day, that the law merchant and its communistic program of

redistribution and leveling are forbidden by our Constitution;

the syndicalists are therefore dedicated to removing and de-

stroying the Constitution as the principal obstacle in their

path. This is why the battle now comes to a head in American

courts; the law merchant has insidiously wreaked its will for

many years, and it is finally exposed as an alien fraud and

the final subverter of the legal system which was guaranteed

to the American people by our Constitution.

 

In the Oxford English Dictionary, we find the law merchant

defined under "1856 H.Broome. Conunon Law. Lord Camp-

bell remarks that the general lien of bankers is part of the

law merchant, (lex merca^oria)."

 

Now, this seems iimocuous enough. A banker may be justi-

fied in obtaining a lien to protect his loan, or his interest. In

practice, however, this means that the ability of the central

bank to issue and create money creates a maelstrom which

inevitably draws all property and all persons into its suction;

it creates a lien on everything within the state. It is now

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 483

 

widely believed that oixr central bank, the Federal Reserve

System, holds at the present time a lien on all property in

the United States. This means that there really is no personal

property, and that therefore we have arrived at the Communist

ideal, in which private individuals own nothing.

 

Black's Law Dictionary defines lex mercatoria, the law

merchant, as part of the common law. It may be present in

our courts, but not as the common law. It is the antithesis

of the common law, because it is the vehicle of equity. The

pernicious presence of equity in our legal system is a hoary

relic of Oriental despotism, of autarchy, and of the abuses

of unbridled power and the loss of individual rights. Equity

is the Star Chamber of the Middle Ages, and the legal system

of Babylonian absolute power; it is also the cult of Baal, the

legacy of Nimrod, and the personification of the stealthy Ma-

sonic power. It is not accidental that the law merchant is

enshrined in the Masonic rites; in the Ancient and Accepted

Rite, the 31st degree is closely associated with equity; as is

the 16th degree, the Princes of Jerusalem. It also is accepted

as the Grand Defender, the 31st degree of the Ancient and

Primitive Rite.

 

To the average citizen, the law merchant simply means

the original principles of commerce, the law of negotiable

instruments, contracts, partnership and trademarks. There is

nothing sinister in these precepts. The law merchant contem-

plates good faith and credit among those dealing in commerce;

again, there is no quarrel with such precepts. The Oxford

English Dictionary defines a contract as "to enter mutual

obligations, from Latin contractus, or agreement; an agreement

enforceable by law, an agreement which affects a transfer of

 

 

 

484 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

property, a conveyance. . . . 1588. A.King tr. Canisius Ca-

tech 39, All unlauchful . . . usurping of othir mens geir be

theft . . . usurie, inust winning, decept and other contracts."

 

The law merchant upholds agreements between contracting

parties. This too is acceptable; if a disagreement over the

terms develops, it can be settled in a court. However, Black-

stone developed the theory that court judgments themselves

become "Specialties," contracts of the highest sort. The judg-

ment of the court itself, in issuing an Order of Execution

for the forcible payment of a judgment, creates a special "con-

tract" which then must be fulfilled. It has been said that

law looks to the past, but equity looks for the future. What

this means is that law is that fixed understanding, developed

by our traditions, which guides us, while equity looks to the

future and a managed economy which is actually a return to

the darkest period of man's history, the era of absolute despo-

tism. Equity, or chancery, as it was known in the Middle

Ages, stems from the duties of the secretaries (that is, secret

emissaries), of the emperor. To give them authority to carry

out his wishes, the emperor made them chancellors, that is,

cancellors of sins to those who were favored by the emperor,

from whence came the designation, chancery, and chancery

court.

 

From its inception, chancery court proceedings were

shrouded in secrecy and overshadowed by conspiratorial

forces. Because of their dictatorial nature, they were also

known as "Star Chamber" courts, a term which originated

after WilUam the Conqueror invaded England. From J. R.

Green's "Short History of England," we learn that

 

"A royal justiciary secured law to the Jewish merchant,

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 485

 

who had no standing ground in the local courts; his bonds

were deposited for safety in a chamber of the royal palace

at Westminster, which from their Hebrew name of 'starrs'

gained the title of the Star-Chamber. The famous Star-Chamber

court system of England came from this arrangement."

 

Under the Federal Reserve System and its collection agency,

the Internal Revenue System, the United States has now re-

turned to a feudal system of the Middle Ages. The IRS origi-

nated in Italy as the Black Hand, which carried out demands

for extortion for the Princes of the Black Nobility. Under

our present feudal system, we live on the "lord's land" as

"villeins," having title to nothing, and remaining as tenants

at the lord's pleasure. The "lord," of course, is the central

banker, who exercise control through the Federal Reserve

System. It was not accidental that the secret conclave which

drafted the Federal Reserve Act met clandestinely at Jekyl

Island Ga. , a millionaires retreat, whose members at that time

controlled one-fourth of all the wealth of the world (Secrets

of the Federal Reserve, by Eustace MuUins). The IRS maintains

an Inquisition which was originally developed by the Jesuits

in Spain; this inquisition pays a tithe to informants, and is

seldom countermanded by the legal system, which exists

merely to enforce its demands.

 

The central bank itself is the ultimate corporation, the final

weapon of the conspiratorial Black Nobility and their World

Order. Chief Justice Marshall noted in the famous case of

Dartmouth v. Woodward: "a corporation is an artificial being,

invisibly intangible, and existing only in contemplation of

law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those

properties which the charter of its creation confer upon it."

 

 

 

486 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Corporations were well known in Roman law, and were copied

from the laws of Solon. They were private companies which

were entitled to function as long as they did nothing contrary

to the public law. The fundamental problem presented by

corporations is that corporations and free persons cannot co-

exist in the same nation. The Constitution was written for

free individuals, each being one person; the corporation cannot

be one person, but is an aggregate person. The corporation

is something which has attained immortality, something which

is denied to all free individuals. The corporation ordains perpet-

ual succession; it can be sued and it can sue; it can purchase

gold, lands, and chattels; it can have a common seal; and it

can make bylaws and appoint or remove members.

 

Because a corporation is not a person, it cannot have citizen-

ship in a nation, or exhibit loyalty to a nation. A corporation

therefore has no national loyalties, or any allegiance to national

boundaries. However, the fundamental problem of the corpora-

tion is that because it is not a person and because it can go

to court to sue or to be sued, this creates a situation in which

legal positivism develops as a logical outgrowth of social

activism, the Holmesian concept of law. As Roscoe Pound

wrote, "There are no objective, God-given standards of law;

since God is not the author of law, the author of law must

be men." This is the dominant theory of our legal system —

God has nothing to do with the law — ^the Ten Conmiandments

were never delivered — ^and the law is no longer concerned

with persons, except as they come into conflict with the non-

person of the international law merchant — ^the corporation.

When an American citizen goes into court, he arrives there

as a creature of God and as a beneficiary of the Constitution.

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 487

 

He is met by the mercenaries of the law merchant, who function

solely to enforce the admiralty court procedures of the non-

person, the corporation, as epitomized by the ultimate corpora-

tion, the world central bank, against that American person.

It is this fundamental conflict which has never been stated

in the court. The corporation's legal representatives, the judges

and the lawyers, are aware of who they represent, but they

never inform the citizen that they are functioning on the princi-

ples of the law merchant, while the citizen expects to be

defended under the principles of the Constitution. The re-

spected legal scholar, Bruce Fein, states, "It is very disturbing

if you have a secret law that is known only to the judge or

the government." Washington Post, April 18, 1989. The entire

purpose of this work is to inform you, the American citizen,

of the existence of this secret law. Thus it is no longer a

secret, and you can mount an adequate defense.

 

The basic problem of the law merchant is that the free

bom individual, as a creature of God, comes into court to

defy the corporation, a non-person which has been artificially

created by the Black Nobility as a creature of Satan, and as

upheld by ancient Oriental despotism, typified by the Babylo-

nian monetary and court system. Sanford Levinson's book,

"Constitutional Faith" treads gingerly around this problem.

As a present day advocate of the latest version of Holmesian

social activism in the legal system, Levinson treats the concept

of "post-modernist thought. " As described by Levinson, post-

modernist legal thought is inspired by the anti-rationalist phi-

losophies of Nietzsche and Heidegger, and by more recent

"deconstructionist" epigones, Derrida, Foucault, Barthes, de

Man and Richard Rorty. "Constitutional Faith" is intended

 

 

 

488 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

as the final epitaph for constitutional traditions in our legal

system, as Levinson intones, ' 'The death of 'constitutionalism'

may be the central event of our time, just as the death of

God was that of the past century (and for much the same

reason)."

 

In fact, the "death of God" was the desperate philosophical

attempt of the corporationists to deny a God which had played

no part in the creation of their corporation; the "death of

the Constitution" will prove to be as much of a shibboleth.

Levinson defines constitutionalism as a misguided faith in

"timeless moral norms"; that is, law as a fixed force as it

is defined in its most ancient understanding, and law as a

moral force emanating from the Presence and Power of God.

Levinson tells us that "Popular sovereignty as a motif empha-

sizing the energy and moral authority of will (and willful

desire) rather than the constraints of a common moral order

to which the will was bound to submit, has become the view

emphasized today at most major law schools." Is this surpris-

ing? The law schools train students to uphold the law merchant,

and to subvert the Constitution. "Popular sovereignty" repre-

sents the sovereignty of the individual as a creature of God;

it will always be the enemy of the corporation. Levinson

tells us that "Law is stripped of any moral anchoring . . .

political institutions thus become the forum for the triumph

of the will." Levinson evokes "political visions of a civil

religious persuasion" in which "it is doubtful that logical

argumentation plays a crucial role. ' ' He creates new philosoph-

ical substantiation for the Harvard School of "deconstruction-

ism' ' which maintains the view of legalism as a Marxist weapon

to combat "bourgeois society and its oppression of the

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 489

 

masses." Levinson apparently believes in the nineteenth cen-

tury concept of Communism as a great wind which will blow

away all the outmoded trappings of the old bourgeois society,

leaving in its place a community lacking in ornamentation,

with clean bright buildings which have little or no furnishings,

in short, a hospital room or a jail cell, as the ideal home of

the future. Levinson declares that "Social life as we know

it is being challenged and may even be dissolving in an ever-

greater Heraclitean flux." Levinson paints a scenario of the

Supreme Court's participation in a "constitutional abolition

of private property in the name of a proletarian dictatorship"

as an imaginary development; in fact, he describes just what

the Supreme Court has been doing for years, gradually expro-

priating the private property of the American people, and

turning it over to the world corporation through our Federal

Reserve System. This program can be overturned; we have

the weapons; we can go into court and challenge the law

merchant because we are individual creatures of God who are

protected by the Constitution as our inheritance of God's law.

Not only is the corporation against God, as a nonperson

created to subvert God's Presence on this earth; it is also

the antithesis of God's law as the national will. The corporation

is international, and functions throughout the world as admi-

ralty or maritime law. Admiralty jurisdiction extends over

land and sea, beyond all national boundaries. The corporation

itself is a violation of the Constitution, because each corpora-

tion in practice becomes a New State. An entity which exercises

authority in more than one state, the corporation itself becomes

a state. As chartered by the government, the corporation be-

comes an arm of the government which is not only multi-

 

 

 

490 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

state; it is also multi-national. Thus, a New York corporation

exercises authority in Virginia, or in China. It also creates

money, which is a function of state sovereignty. Art. IV sec

3 of the Constitution says, "no new State shall be formed

or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State." The

corporation sets up new States as "Districts" or federal opera-

tions of the admiralty courts. Thus the Federal Reserve System

divides the United States into Federal Reserve Districts; the

Internal Revenue Service divides the United States into Dis-

tricts; the legal system divides the United States into areas

of "U.S. District Courts"; and each corporation divides the

United States into its own sales districts, manufacturing dis-

tricts, and districts of opportunity.

 

Because of the existence of the corporations, the law mer-

chant, or marine law, is not part of the law of any particular

country, but is part of the law of all nations. A bottomry

bond may be issued in London, as a loan on a ship and its

freight, or as a respondentia bon§is, a loan on pledge of the

cargo. This itself is not only a security, or adhesion, contract;

the loan or mortgage becomes a security in itself, or new

money, which may be traded, discounted, or sold as a "secu-

rity"; hence our bonds and shares sold on Wall Street. The

Constitution, Art. VI, states that "the Constitution . , . shall

be the supreme law of the land," but Statute 1, Sec. 9, p.

77, line 26, 1st Session of Congress Sept. 24, 1789, says,

"And the trial of issues in fact in the district courts, in all

causes except in civil causes of admiralty and maritime jiuisdic-

tion, shall be by jury."

 

Thus we are to have jury trial, except in admiralty cases.

How does this square with the fact that we now have admiralty

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 491

 

procedures in our courts? Quite easily. We can still have a

jury, but the jury is nullified by the judge's instructions to

the jury, which are straight from the law merchant. Thus

the common law meets the maritime-admiralty law in our

courts and is soundly defeated. Admiralty comes into the

nation by the power of contract. We find that

 

"The Admiralty court is a maritime court instituted for

the purpose of the laws of the seas. There seems to be ground,

therefore, for restraining jurisdiction, in some measure, within

the limit of the grant of the commercial power; which would

confine it, in cases of contracts, to those concerning navigation

and trade of the country upon the high seas and tide-waters

with foreign countries. ..." New Jersey Steam Nav Co v.

Merchants Bank, 6 How 392 (1848).

 

It is known that most insurance is a tontine scheme, and

is therefore forbidden by law. Although insurance is basically

a private enterprise rather than government, when the govern-

ment became a corporation (National Recovery Act etc. in

the FDR administration), the government then became in-

volved in private and commercial enterprise. The commerce

clause Art I. sec. 8, which gives Congress the power to regulate

conunerce between the States, also invokes admiralty law as

"the Law of Nations). ... on Land and Water." Yet the

1st Continental Congress itself had entered a complaint against

England "which . . . extend the powers of the Admiralty

courts beyond their ancient limits." When the government

embarked on its nationwide tontine scheme, the Social Security

Administration and its accompanying "insmrance policies,"

the courts of the nation were thereby converted into Admiralty

courts. "A policy of insurance is a maritime contract, and

 

 

 

492 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

therefore of admiralty jurisdiction." De Lovio v. Boit, 7

Fcd.Chs. No 3.7766 (1815).

 

Title 28, use sec 1333, "Admiralty, maritime and prize

cases; The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclu-

sive of the courts of the United States, of: (i). Any civil

case or admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors

in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise

entitled." And what are these remedies? The Fed. Statutes

Anno. V 9, p. 88, says, "... saving to suitors in all cases,

the right of a common law remedy, where common law is

competent to give it" Home Ins Co v. North Packet Co.,

31 Ia.242 (1871).

 

However, an American citizen's claim to common law citi-

zenship is thought by some authorities to be compromised

by Social Security (FICA) subjecting of said citizen's persona

to the maritime jurisdiction of the U.S. District courts through

an insurance claim: ' 'The Court will not pass upon the constitu-

tionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed

himself of its benefits." Gt Falls Mfg Co v. Atty Gen. 124

U.S. 581. Thus the citizen who seeks common law remedy

may be forced against his will into an equity jurisdiction

through the "contract" of the Social Security Ponzi scheme,

on the grounds that equity law carries out the law of contract,

or the law merchant. What, then, is its effect on the rights,

privileges and immunities guaranteed a citizen by the protection

of the Constitution of the United States? Many persons have

been stating their belief that anyone participating in this equity

contract or a similar government Ponzi scheme thereby loses

those rights, privileges and immunities. In so stating, they

are merely echoing the claims of the equity courts themselves.

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 493

 

However, it is only natural to claim that your brand is right,

because this is your claim to power, and your claim to your

share of the market. The Federal Laws of Civil Procedure

themselves are merely codes of equity.

 

Thus we are told that a citizen of the United States, that

is to say, of a State of the United States (without getting

into the present inquiry as to whether there are not actually

two separate United States at this time), who handles a Federal

Reserve note, or has a driver's license, or has a Social Security

number, has thereby entered into an equity contract with the

government, and have thereby lost the rights, privileges and

immunities as a citizen of the United States. Certainly this

is a most pernicious doctrine. Not only does it ignore the

law of contract itself — a contract must stipulate an offering,

a consideration and an acceptance of the parties, whereas

those who teach this doctrine merely focus on the acceptance —

the acceptance of a number, or of a stipend from the insurance

scheme — ^but where is the offering? Where is the consideration

of the parties detailed? Such a claim could be substantiated

only if the citizen has executed a form and signed it, as follows,

 

"I, , bom a citizen of the United

 

States and presently enjoying the rights, privileges and immuni-

ties thereby, do, in order to obtain a Social Security number

(or birth certificate, or driver's license), ^ knowingly and

willingly renounce said rights, privileges and immunities."

This is a contract. Anything less is not a contract. To claim

that there are hidden codes, secret agreements and carefully

disguised meanings, none of which are spelled out, in the

act of obtaining a Social Security number etc. is to offend

the law of contract.

 

 

 

494 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

As for the handling of a Federal Reserve note, a promise

to pay, or promissory note against the citizens of the United

States, the handling of such a note actually opens the door

for the citizen to sue the Federal Reserve System for conspir-

acy. The Federal Reserve Act was written as a conspiracy,

enacted into law as a conspiracy, and still functions today

as a secret conspiracy whose deliberations are forbidden to

the public, and to the Congress of the United States! (Secrets

of the Federal Reserve, by Eustace MuUins).

 

We do not wish to gloss over the fact that thousands of

American citizens are presently languishing in our government

concentration camps, having been convicted of some equity

violation of said alleged contracts. However, these prisoners

were convicted of having challenged the totality of equity

jurisdiction, which is assigned the duty of protecting every

aspect of the corporation central bank's operations; these pris-

oners have challenged Marxism, the supreme authority of

the state as commissioned by the corporation. These prisoners,

as we have previously stated, were convicted on an "informa-

tion" of having violated a court injunctive order as an overt

act. They were convicted and sentenced in violation of the

Constitution, and can be freed only by a Constitutional Revolu-

tion.

 

Equity law cannot challenge or supersede Constitutional

law; it does bypass it, refusing to confront what began as

God's law. His Covenant or contract, codified in the Bible

as an Affidavit from God, that is, with the three and a half

million Israelites, from Jacob only, and continued in the

Twelve Tables of Roman Law . By 900 B . C . , as the Canaanites ,

who now called themselves Phoenicians (later Venetians,

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 495

 

which developed into the Black Nobility), a second form of

law, set up by the Phoenician international traders for their

own convenience and purposes, appeared on the Isle of Rhodes.

This second form of law became known as the law merchant,

our present law of contract. This form of law constitutes the

statutory civil law of the United States. Meanwhile, God's

Covenant persisted as the English conmion law, which Alfred

the Great codified as Alfred's Dooms, in 872 A.D. , the continu-

ation of His Contract with the people of Jacob, or Israel. It

was known as the common law of England, not because it

was a law for the common people, but because it was common

to all people, rich and poor alike.

 

William Avery correctly states that the first defense of an

American citizen who is charged with a violation of equity

law is "inability to perform." You are charged with failure

to deliver when you were never informed that you should

deliver. Li fact, the charge is "stand and deliver," the ancient

cry of the English highwayman. If a policeman tells you he

is going to give you a ticket for parking in a No Parking

Zone, and you reply that you didn't see the sign, he charges

you anyway, because you are pleading a failure of vision.

When the state charges you with failure to perform under

equity law, such as failiu-e to pay a "tax," your response is

that you are unable to perform because you were not informed

of the obligation. Some citizens have been requesting that

the IRS send them "a letter of delegation of authority," that

is, a letter from their superior delegating to them the authority

to conduct an audit or to investigate you. Usually, the agents

either refuse to produce such a letter or are unable to obtain

one from their superior. Should they actually produce such

 

 

 

496 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

a letter, the next step would be to demand a copy of the

contract under whose provisions you are being charged with

failure to perform, with itemized claims of whatever you have

failed to deliver. The conventional response of the IRS agent

has been to cite some provision of the IRS code. However,

this does not itemize what you have failed to deliver, nor

does your 1040 form, if you have filed one, itemize such

information, since it contains what you have declared, not

what they claim you didn't declare. The 1040 form itself is

really an estimate; in equity, it is difficult to hold anyone to

the amounts of an estimate, and under Constitutional law, it

is absolutely inadequate.

 

The 1040 form itself is a listing of promissory notes, that

is, of promises to pay, the Federal Reserve notes. This is

interest-bearing currency which is only paper, and which is

backed only by paper bonds, even though it claims to be

backed by the faith and credit of the Government of the United

States, or the people of the United States. This is paper issued

against interest bearing "government" bonds held by the pri-

vately owned Federal Reserve System. This System, like many

other economic entities which have been created under express

authority of equity jurisdiction rather than under Constitutional

law, is actually a criminal syndicalist operation. As such, it

works closely with other criminal syndicalist operations in

the United States, such as the Rockefeller Foundation and

the other major tax-exempt foundations, and other monetary

schemes chartered under equity law.

 

American citizens who are charged with "violations" in

our equity courts are usually faced with the uphill task of

defending themselves against vague claims that they have

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 497

 

' 'failed' ' to cooperate in one or more of these criminal syndical-

ist operations. Because the IRS is merely a collection agency

for the Federal Reserve System, an IRS charge is based on

your "inability to perform" some task allotted to you by

the Federal Reserve System. The proper defense here is that

no American citizen who is a law abiding person can fulfill

any performance demanded by a criminal syndicalist operation

without becoming a criminal himself. Thus, tax analysts have

stated for years that no American can file a 1040 form without

committing a criminal act. Also, our citizens are often charged,

under equity, with "willful failure" to become a criminal.

A criminal syndicalist operation is always disturbed by any

person existing within its sphere of operations who has not

yet become a criminal himself. The goal of any criminal system

is that everyone must become a criminal. The very nature of

"majority rule" demands that a small minority of non-crimi-

nals residing within an area which has a large, active majority

of criminals is willfully failing to conform, and that they

must give in to the majority and join in the criminal operations.

However, the principle of majority rule applies only to a

lawful government, not to a criminal one. If the citizens resid-

ing within a criminal sphere of influence refuse to collaborate

with "the system," they must rely upon common law princi-

ples to protect them from the exigencies of equity law.

 

The real purpose of equity law is to convert equities or

financial assets into debt, and to deprive holders of real property

of their lawful possessions through the principle of legal plun-

der, by forcing them to accept a less valuable or worthless

substitute in exchange for their real property. At its inception,

the law of contract was developed to protect the interests of

 

 

 

498 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

parties engaged in trading endeavours, so as to make certain

that they would receive proper payment. Each party was in-

formed of the offering and the consideration, and accepted

the requirements. Because of the international nature of trade,

the traders often verged upon piracy, or upon some form of

government "cooperation" to carry on their trading activities.

This might be as temporary as the bribery of officials, or it

might engage other government powers, such as the deploy-

ment of armies or navies, and most particularly, the use of

the courts to implement their programs. Thus equity became

synonymous, early on, with crime, particularly as it applied

to international operations.

 

This seems ^itithetical, because the original meaning of

"equity" was fairness. An equitable contract was one which

was equally fair to both parties. Equity in law was intended

to mean absolute equality under the law. In practice, equity,

as the outgrowth of chancery, or the emperor's chancellors,

became the vehicle for the wielding of influence and power,

as well as legalized theft. The worldwide tendency towards

socialism would not have been possible without the illegal

profits conferred by equity decisions. The criminal syndicalism

of such operations as the Federal Reserve System and the

Rockefeller Foundation has always demanded more and more

government controls, and a corresponding decrease in individ-

ual liberties.

 

Thus we find that criminal syndicalism never considers itself

safe until it has converted the government into the vehicle

for its criminal syndicalist operations; that is, the govemment

becomes the Great Satan, the focus and the center of criminal

operations. How does this work in actual practice? You may

 

 

 

MULUNS ON EQUITY 499

 

have a small business which you wish to expand. You advertise

for workers, and you hire the most likely applicant. However,

the government notifies you that its regulations require that

you hire a handicapped lesbian mulatto whose origins should

be defined as being one-third black, one-third Hispanic, and

one-third Jewish. The government then notifies you that you

have failed to fulfill this requirement, which means that you

must now undergo a lengthy prosecution, you must hire a

person fulfilling the requirements of the government regulation,

and you must also pay her a penalty of $200,000, plus fines

and other penalties. You are now bankrupt, and your business

is closed. Such travesties are inevitable because the government

has set up conditions which no one can meet and still stay

in business. Second, your bankruptcy means that your business

has been stolen from you by anyone with funds, a bank or a

broker. Third, the government ensures that no individual will

be able to open and operate an independent business under

the conditions which have been set up.

 

These conditions originated because of Congressional con-

cerns for "compassion" and "caring," showing a commend-

able dedication to the handicapped, the minorities and the

deprived. In effect, government socialism as dictated by

government social activists now lays down the conditions,

and the only conditions, under which an American business

can operate. Then we hear recriminations because we can

no longer compete in the world economy with nations such

as Japan, and Korea, which do not have such restrictions on

their business operations. A welcome development for the

international bankers was that the United States, because it

could not compete, began to accrue an enormous deficit and

 

 

 

500 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

an unpayable debt, on which it now pays huge interest. Japan

now owns one-third of our national debt, and is collecting

the interest. Does anyone believe it is accidental that our

economy has been destroyed, and that we are now at the

mercy of Japan, a nation which we defeated in World War

n, and which may now be exacting its revenge? Whether

Japan has devised this program or not, the fact is that it

could not have taken place without the dictates of equity law.

As James J. Kilpatrick wrote in the Washington Post, Jan.

14, 1989, commenting on "the right to vote freely for legisla-

tors," "Over the past thirty or forty years both Congress

and the federal courts hundreds of times have ordered legisla-

tors to vote in particular ways or suffer the consequences.

Congress has conditioned the grant of federal funds upon

the enactment of specific state or local legislation. These condi-

tions center on coercion to pass bills concerning speed limits,

rights of homosexuals, AIDS patients, minority rights etc."

 

Under the color of "a law," that is, the legal enforcement

of equity contracts in favor of minorities or other special

interest groups who are pawns in the drive for world socialist

power, equity, originally the fairness doctrine, has been con-

verted into an instrument of debt creation, legalized monopoly,

financial theft, and the imposition of tyrannical strictures upon

all citizens of the United States.

 

Consider the claims that are now made by equity law; that

a check is a maritime contract, and that its use either as a

writer or recipient places you under the jurisdiction of admiralty

law; that a marriage license or a birth certificate gives title

of your life to the state; that the Social Security number estab-

lishes an irrevocable contract with the state to pay income

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 501

 

tax; that a debt can be paid, but not discharged, under equity

law. Who is secretly responsible for the fastening of such

dictatorial manifestoes upon the people of the United States?

We have akeady mentioned the crucial dates, 1688, 1694,

and 1714. When King George HI, spurred on by the demands

of the stockholders of the Bank of England, began to lay

unconscionable additional taxes upon the American colonists,

they responded with the Declaration of the First Continental

Congress, May 14, 1774, "the British Parliament, claiming

a power of right to bind the American people by statute in

all cases whatsoever, hath, in some acts expressly imposed

taxes upon them, and in others, under various pretexts but

in fact for the purpose of raising revenue, hath imposed rates

and duties payable in these colonies. . . . which. . . . extend

the powers of the Admiralty courts beyond their ancient limits,

deprive the American subjects of trial by jury . . . and are

subversive of American rights."

 

Note that the Continental Congress still referred to the colo-

nists as "subjects," and, in a sentiment common to most

Americans of that time, maintained that they were still loyal

subjects of the Crown, who were finding it difficult to exist

under the stringent conditions being imposed by the King. It

is important to remember that the British people, despite the

great profits which were being raked in by the stockholders

of the Bank of England, did not themselves benefit from these

profits. The lot of the average Briton, prior to the Revolutionary

War, was much worse than that of the average colonist. Nor

were the Britons greatly disposed to fight the Americans; King

George III had to make a deal with a German prince, the

Elector of Hesse, to obtain mercenary soldiers who would

 

 

 

502 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

fight the colonists, a contract which became the basis of the

Rothschild fortune.

 

Much of the world's commerce has been conducted on

the principle of a fair trade, that is, the exchange of a substance

for a substance. If the party had no substance to trade, then

he had to make payment in coin. The sale itself is commerce,

which is public business in motion through negotiable instru-

ments of exchange, rather than a conmion law transaction.

It was this existence of trade itself as an entity which was

not covered by the common law, which gave rise to the body

of the law merchant, as an instrument for governing trade.

Those engaged in trade found that debts were extinguished

by the delivery of goods and services, or by paper representing

such goods and services. It was found that extinguishing debt

deprived the debt holder of the power and appertinent influence

which accompanied the continued holding of the debt. Conse-

quently, for centuries the law merchant has moved continu-

ously towards the creation of inextinguishable debt, which,

in turn, confers inextinguishable power, a goal of the Canaan-

ites or Black Nobility. Thus the Federal Reserve System issues

a currency which is based upon government bonds, using

the money and credit of the people of the United States, and

creating debt or monetizing debt as a private corporation.

As the owner of the negotiable instrument of exchange, the

Federal Reserve becomes the "owner" of all property in any

transactions in which negotiable instruments of exchange are

used. However, the Federal Reserve wisely does not take

actual possession, allowing the purchaser to use the property,

in the mistaken belief that he is now the actual owner. The

Federal Reserve reserves the power to call in its property

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 503

 

whenever it wishes to do so, as a final measure of control,

or as a step in the carrying out of other programs.

 

The equity courts function to administer "a law" as instru-

mentalities of the criminal syndicates which operate under

their jurisdiction within the United States. This is defined in

sec. 9. "The district courts (federal courts) as courts of admi-

ralty and as courts of equity, shall be deemed always open

for the purpose of filing and any pleading, of issuing and

returning mesne and final process, and of making and directing

all interlocutory motions, orders, rules and other proceedings

preparatory to the hearing, upon their merits, of all cases

pending therein." 36 Stat. 1088 (1911).

 

Under the equity, or admiralty law, a citizen of the United

States who has received any "benefit" from a government

program thereby is said to "lose" his constitutional rights!

Legal precedent for this equity ruling is found in the decision

of Great Falls Mfg Co. v. Atty Gen. 124 U.S. 581, "The

Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a stamte at

the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits."

Also cited by Wall v. Parrot Silver & Copper Co. 244 U.S.

407, 411-12; St. Louis Malleable Casting Co. v. Prendergast

Constr. Co. 260 U.S. 469; Alexander v. TVA, 297 U.S.

288,346 (1935).

 

Thus, anyone who has "benefitted from such government

program" not only is denied the right to challenge it in court,

but also loses his Constitutional right to defend himself from

further government action. This is the basis for imprisoning

numerous American citizens who have "failed" to handle

the Federal Reserve scrip as prescribed by equity law.

 

The ratification of the Constitution of the United States

 

 

 

504 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

meant that the people chose this instrument to defend their

rights. Admiralty law, like the King's writ, ended at the saltwa-

ter mark; the land was under the jurisdiction of Constitutional

principles. However, this principle was overthrown in 1838.

"When the doctrine was held that the admiralty jurisdiction

in cases purely dependent upon the locality of the act done

was limited to the sea and to tide waters as far as the tide

flows, and that it did not reach beyond the high water mark,

it was said that mixed cases do arise, and indeed do often

arise, where the acts and services are of a mixed nature, as

where salvage services are performed partly on tide waters,

and partly on the shore, for the preservation of the property

saved, in which the admiralty jurisdiction has been constantly

exercised to the extent of decreeing salvage." U.S. v. Combs,

12 Pet 75 (1838). The performance of mixed services was

eventually interpreted in equity that the Federal Reserve System

could "salvage" its flood of paper money, backed by nothing

more than paper bonds, with which it had inundated the United

States! This salvage operation had to be continuous, as the

flood of ' 'new' ' money was continuous, in order for the System

to maintain its profits and its influence over the economy.

Consequently, when the Federal Reserve Act was enacted

into law by Congress in 1913, during that same year, the

16th Amendment to the Constitution was enacted to legally

authorize the Federal Reserve's salvage operation, in which

a new unit of the criminal syndicate, the Internal Revenue

Service, was created as an essential salvage service to enforce

the admiralty principles of salvage upon all the people of

the United States.

The equity court remains the linchpin of the criminal syndi-

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 505

 

calist movement throughout the United States, because the

equity court is the court of conspiracy; it is the court of legalized

theft and plunder; and it is the court of monopoly. In 1890,

the monopolists enacted the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to protect

their monopohes by establishing conditions which made it

illegal for anyone to set up a competing business. The Act

states that "Every contract, combination, in the form of trust

or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce

among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby

declared to be illegal." Henceforth, anyone whose business

operations presented a threat to the monopolists could be con-

victed of "illegal restraint of trade." The monopolists had

now enshrined their monopolies as creatures of the state, or

state trusts, as in their later creation, Soviet Russia. The created

corporations had now taken over their creator, the State. The

Sherman Act also extended greater controls over every citizen,

by making every citizen a merchant, because it established

controls making citizens liable for illegal restraint of trade

for engaging in any transaction which was not controlled by

the manufacturing monopolies. Citizens are also considered

merchants under the commerce clause of the Constitution.

The 1842 decision in Swift v. Tyson declared that mercantile

law is now the common law of the United States. The Interstate

Commerce Act of 1887 extended the power of the monopolies

to pervert the processes of government to their private pur-

poses, as was later finalized in the Sherman Act. Justice Story

declared in Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters 19, "The law respecting

negotiable instruments may be truly declared in the language

of Cicero, adopted by Lord Mansfield in Luke v. Lyde, (2

Burr R. 883-887) to be in great measure not the law of a

 

 

 

506 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

single country only, but of the commercial world. . . . It is

observable that the law merchant and the maritime law are

not generally distinguished from each other, but are frequently

used indiscriminately. The only real difference is in the sanc-

tion. When viewed as a part of the municipal law the rules

are called the law merchant; when regarded from the standpoint

of international law, the same rules are the law maritime."

 

It was necessary to impose the admiralty law on the citizens

of the United States, because the income tax cannot exist

under common law; income tax assessments and judgments

are enforced upon statutes in equity by summary judgments

of the executive, or writs of assistance. The income tax is

enforced as a tax on a franchise for doing business under

the law merchant. A general income tax would be a direct

tax on property. The 16th Amendment estabUshes a tax on a

franchise, the privilege of doing business in a corporate capac-

ity, as well as the privilege of perpetual existence, perpetual

succession, and limited liability for debts under the law; that

is, the 16th Amendment converts private citizens of the United

States into corporations. A natural person, who is not a corpora-

tion, cannot be subjected to the regulations of the Internal

Revenue Service, nor can they be made to inform upon them-

selves by the IRS.

 

In Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Peters 659, we find that "It is

clear there can be no common law of the United States. . . .

The judicial decisions, the usages and customs of the respective

states, must determine how far the common law has been

adopted and sanctioned in each."

 

The FRS and IRS tax scheme was grounded in the commerce

clause, Art. 1, Sec l.Cl 3, which allows Congress to "regulate

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 507

 

commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,

and with the Indian tribes." The Supreme Court then held,

in Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824, that commerce "comprehends

traffic, trade, navigation, communications, the transit of per-

sons, and the transmission of messages by telegraph — indeed,

every species of conmiercial intercourse."

 

This was later expanded by the United Nations Treaty of

1945, under which every human on earth has become a "mer-

chant" by partaking in any commercial transaction under the

law merchant, a strictly voluntary law and unwritten, as well

as the law of negotiable instruments, insurance, sales, etc.

The person becomes a "merchant" by accepting bills of ex-

change as "money." The Federal Reserve notes issues of

1963, and 1969, were then legalized as "lawful tender" on

March 18, 1968, as well as promissory notes or irredeemable

perpetual annuity bonds for government securities, and for

checks.

 

Sir Edward Coke stated that ' 'A corporation is a body politic

established by prescription, by letter of patent, or by Act of

Parliament:" In the U.S., this became "by Act of Congress

in the United States, such as the establishment of the Federal

Reserve System in 1913. However, such corporations were

created in violation of the Supreme Court precedents, such

as Osbom v. the U.S. Bank, 9 Wheaton, 859, 860, in which

the Supreme Court admitted that Congress could not create

a corporation for its own sake, "or for private purposes."

The Federal Reserve System was created for private stockhold-

ers, but was disguised by a ' 'quasi-public' ' intent. Its ' 'profits"

were to be paid to the U.S. Treasury. In fact, the owners of

Federal Reserve bank stock were less interested in the sums

 

 

 

508 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

earned by the System than in the control which the Act con-

ferred upon those stockholders, the control of the money and

credit of the American people. They now exercise control of

the daily quantity of money and the price of money throughout

the United States. This power gives them the opportunity to

make enormous profits in stock issues, market operations,

and other monetary operations.

 

Thomas Jefferson foresaw these abuses in his powerful argu-

ment raised against the first Bank of the United States. As a

sleeper agent of the Bank of England and the Rothschild inter-

ests, Alexander Hamilton had delivered an extensive argument

on Feb. 23, 1791, declaring that "the right of erecting corpora-

tions is one inherent in, and inseparable from, the idea of

sovereign power. . . . that the power to erect corporations

is not to be considered an independent or substantive power,

but as an incidental and auxiliary one, and was therefore

more properly left to implication than expressly granted. . . .

that the incorporation of a bank is a constitutional measure."

 

However, Jefferson had delivered a more detailed argument

on Feb. 16, 1791: "The bill for establishing a national bank

in 1791, undertakes, among other things — 1. To form the

subscribers into a corporation. 2. To enable them, in their

corporate capacities, to receive grants of land; and so far, is

against the laws of mortmain. 3. To make alien subscribers

capable of holding lands; and so far is against the laws of

alienage. 4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a propri-

etor, to a certain line of successors; and, so far, changes the

course of descents. 5. To put the lands out of the reach of

forfeiture, or escheat; and so far, is against the laws of forfeiture

and escheat. 6. To transmit personal chattels to successors

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 509

 

in a certain line; and so far, is against the laws of distribution.

7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking,

under the national authority; and, so far, is against the laws

of monopoly. 8. To communicate to them a power to make

laws paramount to the laws of the states; for so they must

be construed, to protect the institution from the control of

the state legislatures; and so probably they will be construed.

. . . The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed

by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the

United States by the Constitution."

 

The struggle to foist upon the people of the United States

a national, or central, bank, to be operated for the benefit of

alien interests, is the untold story of the 19th century. In

1 9 1 3 , the financiers finally achieved their goal by the enactment

of the Federal Reserve Act. The central bank, a machine to

create perpetual and inextinguishable debt, was now in place.

Today, 12 U.S. Code 412 allows currency to come into circula-

tion on the basis of U.S. debt obligations, that is, government

bonds which have been issued by the private stockholders of

the Federal Reserve System. This law was scheduled to sunset

on July 30, 1945, during World War II at the close of the

business day. Just before that hour, a measure was passed

to allow the United States to assume U.S. debt obligations

in perpetuity. However, in their haste, the manipulators over-

looked the loophole which allows alternative means of issuing

currency, including 12 USC 347c. This establishes the legal

basis for issuing credit cards, for redeemable coupons, food

stamps, and such currency as the American Express Co. notes,

and other company notes. Under the Federal Reserve monop-

oly, fractional pieces of credit are turned into circulating media.

 

 

 

510 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

Since 1913, the Federal Reserve System and the IRS have

formed a universal debt-credit franchise, in which private indi-

viduals are compelled to inform upon themselves as "mer-

chants." Forced withholding from wages began on July 1,

1943. In 1945, the United Nations Treaty turned all U.S.

courts into trading pits, and courts of the staple, because of

the merchant practice. Under the courts of the staple, merchants

had met under the protection of the crown to implement their

own law among their own members. The Magna Carta had

given merchants, in Article 48, the right "to buy and sell,

according to their ancient customs, among themselves. ' ' Every

private individual has the right to contract upon his services,

talents, labor and endeavours, and to profit therefrom; he

can then be assessed a direct tax, but he cannot be compelled

to inform on himself, imder the protection of the 4th and

5th Amendments to the Constitution. The courts of the staple,

as the District of Columbia equity courts are now known

and positioned throughout the United States, enforce the mer-

chants' law on all private citizens. The conspirators then en-

acted the 25th Amendment to the Constitution in order to

set up the presidency of the United States as a chancellorship

in executive equity, controlled by the corporation America,

and its directors.

 

HJR 192 further legitimized the Federal Reserve monopoly

by making Federal Reserve bank credit legal tender. A Treasury

note of 1890, before the enactment of the Federal Reserve

Act, read ' 'This note is legal tender at its face value in payment

of debts public and private except when otherwise stipulated

in the contract." This was phrased to include the possibility

that the contract might stipulate payment in gold, silver, or

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 511

 

other payment. The Federal Reserve note now reads, "This

note is legal tender for all debts public and private." This

establishes its function to pay the United States debt owed

to the bankers, which makes all such notes promissory notes

intended to continue payments on the bank-created and inextin-

guishable debt. However, it is made clear that the Federal

Reserve notes are only for the payment of debt, and thus

can be superseded by money intended for any other purpose.

 

Harvard professor Barry Fell wrote a book, "America B.C. "

which contains a picture of the Bourne Stone, found in Massa-

chusetts, which in effect annexes the land to Hanno, a Suffete

of Carthage. A similar stone was found in South America.

As was pointed out in "The Curse of Canaan,*' by Eustace

MuUins, the Carthaginians were the Phoenicians, who had

changed their name from Canaanites, and who became the

Black Nobility which has foisted their monetary schemes upon

the world. Thus the Bourne Stone may be the secret deed

by which the Canaanites have laid claim to the title of all

property in the Americas, and which the equity courts are

now acting to uphold. Law is grounded in or derived from

guaranteed allodial land titles. Equity is the enforcement of

"natural rights" not necessarily found in common law. Law

deals in substance; equity deals in the potentiality of the sub-

stance. If an existing title is the basis for the present practice

of equity law, then the person not informed of such allodial

title cannot obtain a fair and impartial hearing.

 

Until 1913, "lawful money" was based on whatever com-

prised the reserves of a National Bank, gold, silver, gold or

silver certificates, Treasury Notes, and U.S. Notes. The Fed-

eral Reserve Act allowed banks to count commercial paper

 

 

 

512 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

as bank reserves , and thereby changed the basis of our monetary

system. HJR 192 legitimized the process by making Federal

Reserve bank credit legal tender, and by substituting the lan-

guage governing payment of debt. "Payment of debt" was

altered into a new phrase, "discharge of obligation." Hence-

forth, debts could be paid, but they could not be discharged.

They could not be legally held to be paid, because they had

not; they were merely exchanged for other forms of debt.

One banker exposed the scheme by stating, "If one bill of

exchange goes through and in fact is paid with a cashier's

check, the ball game is over for Federal-type banking." Such

a payment would put the lenders of credit out of business.

A specter is indeed haunting American business, but it is

not the famed specter of Communism; it is the specter that

someone may someday pay a debt.

 

American citizens remain uninformed of the difference be-

tween the payment at law, and discharge at Equity, and, even

more important, the difference between voluntary payment

at Law, and compelled performance in Equity. Payment at

Law means meeting the requirements of the rights, privileges

and immunities accruing to a citizen of the United States as

guaranteed by the Constitution. Discharge at Equity, or com-

pelled performance in Equity means that court orders are issued

for compelled performance in equity against citizens of the

United States by judges and lawyers, who maintain an active

alliance with the limited liability corporations through the

American Bar Association. The fractional reserve banking

corporations thus grant Titles of Nobility, in violation of the

Constitution, by ordering Bills of Attainders against U.S. citi-

zens, which is also forbidden by the Constitution. This unholy

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 513

 

alliance has resulted in the looting of the American people

by international interests, through mergers, acquisitions, lever-

aged buyouts, and management buyouts. This process was

made possible by the ascension of Lord Mansfield as Chief

Justice of the Kings Bench in 1756. Lord Mansfield trans-

formed the Civil Law by allowing it to supersede the common

law. Actions of assumpsit for debt now became equitable

action. Lord Mansfield began denying trial by jury on writs

of assistance, a procedure which forced the colonists into

open rebellion.

 

The investment banking house which launched the present

tidal wave of buyouts is Drexel, Bumham Lambert of New

York. This firm, now known as the king of junk bonds, is

the New York representative of the Rothschild Bank, Banque

Bruxelles Lambert of Brussels. The Lambert of this firm,

Baron Lambert, is the Belgian branch of the Rothschild family.

Because of this firm's influence, Brussels is now the capital

of the world. NATO is headquartered there, as is the World

Computer Network, another Rothschild enterprise. Lord Car-

rington, the head of NATO, is also a member of the Rothschild

family. The first Lord Carrington was Archibald Primrose;

his son. Viscount Rosebery, married Hannah Rothschild,

daughter of Mayer Rothschild. The present Lord Carrington

is not only director of Rio Tinto Zinc, one of the three firms

which comprise the base of the Rothschild fortune; he is also

a director of Hambros Bank. During World War II, Sir Charles

Hambro was the director of Britain's Secret Intelligence Ser-

vice; in that capacity, he supervised the organization of its

American branch, the OSS, which is now known as the CIA.

 

In 1982, Lord Carrington merged his business interests with

 

 

 

514 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

those of Henry Kissinger, in Kissinger Associates. Lord Car-

rington's cousin, David Colville, became the first partner of

N. M. Rothschilds Sons, London, who was not an immediate

member of the Rothschild family. Kissinger Associates fur-

nished the backbone of the Reagan and Bush cabinets. Presi-

dent Bush has named Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, of Kissinger

Associates, to the critical National Security Council, and Law-

rence Eagleburger, president of Kissinger Associates, to the

post of Deputy Secretary of Defense.

 

Because of Bush's close ties with the Bank of England

through his family banking house, Brown Bros. Harriman,

Bush was named head of the CIA. The recent imbroglio over

the appointment of Sen. John Tower as Secretary of Defense,

for which he was defeated, hinged upon the fear that Kissinger

Associates might not be able to control Tower. They envisioned

a scenario in which Tower would spend his time in night

clubs, living up to Dryden's dictum that "None but the brave

deserve the fair," but at the last minute changed their minds

in favor of a more malleable choice.

 

Drexel Bumham Lambert waged a three year battle to take

over the major American corporations for the Rothschild inter-

ests from 1985 to 1988, when a $650 million fine was levied

against the firm for illegal activities in stock trading. During

this period, some $300 billion in stock was retired through

mergers. During the same period, corporate debt in the United

States increased by $360 billion, meaning that these firms

must be paying some $36 billion a year to the creators of

inextinguishable debt in interest payments, which effectively

removes them from the burden of paying taxes on their corpo-

rate income. Such Rothschild operations have produced huge

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 515

 

government deficits, reduced the status of the United States

to that of a Balkan republic, and ranked the nation as a Third

World Banana Republic in the international order. Now the

United States faces a bleak future as a bankrupt nation, whose

people are being informed they must "make sacrifices," while

they face increased taxation, inflation, and food and fuel crises.

These pressures will result in (and are probably intended to)

force a rebellion, with military dictatorship and civil war in

the United States before the criminal syndicalists are finally

brought to justice.

 

These developments are inherent in the nature of the prob-

lems which we face. The Erie Raikoad decision of 1938 took

the law merchant out of the conmion law (nullifying the 7th

Amendment) and put it into Equity to be "judicially noticed"

in any jurisdiction. The Law Merchant is Summary Judgment,

whereas the Law of Nature is, in the final analysis, the law

of tooth and claw. "Law" means the Law of the State; the

Rules of Equity are the Law Merchant. The Federal Reserve

notes are intended to, and are so doing, confiscate in equity,

through summary judgment, all private landed property by

the agents of the international commercial interests. Although

no federal law can outlaw the cash basis of the law imposed

on the States by Art. I, sec. 10, and the federal government

cannot touch allodial land titles in the states, this is being

circumvented by the inherent profit in the Federal Reserve

notes; they discriminate against real property, because real

property is not personalty— (chose-in-action). They discrimi-

nate against holders of allodial land titles in favor of the

merchants and merchant bankers because of the ten to one,

to sixteen to one, return on bank deposits. Thus equitable

 

 

 

516 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

paper is worth from ten to sixteen times as much as real

property or substance, and in time will swallow up, or "buy"

all allodial land. Thus our law, which is grounded in or derived

from allodial land titles, is thereby subverted by the financiers

and their international conspiracy, as executed through equity

courts, the courts of conspiracy.

 

American citizens are brought before these courts of conspir-

acy, their rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed them

by the Constitution are duly denied, and they are tried and

sentenced as Artificial Persons, or corporations. When they

claim to be real, when they claim to exist, they affront the

equity court, and face further imprisonment for their "con-

tempt." Although the court sentences the Artificial Person,

it is the real American citizen who is subsequently carted

off to prison.

 

Because equity law has as its goal the creation of inextin-

guishable debt, and the subsequent transferring of all real

property from its legal allodial possessors to Artificial Entities,

which have been created by the state, who are primarily bank-

ing corporations, debt has assumed a major role in equity

law. Thus we find in the 14th Amendment not merely the

enshrinement of public debt, as an entity whose very existence

cannot be questioned, but also the defining of "unacceptable

debt," that is, debt incurred by any entity which has not

been chartered by the state, or which is seen as inimical to

the state. The 14th Amendment states, in that capacity, "The

validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized

by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions

and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebel-

lion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 517

 

nor any state shall assume or pay any debt obligation incurred

in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States,

or any claim for loss or emancipation of any slave; but all

such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and

void."

 

Thus the public debt of the United States is placed on a

pedestal, beyond attack, but the obligations of the southern

states, incurred as the result of the states battling for their

rights against the international power of the criminal syndical-

ists, "shall be held illegal and void."

 

The public debt today consists of bookkeeping entries in

the ledgers of the Federal Reserve System; those who purchase

Treasury bills do not receive so much as a flimsy piece of

paper; instead, the purchase exists only as a blip on a computer

screen. The 14th Amendment thus requires that the blip on

the computer screen shall not be questioned, nor the right of

the Federal Reserve System to issue government bonds as

Lord Rothschild's magical money-making machine. Because

the 14th Amendment was enacted under martial law, it has

had no validity since 1878, when martial law was ended in

the southern states, and Federal troops were withdrawn. Martial

law is supreme, and overrides all state and local governments,

but only during the period of military occupation. The 14th

Amendment was ratified in 1868, ten years before martial

law was ended in the southern states. The 14th Amendment

can only be valid if it is maintained that the entire United

States is still under martial law. This is not legal pettifogging;

it is a serious legal question, which must be resolved in the

courts. The federal, or equity, district courts might have little

difficulty with this problem; they could simply declare that

 

 

 

518 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

the states are only legal fictions, which exist at the pleasure

of the federal entity, just as the citizens of the several states,

through Social Security law and income tax regulations, have

been transformed into Artificial Persons.

 

The scrip issued by the privately owned Federal Reserve

Banks, functioning as colonial banks under the aegis of the

Bank of England, has been variously described as ' 'Communist

slave scrip," "beggar's alms," or as stock certificates in a

joint stock company. It may be all three. "Scrip," in Old

French dialect, meant the bag for alms which was publicly

carried by pilgrims or beggars. Scrip, in its general derivations,

is usually a derogatory term, carrying a connotation of scoffing

or jeering. In 1676, C. Hatton wrote, in Hatton's Chronicles,

"I punish myself yet I may revenge myself upon you for

your little scrips of paper." By 1820, scrip had become a

term for a stock certificate, when G. Carey wrote in his ' 'Guide

to Public Funds," "When the loan is in progress. ... the

separate parts are called Scrip." In its 1828 edition, Webster's

Dictionary defines scrip as "A certificate of stock subscribed

to buy a bank or other company , . . or of a share of other

joint property, is called in America a scrip." The Federal

Reserve notes issued by the private stockholders of the twelve

Federal Reserve Banks were used to finance the Bolshevik

Revolution in Russia in 1917, and were further used to maintain

the Soviet Government since that time. In 1918, at a time

when the Bolshevik govenmient was akeady bankrupt, three

directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York came to

their rescue; George Foster Peabody, William Boyce Thomp-

son, and William Laurence Sanders. Sanders was also the

chairman of the business equipment firm, IngersoU Rand.

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 519

 

Thompson had also pledged one million dollars of his personal

funds to spread Bolshevik propaganda in the United States.

Because Federal Reserve notes have served as the mainstay

of the Soviet Government since 1918, it is proper to term

them "Communist slave scrip"; it is also issued to the slaves

in the United States.

 

Walt Mann has written of the 14th Amendment that it is

the legal basis of the injunctive power which the government

has used against our citizens since 1868. It lays down an

injunction against questioning the validity of the public debt.

Our citizens are then sentenced for violating injunctive orders

which stem from this as a basic injunction. This sentencing

power also stems from the admiralty court procedure. Because

the 14th Amendment stems from martial law, and admiralty

procedures also are based upon martial law, the power of

the captain to command a military ship of the line while it

is at sea, the judge of the equity court functions as a military

conunander, exercising the power of martial law over citizens

of the United States.

 

It is this power which brings into question the claim that

participating in a contract volunteers oneself into admiralty

jurisdiction. However, this jurisdiction violates the right, privi-

leges and immunities which are guaranteed us by the Constitu-

tion. Martial law may be the pretext by which these guarantees

have been suspended. We find the Admiralty Comt defined

as follows:

 

"The Admiralty Court is a maritime court instituted for

the purpose of administering the law of the seas. There seems

to be grounds, therefore, for restraining jiuisdiction, in some

measure, within the limit of the grant of the commercial power,

 

 

 

520 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

which would confine it, in cases of contracts, to those concern-

ing trade and navigation of the country upon the high seas

and tide- waters with foreign countries. N.J. Steam Nav Co

V. Mchts Bank, 6 How 392 (1848).

 

The fixing of Admiralty jurisdiction in the United States

is said to lie in the commerce clause. Art. I, sec. 8, "The

Congress shall have Power. ... To regulate commerce with

foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the

Indian tribes." In effect, this separates Admiralty jurisdiction

from internal jurisdiction. The federal courts overcame that

distinction by becoming courts of equity. The problem with

the Social Security system is that it poses as an insurance

policy, but collects its premiums through the compulsory taxing

process. The forced payment of said insurance premium vio-

lates the following precept: "The individual, unlike the corpo-

ration, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing.

The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence

and charter powers to the state, but the individual's right to

live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment

of which an Excise cannot be imposed." Redfield v. Fisher,

292 P 813, p. 819 (1930).

 

Construction of the term "natural right" as opposed to

the employment of the Law Merchant against citizens of the

United States may be clarified by the following excerpt from

Colin Blackburn's "Contract of Sale," published by T & W

Johnson, Phil. 1847:

 

There is no part of the history or English law more

obscure than that connected with the common maxim

that the Law Merchant is part of the law of the land.

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 521

 

In the earlier times it was not a part of the common

law as it is now, but administered in its own courts

in the staple, or else in the Star Chamber. The Chancel-

lor, in the 13 Edw. 4, 9, declares his view of the

law thus: "This suit is brought by an alien merchant

who is come by safe conduct here, and he is not bound

to sue by the law of the land, to abide the trial of

twelve men, and other forms of the law of the land;

but he ought to sue here (in the Star Chamber) and

it shall be determined by the law of nature in Chancery,

and he may sue from hour to hour for the dispatch

of merchants; and he said further that a merchant is

not bound by statutes, where the statutes are introduc-

tiva novae legis; but if they are declarativa antiqui

juris (that is to say of nature &c). And since they

have come into the kingdom, the king has jurisdiction

over them to administer justice, but that shall be secun-

dum legem naturae, which is called by some the Law

Merchant, which is the law universal of the world."

And the justices being called on, certified that the

goods of this plaintiff were not forfeited to the crown

as a waif (though those of a subject would have been)

because he was an alien merchant. It is obvious that

at that time the law merchant was a thing distinct

from the common law. This accounts for the very

remarkable fact that there is no mention whatever of

bills of exchange, or other mercantile customs in our

early books; not that they did not exist, but that they

were tried in the staple, and therefore were not men-

tioned in the books of the common law; just as the

 

 

 

522 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

matters over which the Courts of Admiralty, or Ecclesi-

astical Courts, have exclusive jurisdiction, are at this

day never treated as part of the common law. But as

the courts of the staple decayed away, and the foreign

merchants ceased to live subject to a peculiar law,

those parts of the law merchant which differed from

the common law either fell into disuse, or were adopted

into the common law as the custom of merchants,

and after a time began to appear in the books of common

law. How this great change was brought about does

not appear; but though bills of exchange were in com-

mon use among merchants in the 13th century; the

first mention of one in an English report is in Cro.

Jac, in the beginning of the 17th century; and though

the right of rei vindicatio must have prevailed in the

continent from the time of the revival of the Civil

Law, the first mention of it in our books is as late as

1690. It seems quite impossible that such matters

should not have been the subject of litigation in some

shape or other in England for centuries before those

times.

 

Blackstone, whom internationalists prefer to quote

over Lord Coke, classified the Law Merchant as one

of the "customs" of England, and so a part of the

common law; but it is not properly a custom, as it is

not restricted to a single community, and is not the

municipal law of a single country, but regulated com-

mercial contracts in all civilized countries. The body

of mercantile usages which compose this branch of

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 523

 

law, having no dependence upon locality, does not

need to be established by witnesses, but judges are

bound to take official notice of it. The principal

branches of the law merchant are the law of shipping,

the law of marine insurance, the law of sales, and

the law of bills and notes. The feudal law, which

grew up in a time when property consisted chiefly of

land upon whose alienation great restraints were laid,

was found inadequate for the needs of the mercantile

classes who were coming into prominence. The coiuls,

when commercial contracts were brought before them,

adopted from merchants the rules which regulated their

business dealings and made them rules of law. Many

of these rules were in direct contradiction to the com-

mon law. Magna Charta contained a special provision

guaranteeing to merchants, among other things, the

right "to buy and sell according to their ancient cus-

toms," and many later statutes were enacted for their

special protection. As the custom of merchants began

to encroach upon the common law, there was a deter-

mined effort on the part of lawyers to resist it. It

was attempted to make the custom of merchants a

particular custom, peculiar to a single community,

and not a part of the law of the land. It was finally

decided in the reign of James I (1603-1625) to be a

part of the law of the realm. An attempt was then

made to restrict the application of the law merchant

to persons who were actually merchants, but the courts,

after considerable variance, held that it applied to the

same contracts between parties and merchants.

 

 

 

524 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

We quote further from The American Universal Cyclopae-

dia, on Mercantile Law, v. IX NY 1884, S. W. Green's

Son:

 

Mercantile law is the only branch of municipal law

which, from the necessity of the case, is similar, and

in many respects identical, in all the civilized and

trading countries of the world. In determining the rela-

tions of the family, the church, and the state, each

nation is guided by its own peculiarities of race, of

historical tradition, of climate, and numberless other

curcumstances which are almost wholly unaffected by

the conditions of society in the neighboring states.

But when the arrangements for buying, selling, and

transmitting commodities from state to state alone are

in question, all men are very much in the same position.

The single object of all is that the transaction may

be effected in such a manner as to avoid what in every

case must be sources of loss to somebody, and by

which no one is ultimately a gainer — ^viz., disputes

and delay. At a very early period in the trading history

of modem Europe, it was found that the only method

by which these objects could be attained as by establish-

ing a common understanding on all the leading points

of mercantile, and more particularly of maritime law.

This was effected by the establishment of those mari-

time codes, of which the most famous, though not

the earliest, was the Consolato del Mare. It is some-

times spoken of as a collection of maritime laws of

Barcelona, but it would seem rather to have been a

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 525

 

compilation of the laws and trading customs of various

Italian cities — ^Venice, Pisa, Genoa, and Amalfi, to-

gether with those of the cities with which they chiefly

traded — ^Barcelona, Marseilles, and the like. That it

was published at Barcelona towards the end of the

13th century, or the beginning of the 14th, in the

Catalonian dialect, is no proof that it originated in

Spain, and the probability is that it is of Italian origin.

As commerce extended itself to the northwestern coasts

of Europe, similar codes appeared. There was the Gui-

don de la Mer, the Roles d'Oleron, the Usages de

Damme, and most important of all the ordinances of

the great Hanseatic League (Deutsche Hansabund).

As the central people of Europe, the French early

became distinguished as cultivators of maritime law,

and one of the most important contributions that ever

was made to it was the famous ordonnance of 1681,

which formed part of the ambitious and in many re-

spects successful legislation and codification of Louis

XIV. All these earlier attempts at general mercantile

legislation were founded, as a matter of course, on

the Roman Civil Law, or rather on what that system

had borrowed from the laws which regulated the inter-

course of the trading communities of Greece, perhaps

Phoenicia and Carthage, and which had been reduced

to a system by the Rhodians.

 

From the intimate relations which subsisted between

Scotland and the continent of Europe, the lawyers of

Scotland became early acquainted with the commercial

 

 

 

526 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

arrangements of the continental states; and to this cause

is said to be ascribed the fact that down to the period

when the affairs of Scotland were thrown into confusion

by the rebellions of 1715 and 1745, mercantile law

was cultivated in Scotland with much care and success.

The work of Lord Stair, the greatest of all the legal

writers of Scotland, is particularly valuable in this

department."

 

The role of the government in functioning with the individual

is proscribed by the principle of joint tenancy, according to

the following excerpt from John William Smith's "Mercantile

Law":

 

For the most distinguishing incident of joint tenancy

is the jus accrescendi, by which, when one joint tenant

dies, his interest is not transmitted to his heirs, in

the case of descendible property, nor to his personal

representatives, in the case of personal effects or chat-

tels, but vests in the survivor or survivors; this right

of survivorship being admitted equally in regard to

personal chattels, as in estates of every denomination.

Now if stock in trade were subject to the same claim,

one of two evels might ensue: either the family of a

deceased partner might be left destitute; or men's fear

of employing a considerable part of their property in

these undertakings might check the spirit of commerce.

It is therefore, the established law of merchants, that

among them joint tenancy and survivorship do not

prevail. (Co. Li. 182a; Snon. 2 Browne. 99; Anon.

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 527

 

Noy. 55; Hall v. Huffam, 2 Lev, 188; Annand v, Honi-

wood, 2 Ch. C. 129).

 

This right of survivorship Sir William Blackstone

apprehends to be the reason why neither the king nor

any corporation can be a joint tenant with a private

person. (2 Coram. 184). But the rule is more extensive:

for two corporations cannot be joint tenants together

(Litt. s. 296; Co. Li. 189b, 190a).

 

The citizen's defense in an admiralty court begins with

his denial that he is under martial law, or that the punitive

injunctive power of the 14th Amendment, which is founded

on martial law, can be applied to him. Because the admiralty

court powers derive from the captain of the ship being given

the power of an admiral (there not being enough admirals to

place one on every ship), the captain then functions under

the military power of the King of England. The captain's

authority extends to the passing and imposition of a death

sentence, as was frequently carried out in death by keelhauling.

The offending sailor was dragged under the ship until he had

been drowned or torn into pieces by the knife-like barnacles

growing on the ship's bottom.

http://www.archive.org/stream/EustaceMullins-TheRapeOfJusticeAmericasTribunalsExposed1989/EustaceMullins-TheRapeOfJusticeAmericasTribunalsExposed1989_djvu.txt

 

There are only two criminal jurisdictions: comraon law juris-

diction and international jurisdiction. How did it come to

pass that the citizen of the United States could be held to

appear under an international jurisdiction? In 1938, because

of the enormous debt which President Franklin D. Roosevelt

had borrowed from international bankers, to finance his New

Deal, the common law, which does not compel performance,

was merged with equity procedures, which do compel perfor-

 

 

 

528 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

mance. However, the criminal syndicalists discovered that

equity compelled performance has no criminal penalty, but

only civil. No jail sentence can be handed down. This was

remedied by bringing in the admiralty court procedures, with

their power of life or death sentencing. This was made possible

by the claim that the debt, owed to international bankers,

thus became an international contract. A contract made under

the law of nations brings the nation under international law.

Because of this development, since 1938, the Congress could

pass no more "Public Laws." Instead, they now pass "Public

Policy Statutes," which are measures designed to bring relief

to the nation's international creditors. Because Congress no

longer passes "Public Laws," they have done away with

the common law; all laws passed by Congress are now in

equity, and conferring equity jurisdiction. Thus the federal

district courts function only as equity courts under equity

Rules of Procedure, which are nevertheless published under

the title, "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

 

Congress, prior to 1939, had also passed private laws, as

opposed to Public Laws. In 1913, the income tax amendment

and the Federal Reserve Act were passed as private laws.

The federal agents are aware of the difference, although they

usually refuse to inform the citizen of this significant factor.

Title 28 use is public law, but the IRS operates under Title

26, which is private law, a contract between you and the

United States. The corporation excise tax of 1909 became

the income tax law of 1913 under the commerce clause of

the Constitution, maintaining that the citizen was using corpo-

rate paper in an equitable manner, creating a contract consider-

ation. However, no constitutional right is applicable to the

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 529

 

filing of an income tax. In tax matters and other government

prosecutions, the federal judges are informed that the defendant

is a juristic person bankrupt under the terms of the international

contractual obligations, and take silent judicial notice of this

fact. Citizens are held and charged because of the default on

an international contract and its incumbent obligations.

 

The citizen's defense in this equity procedure, in which

he faces admiralty court punishment, is that he must state at

his arraignment, after the court asks, "Do you understand

the charge?" The defendant then answers "No." Under the

6th Amendment he now has the right to ask both the nature

and the cause of the accusation. The defendant then states,

"Let the record of this court show that this is a criminal

action." The defendant must make this plain, because the

defense of a civil action is different from defense of a criminal

charge. If the court does not respond fully, the defendant

then states, ' 'Let the record of this court show that the defendant

asked the nature and the cause of the accusation under his

right as guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, and that the court

has failed to inform the defendant of secret jurisdiction which

is known only to licensed attorneys."

 

The defendant must make this point because of the fact

that both the state and local chapters of the American Bar

Association and the International Bar Association are under

the direction and control of the international bankers. They

must maintain this control in order to continue to use equity

jurisdiction to enforce the collection of their international debts.

 

The judge will then state that the defendant is to be tried

under statutory jurisdiction. The defendant will then request

that he be furnished a copy of the rules of criminal procedure

 

 

 

530 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

under statutory jurisdiction. The court cannot comply, because

there are no such rules.

 

Having made this point, the defendant will then request

the court to state whether it is operating under admiralty juris-

diction. Because no American court will admit that it is actually

operating under admiralty jiuisdiction, this should be sufificient

to win a dismissal, because the court cannot proceed until

an admission is made, or a denial, that the court is operating

under admiralty procedures. The defendant should then state,

"Let the record of this court show that it is a criminal court

which is operating under an admiralty judge."

 

American courts cannot convict under admiralty jurisdiction

unless a valid international contract is in existence, and unless

a copy of said contract can be brought into the court. The

court faces the task of proving whether the defendant is a

party obligated under such contract. The court must prove

jurisdiction by proving an interest in the debt, and must prove

it is a valid contract. No court can enforce an invalid contract,

which means that the validity of the contract must be proven

beyond a shadow of a doubt. The defendant must challenge

the validity of the contract, because the law merchant code

establishes the difference between a valid and an invalid con-

tract; the invalid contract cannot be enforced. The defendant

is actually being charged under the terms of a debt which

was created by a bank and which therefore has no substance.

Law is concerned with substance. To be convicted at law,

the defendant must be shown to have been concerned with a

matter of substance. The bank now has no interest in substance,

and substance must be proved if the contract is to be enforced.

The admiralty jurisdiction under which American courts try

 

 

 

MULLINS ON EQUITY 531

 

defendants is maintained by silent judicial notice. Once the

issue of admiralty jurisdiction is brought into the open, it is

no longer a secret, and the judge can no longer operate under

the secret code which he maintains with his fellow members

of the bar association, the prosecutor as well as the defense

attorneys, licensed members of the bar, who appear before

him. Because he is participating in a secret jurisdiction, the

judge assumes judicial immunity to protect himself in the

admiralty court. Under the Constitution, he has taken an oath

to uphold the Constitution, which is binding upon him in a

common law court, but which is not binding in the admiralty

court; hence the doctrine of judicial immunity behind which

the judges exercise their equity and admiralty procedures.

 

 

 

^1

 

 

 

Chapter 16

 

Our Legal Future

 

 

 

The reader may have noted in the samples of legal briefs

reprinted in the foregoing pages, that there were no references

to admkalty law. I did cite sources on chancery and equity

law, but during the forty years that I was representing myself

in American courts, I had not yet researched the cause of

our legal dilemma, that our Constitutional courts, as authorized

in the Constitution, had stealthily been replaced by equity

courts operating on the stem military principles of admiralty

punishment. That I managed to survive in these courts without

the protection of the knowledge which is freely offered in

this work, is less likely due to the benevolence of the judges

and lawyers, as it is to their constant fear that in my ongoing

and continuous legal researches in preparing my briefs, I would

discover their guilty secret. I could then have mounted a serious

challenge to their secret fraternal power. The one time that

the Masonic connection was mentioned during a lawsuit in

which I was engaged, the judge beat a hasty retreat, and

 

 

 

532

 

 

 

OUR LEGAL FUTURE 533

 

immediately granted my motion. Even that connection was

cited, not by myself, but by one of my supporters. This indi-

cates the vulnerability of those who have conspired to oppress

and deceive us.

 

When an American citizen goes into court, he can say, as

Christ said in Luke 22:53, "this is your hour, and the power

of darkness." We are on the verge of dispelling the power

of darkness in our courts. We must now turn on the lights

full force, and see hordes of cockroaches scuttling frantically

towards a dark comer. There are a number of encouraging

developments throughout the United States; first, a growing

awareness of the absolute corruption of the legal process;

two, there is little that most lawyers will do for you except

to take your money; and, three, your awareness of the true

condition of the legal morass is your best protection. I often

tell my audiences, "Go into any American prison, and look

down the rows of cells. In each of those cells sits a prisoner;

and each of those prisoners had a lawyer; and each of those

prisoners paid a lawyer."

 

Several television documentaries have exposed the frantic

efforts of the legal profession to halt the growing tendency

of Americans to use paralegals for routine legal documents,

such as deeds and wills.

 

In Louisiana and Florida, paralegals have been arrested

and their offices closed down, because they tried to help citizens

caught in the spider's web of legal procedures. The statutes

are vague about "the practice of law"; it is generally inter-

preted as forbidding persons who have not been granted a

license to practice law from representing anyone in court.

 

 

 

534 THE RAPE OF JUSTICE

 

However, the paralegals who were arrested and fined never

represented anyone in court. Instead, they presented a threat

to the lucrative aspects of the legal monopoly, in which legal

secretaries do all the work of preparing wills, deeds, and

other documents, but the lawyer charges the full lawyer's

fee for the work which is done by unlicensed members of

his staff.

 

One of the organizations which continues to do important

groundbreaking work in exposing the legal monopoly is HALT.

Based in Washington, D.C., HELP ABOLISH LEGAL TYR-

ANNY notes that "Our 150,000-plus members are desperate

for reliable, no-nonsense information. ... the national move-

ment that's afoot to do away with the unnecessary lawyer-

monopoly that keeps those prices unconscionably high. As

the only national nonprofit group that represents the users of

our legal system, HALT has been leading that movement.

From Maine to California, citizens are demanding and winning

more do-it-yourself forms, streamlined and simplified proce-

dures, and — ^above all — a free market in which to shop for

legal help. . . . The estimated 100 million Americans whose

legal services now go unserved deserve nothing less. ' ' Richard

Hebert, Communications Director, HALT, an organization

of Americans for Legal Reform, Washington, D.C. Letter

to Wall Sti-eet Journal, May 18, 1989.

 

It is certainly important that Americans should no longer

be gouged for such everyday legal forms as deeds and wills.

It is even more important that every American should know

just what is going on in our comts. We must be aware of

what has happened to our legal guarantees which were written

down in our Constitution. We must be able to challenge the

 

 

 

OUR LEGAL FUTURE 535

 

stealthy takeover of our judicial system by furtive conspirators,

hiding behind the international allegiances of the law merchant,

the Star Chamber procedures of the equity courts, and the

secret fraternal associations which dictate judicial decisions

diabolically opposed to the interests of our citizens and our nation.