They all laid their heads together like as many lawyers when they are gettin' ready to prove that a man's heirs ain't got any right to his property. -- Mark Twain
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
) No. CR-95-51-BLG-JMB
DANIEL E. PETERSEN, ) No. CR-95-117-BLG-JMB
CASEY VELDHUIZEN, ) No. CR-96-41-BLG-JMB
STEVE HANCE, EDWIN CLARK, ) No. CR-96-47-BLG-JMB
DANA DUDLEY/LANDERS, )
CHERLYN PETERSEN, )
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing in open court before the HONORABLE JAMES M. BURNS, Senior U.S. District Judge, on July 18, 1996, commencing at 10:00 a.m.
THE COURT: Thank you. Thank you. Please be seated. Thank you.
I'm going to commence a conversation in just a few moments, but I first want to make the observation that this session was to commence at 10:00 a.m. And so anyone here who wish to refer to me as the Late Judge Burns, he would be perfectly justifiable in doing so, but if in your charity you can refrain from doing so, I will appreciate that.
And this should not be, I don't believe, a lengthy session, comparable to the sessions that we had here yesterday of the same nature.
And, Mr. Dan Petersen, good morning.
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Good morning.
THE COURT: And Mr. -- I don't know your first name, sir. Could you, Mr. -- is it Veldhuizen? I apologize for mispronouncing it, sir. What is the correct way to pronounce it?
DEFENDANT VELDHUIZEN: You hit it pretty close.
THE COURT: I got within the ballpark?
DEFENDANT VELDHUIZEN: Yep.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you so much. Mr. Steve Hence, good morning.
DEFENDANT HANCE: (Nodded head affirmatively.)
THE COURT: Mr. Edwin Clark, good morning.
DEFENDANT CLARK: Good morning.
THE COURT: And, Ms. Dana Landers, good morning.
DEFENDANT D. LANDERS: No, sir, that is not my name.
THE COURT: And, again, if I mispronounce names, I apologize. Cherlyn Petersen, good morning, ma'am.
DEFENDANT C. PETERSEN: (No response.)
THE COURT: Counsel of record who were here yesterday on behalf of the government, their appearance has already been noticed; Mr. Seykora, Mr. Jackson and -- you know how badly I am on names, sir. Tell me your name again, sir
MR. JACKSON: It is Randy Jackson from the FBI.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. And then we have Mr. Cavan here. He is here in a capacity as standby counsel. And I would appreciate it if the others who are here in similar capacity would identify themselves, bearing in mind that my ears are a lot older than yours and I would appreciate it if you could sing out.
MR. MASSMAN: I'm Joseph Massman, I'm standby counsel appointed in the case of Steven Hance, and also -
DEFENDANT HANCE: I object, he is not my attorney.
THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Hance, would you wait until he is not speaking before you -- I'll call upon you to make remarks that you believe are appropriate.
Excuse me, sir, go ahead.
MR. MASSMAN: And I am stand-in for standby Wendy Holton, who was here yesterday, but had a case in -- has a case in Virginia City today. And she is appointed to stand by for Dana Landers.
DEFENDANT D. LANDERS: There is no Dana Landers, I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Okay.
DEFENDANT D. LANDERS: No such person exists -
THE COURT: Beg your pardon, ma'am?
DEFENDANT D. LANDERS: No such person or individual exists anywhere in the 50 states of the Union.
THE COURT: Oh, okay. Thank you. And in that connection this is addressed to Mr. Hance and to Ms. Landers, in each instance where you have a position that you wish to state with respect to these proceedings that are going on, follow the lead that we kind of worked out yesterday, that seemed to work out pretty well, in each instance where you wish to state a position, you are perfectly entitled to reduce that to written form.
I'd like to have it within ten days and it will be deemed timely. And it will become a part of the record. And it will be filed with the clerk's records in this case.
And so it should be understood that insofar as we have some conversation here, that if there is a position you wish to state it orally, I invite you to do so. I hope you can do it briefly, but cogently nonetheless. And, again, I respectfully request that you sing out pretty good because, as I say, my ears are a good bit older than yours are.
And I think it is useful if I tell you a little bit about myself, that I believe that parties who are parties in a case in court ought to learn a little something about the judge who has been assigned to the case, see the whites of the judge's eye, if you will.
And I think the same is true from the other end, I think it is useful for me, in connection with the proceedings that I will be conducting in connection with these cases, that it is very useful for me to see the whites of the eyes of the parties and the lawyers, and so forth and so on.
I was brought up in a small lumber camp in the late 20s and early 30s, 30, 40 miles out of Portland, Oregon. I went to a one-room school house. In the year that I entered school there wasn't anybody in the first grade, so I was put in the second grade.
And the following year when I was to be moved into the third grade, it turned out there wasn't anybody else in the third grade, so I was put into the fourth grade.
And so I thought that was really kind of a commencement of a wonderfully scholastic career, but it really didn't happen that way, because after going to -- getting in the fourth grade at a very tender age, I ended up taking the 6th and 7th grade twice so that my age would fit where the educational level normally requires.
And after my high school and college, and a little detour over to the European theater in the '40s during the | second war, and some interesting experiences in Eastern France, the Alsace Lorraine, the front between the allies and the Germans. And thereafter I was invalided home, and ultimately was discharged from the service, then I resumed my education .
Graduated from law school in l950. In 1952 I became a prosecutor in the small town in Eastern Oregon, county seat of Harney County, we have interesting names for some of our counties in Oregon, as you folks have here in Montana. The other thing I mention is that the county seat of Harney County is Burns -- was Burns.
And there is no truth to the rumor that they changed the name to Burns after I moved there, because it had been chosen for the Scottish poet a good many years before.
In 1966, after ten years of practice, approximately, I practiced defense -- criminal defense work in part, that I became a lawyer who knew the governor, Governmor Mark Hatfield and I became a judge on the state court in Portland, Oregon, where I served for just about six years.
And in 1972 I became a lawyer -- or a state court judge who knew the senator, Senator Hatfield, and I became a judge on the U.S. District Court in Portland and have served there, last month was my 24th anniversary.
I don't claim to be an expert at anything, but I have had experience primarily in the field of sentencing in criminal cases. And I taught that subject at the National Judicial Judges College in Reno for 22 years.
But I disclaim any expertise absolutely, because I remind myself that an expert is a country boy who is more.
than 100 miles away from home. And that an expert opinion is an ordinary guess dressed up in evening clothes.
So the only thing I say about it is, the only thing I know about sentencing is that I don't know very much about it. So that is a fairly quick rundown.
And there are certain matters that should be discussed here this morning. Specifically, with respect to the subject matter of availability of law books and their availability in the Yellowstone County Detention Facility, There had been requests for copies of Title 18 and Title 28, and through the help of the lady who is the court librarian here, those have been provided to the detention facility and are available under its practices and procedures. I do not -- I do not have any control over what the detention facility does in that regard.
I do want to mention, however, specifically that there is a very recent case from the United States Supreme Court in connection with the subject matter of availability of law books for those persons who are in custody charged with a criminal charge.
And the case just came out, I want to say in the last, I think, couple of weeks, it was quite near the end of the term. And it did make some changes in the law that was established by the Supreme Court in Bounds versus Smith, which I think is about a 1976 or '77 case, I'm not sure the exact year. But in any event, it is new case law from the Supreme court.
And we have prepared copies of that case, and we will be supplying them to each of you who is being detained in the detention facility here. And that other mechanical steps will be taken with respect to making available, in accordance with the detention facility's practices, other references to law books, such as the CFRs and so forth, that will be made available to you under the procedures at the detention facility. And in that regard, if there's problems that seem to crop up there, I would suggest to you that you drop a note to the clerk's office here in Billings, attention this lady, whose name is Judy Angvick, A-n-g-v-i-c- k, she is the chief deputy clerk, and she will forward, along to me, a copy of that. And if there is matters that I can be of assistance in that regard, I will certainly look after it and be of assistance in every appropriate way that I can.
And so I wanted to mention that to you at the outset.
THE COURT: One of the other things that occupied some of the time yesterday with the attorneys and with the government attorneys, with the defense attorneys who have been appointed and have been accepted, as well as the standby attorneys, was a discussion of the discovery matters that had been pretty well completed in an ex parte session with the government attorneys that I had on Tuesday in which we were going through and unsealing an enormous amount of materials that had been accumulated over the past year approximately. And the biggest share of those by far was unsealed, some of them were unsealed in part, some of them were un -- or not unsealed at all, but the numbers of those two categories are quite small.
And in that regard, with respect to providing -the government providing discovery, if you will, to the persons affected, there will be a transcript of that session that was conducted yesterday, and you folks will be -- each of you will receive a copy of the transcript of that discussion in which the -- it was Attorney Rob Stephens, who is attorney for Ebert Stanton, Mr. Seykora, and one or two others, in which we were discussing the mechanics of this process of making available the material that has been unsealed.
And, in addition, the government has been active in exploring the use of various technical methods to facilitate discovery. And that is an area that we expect to be very busy with in the days ahead so that that process goes forward.
And, of course, in the situation with respect to those of you who have had chosen to represent yourself or be represented by one of your colleagues, or who have been offered standby counsel and have refused that device, nonetheless, these matters will be gotten to you in suitable form as quickly as the work by the attorneys proceeds along in that regard.
And so in addition there will be a transcript of this session that we're having here now, and again a copy of that will be furnished to each of you. And so I wanted to mention that.
Now, I want to go -
(Discussion had off the record.)
THE COURT: I should mention, by the way, and should have introduced the lady who I was just talking to a moment ago, her name is Sandra Dixon. She is my law clerk.
And sometimes in a jocular way, I refer to her as, she is the brains and I am the clout, but I don't mean to overemphasize that. But she keeps track of these things, makes sure I stay on track with respect to covering the items that should be covered in the conversation.
So I then proceed to discuss briefly the matter with respect to the search that was conducted of the Ryder rental truck pursuant to a search warrant that I issued on approximately the 18th, I think, of June.
And that search warrant was executed by FBI personnel over a period of time which ran from -- I think this is accurate, from June 19 until July 3rd or 4th or 5th, something like that. Do you happen to remember the number on that?
MR. SEYRORA: Tuesday, July 2, I believe, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Beg your pardon?
MR. SEYRORA: Tuesday, July 2nd, I believe was the concluding date, I believe.
THE COURT: Oh, okay. I may be wrong on that. In any event, it covered a period during which there was a couple weekends intervening and there wasn't any searching and seizing conducted over the weekends.
Those procedures were observed throughout by two persons whom I appointed to insure that the search would be overseen by and, in a sense, supervised by an attorney named John Smith from Missoula, and by Representative Carl Ohs, who had the keys to the Ryder rental truck, and maintained them throughout, and he continues to have the keys to that.
And each of those persons, Mr. Smith was appointed at my request to observe and to be sure that the carrying out of the search warrant was done in such a fashion as not to in any way violate the arrangements that had been made through Representative Ohs which led up to the events of Thursday evening the 13th of June, when the folks were taken into custody.
Each of those, Representative Ohs is in the course of preparing his report about the carrying out of the search i itself, and that in each instance where the FBI believed that there was one or more items in that -- in that truck that the government believed had evidentiary value, they would so indicate and whereupon copies would be made, each of those documents, and a copy was furnished to Mr. Smith, and a copy was furnished to Representative Ohs, a copy was kept for the government and a copy was placed back into the same precise location where it had been when it was -- when it was seized for the government because of its belief that it had evidentiary value.
And those reports from Representative Ohs and Mr. Smith are currently underway. I have been in touch with each of those gentlemen by telephone during the process, and since then, each one is going to prepare a report. And when the report is prepared the -- it is I believe fair to say, it will be absolutely 100 percent accurate. And in that regard each of you and those like you who are in custody will receive a copy of that.
And the idea there is that it was indicated that this material was of various sorts of thing, including some books and some boxes of documents, and so forth and so on, that was regarded by one or more of the persons who have been charged in this case as defense material.
And none of it has been removed, except in the fashion which I have just indicated, in which as to a particular piece of paper that was seized, then there will be a copy substituted. And that was all done in the course of the process that was carried out which I have described to you as accurately as I know how.
And I would think that just before I came into court this morning and was talking to Mr. Smith at his place of business in Missoula, and I think -- I haven't talked to Representative Ohs yet this morning, but I will later, I think it is likely that we'll be able to have that report completed by probably the middle to latter part of next week. I'm not real sure, but we're going to try to get that done as quickly as we can.
And so now then I will call, starting with Mr. Petersen, and if you're comfortable in remaining seated, I don't~intend to create a precedent in this court, but if you are comfortable remaining seated, if there is a statement you wish to make or a question you have of me, I invite you to do so. I ask you to be brief as you can, but cogent nonetheless so that I will then call upon the others in turn.
And I assure you, Mr. Petersen, that I will do the very best that I can to be polite, and I will also do the very best I can to be patient.
And I should mention that I have a good chum who is a federal judge in Reno, Nevada, he has been a judge down there for a number of years. And I used to take cases down there to help him out with his backlog. And I always enjoyed using his courtroom because he had a little sign right up here, and it reads as follows: Rule No. 1, Be patient. The second line was, Rule No. 2, Be patient, third line, Rule No. 3, Be patient.
Well, I refer to that as the Reed Rule, because Judge Reed of Reno, Nevada, is a mighty fine judge, and I hope I have learned from that.
So Mr. Petersen, if you have some things to say, I ask you to bear in mind that my ears are old.
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: I do have some things to say, I came here with some notebook paper and a pencil. It has been taken from me by the U.S. Marshals without any authority. It is a violation of constitutional issue, and you know that. I can't proceed if I don't have my material in front of me that I have laid out.
THE COURT: How many pages are there of that material?
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Well, there is just some notes that I want to refresh my memory, because I don't have a photostatic memory.
THE COURT: Okay. How many pages of notes do you suppose, Mr. Petersen?
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Oh, there is probably ten, maybe.
THE COURT: Okay. How long will it take you if you had those in front of you?
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: How long will it take me?
THE COURT: Yeah. In other words, to discuss the things that you want to?
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Well, I don't know. It depends, you know, I am just going to be patient.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Three times you will be patient?
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Yeah.
THE COURT: And you don't even need a sign in front of you?
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: No, I don't. As a notary from a foreign jurisdiction, using the Notorials Act that was passed by the Montana legislatures in 1993 under MCA, 1-5-608, this is what I stand on. And I have the qualifications as you, as a judge, that I have to be patient. So I would like to have my notes at this time.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, let's see how things work out. And...
THE COURT: Well, I have been assured that the marshals said that they forgot them. And as a person of a considerable age, as you can tell from the amount of gray, I have forgotten a lot of things myself.
So I'm glad that you brought it up, and I invite you to sing out.
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Okay. Now, I would like to proceed a little, but I would like to get swore in in this hearing if at all possible. Do we have a bailiff in the room?
THE COURT: No, I don't think that is available.
finder our procedures. I would feel very nervous about --
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Well, according to --
THE COURT: I would feel very nervous about having the clerk or myself swear you in, so I do not propose to do that.
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Well, the U.S. Marshals, according to Title 28 at U.S.C. 563, it says that the U.S. Marshals have an oath of office and their duties are the same as the sheriff in the county.
And also at 28 U.S.C. 1737, it says that the U.S. Marshals will have a copy of their official bond, and they perform the same functions as the sheriff as a bailiff in a court.
Now, are we in a court or -- what, is this a grand jury investigation, my understanding or -
THE COURT: Well, the request is that you wish to be sworn in by at least somebody?
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Right.
THE COURT: Well, and I deny your request because our procedures do not allow that.
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Then I have nothing further to say until we bring this in the proper court of law, which would be the International Court of Trade that is reserved to the people with exclusive jurisdiction.
And as far as the court appointed attorneys by the government to me, I cannot accept them because I do happen to have prima facie evidence that one of the attorneys that was appointed by one of the so-called defendants in this case has put out a letter to a district judge in the state of Montana that he believes that this Freemen stuff is a bunch of crap. And it is all -- life is too short to live this. He would rather be on the slave side than on the Freemen side.
So at this point in time, Judge Burns, I would not be able to proceed at all.
But I do want to make a clarification that I am standing on the 11th Amendment of the National Constitution; that I am standing on the Federal Mandates Act that was passed by the Montana state legislators on April 12th of 1995, which is the Federal Mandates Act bringing in the 10th Amendment of the National Constitution, where it hereby shows that the FBI, the federal entities have no jurisdiction in the state of Montana unless they own the property and have the deed or properly registered with the clerk and recorder in the county.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir. And bear in mind that I invite you to do this, if you wish to do so, is after we finish here today, to put in written fashion and send it into the clerk in the fashion I have indicated. I'd like to have you do it within ten days, it will be deemed timely, and I will respond to it when it comes in.
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Okay. I have one more thing.
THE COURT: Yes, sir. That is all right.
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: I put a writ of mandamus in to Sherry Scheel Mattuecci, the U.S. Attorney, asking for her delegation of authority pursuant to Montana Code Annotated, 37-61-402, showing how she and her associations of James Seykora, all of these other so-called attorneys for the United States federal government, how they got around the 11th Amendment and how they get around the Federal Mandates Act to carry on any proceedings in this court.
THE COURT: Well, I'm going to mention that, because as a matter of fact, I intend to respond to that and other similar documents that have been furnished to me, some before I got here and some after I got here. And as I believe I indicated to the persons who were here yesterday, who were in custody, that I will be issuing rulings on those relatively shortly. I do not believe I'll be able to get those out during the course of the day today, and I have travel arrangements to return to Portland first thing tomorrow morning.
I would think I could get that out by approximately the middle of next week. I may miss that, but I'll try everything I can to get it out by the end of next week. And it will be furnished to you and to the others in the same fashion.
So I appreciate your mentioning that because it reminded me I should have mentioned that by myself.
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Well, that was given a time limit, Mr. Burns. It was given a time limit of ten days, and I think that was filed in this court sometime in May.
And you had made a ruling that you was going to dismiss that motion. And I wanted to know by what authority it would be dismissed, because Judge -- or Magistrate Anderson wrote and said that he would not let anybody participate in this court or your court that wasn't properly registered with the state of Montana Bar Association or the American Bar Association.
And all I'm doing, I'm requesting that these attorneys provide their delegation of authority, how the agency arose above the principle.
THE COURT: Okay. If you need more time, you let me know in written fashion and I'll respond to that request.
And then I move to Mr. Veldhuizen, I'm sure I do pronounce it wrong, sir, but I invite you to offer comments. I hope that they will be brief, and I hope they will be cogent and to the point.
And I would appreciate it if you could sing out pretty good because my ears are still -- well, they are getting older all the time.
DEFENDANT VELDHUIZEN: I'll just stand on the transcript of our chief justice, Leroy Michael Schweitzer, that was here yesterday.
THE COURT: All right. Fine. Do you want to be treated similarly in that regard as well, Mr. Petersen?
Joined with --
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Yes. I am one of the chief justices of our Supreme Court of our Court of International Trade, as you well know.
THE COURT: Yes. You are joined in.
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Yes.
THE COURT: Yes. Thank you very much.
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: That is part of the duty of being a notary, versus the Notary Public.
THE COURT: Yes, yes.
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Hance.
DEFENDANT HANCE: First of all, I'd like to repeat on the record my objection to Mr. Massman claiming to be my attorney. I have never received any services from him. I have never asked for any services from him. I have never paid him anything. I have never authorized any payment to him. There is no contract between us. And he is not and never has been my attorney.
Magistrate Anderson presumed the power of attorney over me to assign him. He had no authority to do so. And I utterly reject him now as I have in the past. And I object strenuously to him being referred to in reference to me in any fashion whatsoever.
I want him removed. And I don't want him to ever me in contact with me again.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Do you want to join in the positions asserted by Chief Justice Schweitzer?
DEFENDANT HANCE: Yes, I do. And I have two other points I'd like to make, if I may.
THE COURT: Okay. Yes, sir.
DEFENDANT HANCE: I notice the little name tag plate in front of me, it's not my name. And this is a similar problem with all the paperwork that these people here have presented to this Court alleging that it has something to do with me.
They have named in all of their so-called charges a legal fiction, and that legal fiction is not me. I am not that person. I am a white Christian man as you can see, and have nothing to do and no connection whatsoever with the legal fiction that they allege to have committed some kind of offense.
Also, I object strenuously on the record being dragged in here with chains around me and in handcuffs. It is in violation of the law. It is a violation of my alienable rights, and it is a criminal act by these so-called U.S. Marshals.
THE COURT: Well, I'm -- do you mind if I ask you question, sir?
DEFENDANT HANCE: No, sir, I do not.
THE COURT: I am not sure that I understood the point you were making. Is that name that is on this -- and by the way, the use of the cards along the table with the names written on them is simply a procedure that I thought would be useful so that I would be able to identify Mr. Jones from Mr. Brown.
DEFENDANT DANCE: Yes, sir, I appreciate that.
THE COURT: And so on and so forth. I beg your pardon?
DEFENDANT DANCE: I can appreciate that. And the point is that I don't want the name that is on this card the way it is written to be construed as being who I am.
THE COURT: Well, all right. Then you have made the point that you wanted to make. All right, the record will show that. Thank you very much, Mr. Hance.
Mr. Edwin Clark, do you have any statement that you wish to make? I hope that you'll be brief, but cogent nonetheless. And I would hope that you could sing out so these old ears can hear you, sir.
DEFENDANT CLARR: Yes. I want to stand on the -- and join with Leroy Schweitzer as the other people has. And I would like to say again that I have asked and appointed Leroy Schweitzer as my assistance of counsel.
THE COURT: All right.
DEFENDANT CLARK: And I don't have anything else to add to that.
THE COURT: Oh, okay. And you join in the positions asserted by Mr. Schweitzer?
DEFENDANT CLARK: Yes.
DEFENDANT HANCE: Excuse me, Mr. Burns.
THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Hance, yes, sir.
DEFENDANT HANCE: Pardon me. Also I have a standing contract with Russell Dean Landers as my counsel. And I would like that made on the record as well, that he is my assistance of counsel. And I have never been allowed to confer with him, and I would like to have the opportunity to confer with him.
THE COURT: Are you and he in the same general area of the detention facility?
DEFENDANT HANCE: No, sir. He's in a different cell block.
THE COURT: Well, I'm going to have to think about that, Mr. Hance. I'm not so sure that I have had that kind of a matter pressed before or suggested. And so I fall back on what I learned from my elder brother a good many years ago, he happened not to be a lawyer or judge, he was a doctor, but he was a very bright guy. And he used to tell me, you can say no without thinking about it, but before you say yes you ought to take a deep breath.
So I will do that and I'll respond to you after I have mulled it over. And I will respond to you with respect to that particular request.
DEFENDANT HANCE: Well, I would like to correct the record, sir. It is not a request, it is a demand. I have the right, unalienable right, sir, to effective assistance of counsel.
THE COURT: Okay.
DEFENDANT HANCE: And the reason that I have rejected Mr. Massman is because I have reason to believe that he is not competent.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Petersen, would you mind if I go down the line just a bit?
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Well, I just wanted to interrupt so that we won't take any extra time and there wouldn't be any confusion, when you get down to the end, that happens to be my wife, and I will be representing her. It is going to be done that way. And using the word -- the Latin word et ux, her being my wife. I don't know if I pronounced that right. I did have it in my literature here, but I notice that it is gone now, so I don't know where it went.
THE COURT: Do you know how you spell that word?
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: It starts with E-t -- I forget, I'd have to go home and look in -- or back to the cell block and look it my law dictionary.
THE COURT: Well, let me -
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: I will forward it on to you, though, if you would like.
THE COURT: Well, okay. All right. And are you suggesting that I should not ask her any questions at all, is that what you are - -
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: You may, but I doubt you'll get any response. And to show the respect to the Court, I'm telling you what is going to happen upfront.
And, furthermore, there will be more correspondence coming to your court showing that a man by the name of Rob Stephens has no respect for Freemens' rights, that I have got the prima facie evidence in my cell block, and I would like to bring that out.
This is why these court appointed attorneys by the government which are saying they are incompetent, and we're also saying that the U.S. Attorneys are incompetent because they won't come forward with their oath of office, which is required at 28 U.S.C. 544. -
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Landers, do you have any statement that you wish to make? And I hope you would be able to make it brief, but cogent nonetheless. And I surely will appreciate it that you sing out good so I can hear.
DEFENDANT LANDERS: Are you speaking to me?
THE COURT: I am, yes, ma'am.
DEFENDANT LANDERS: First of all, something straight for the record. My name is not Ms. Landers. My name is not Landers in any way, shape or form. That is a pseudonym, a non-jugare (phonetic) that this court placed upon me. In fact, I believe it was James Seykora and Sherry Sheel Mattuecci who placed that non-jugare.
I'm a Christian woman upon the land. I live in North Carolina, a state among the several states of the Union of states which comprise America.
I have a husband, who is my assistance of counsel. I will follow my Biblical teachings and my family. My husband will speak for me because the two will be joined as one and become one.
I cannot speak other than that in your court. I'm forbidden.
THE COURT: What is the name that you believe should be used when you and I are talking to each other?
DEFENDANT LANDERS: You can use anything that you choose, but I'm not going to accept this because that is not my name.
THE COURT: Well, I have a note here that perhaps I should be using the name of Dana Dudley, is that -
DEFENDANT LANDERS: I can neither admit or deny in your jurisdiction because it is foreign to my venue.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Well, I thank you very much. And thank you for --
DEFENDANT LANDERS: And I will stand upon prior court decisions from the appellate decisions which have come out of Washington, D.C, including but not limited to the Dredscott decision.
THE COURT: Okay.
DEFENDANT LANDERS: As a member of the posterity of We the people being direct lineage of James Madison, Jr. who was the fourth president of our nation. I refuse the nomination which has been given to me by Sherry Scheel Mattuecci and James Seykora, nominating me as a person, a 14th class citizenship, or an individual or whoever, and I refute and refuse any such nomination.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. I'm glad you mentioned the Dredscott decision because I mentioned that myself yesterday in some of the conversations we had, in which I had mentioned that I had -- when I woke up fairly early yesterday morning, I had with me this volume of the Library of America, The Speeches, Letters, Miscellaneous Writings of Abraham Lincoln and the Lincoln/Douglas Debate, and I specifically referred to the section in here in which he was -- he, before he became president, was commenting on the Dredscott decision.
And I mentioned it simply because I had had the chance to read, and it is a wonderful exercise as far as I'm concerned when I wake up early in the morning, and so I'm glad you mentioned that.
DEFENDANT LANDERS: I did have a couple other things that I'd like to add.
THE COURT: Oh, oh, oh, excuse me, ma'am. Go ahead, please, ma'am.
DEFENDANT LANDERS: I'd like to refuse the assistance or special, whatever you want to call her, of a female person whose name has been designated through court miscellaneous papers which have been filed and sent incorrectly addressed to me, as Wendy Holton. That would be in violation of Robinowitz (phonetic) versus Kennedy, a Supreme Court decision. And I stand on Title 18 Subsection 219 of your United States Codes.
And would ask that this Court, upon my husband's proper submission papers into your court jurisdiction, that criminal proceedings begin against Wendy Holton. You'll find her punishment at Title 22 of your United States Code, section 611 through 619 (o) for the violations of actual law.
In joining up with the International Zionist Movement that is coming out of Europe, and the bar affiliation out of the English bar affiliated down in through and washing into this court. And I would like to have that on the record.
THE COURT: It is on the record by the mere fact that you are saying it, madam.
DEFENDANT LANDERS: Absolutely, I understand that.
THE COURT: Okay.
DEFENDANT LANDERS: The other thing that I would like to add is -- there -- allegedly you have deemed some type of service, apparently the individuals and the persons who are responsible seem to feel at some point that they have made proper service upon persons, which is an incorrect presumption of law.
Now, they allude to this being a criminal case, and yet they are improperly charging with instruments intended only for 14th Amendment, not de jure judicial power Americans.
In using those type of documents, they failed to make delivery. And an abatement procedure has been begun, the processing through our own court service to refute that back into your own United States courts.
However, they would be incorrect in making any type of presumptions of law whatsoever, because there has never been any evidence yet submitted to anybody in the foreign jurisdiction and venue of the one supreme court, which would include that the -- the land known as Justus Township had ever been properly ceded through legislative jurisdiction, because there has been no production to your court to show that the legislature of Montana state properly ceded and recorded a deed which was properly recorded at the local county, that the cession of the land took place properly, and that the United States Congress had accepted that cession of property into the United States. So that presumption is incorrect.
The federal court cannot and will not obtain any type of venue or lawful jurisdiction over subject matter, and this court cannot presume to proceed in a legislative action where you only have the ability to deal with subject matter jurisdiction over which the United States District Court have actual jurisdiction.
And you're making a prejudicial error in attempting to continue to proceed with any matters at law pertaining to any de jure Americans located upon Montana state, or any of the other 50 states of the Union.
And while you're busy reading, it would be behooving to you to take the time to read my ancestors' papers in the federalist papers and read what James Madison and Alexander had to say about federal cession of land regarding the ten-mile radius, because apparently there are many people in this courtroom that know nothing about their country and how it is to be run.
THE COURT: Thank you. And you have ten days within which to add to this in written fashion. If you need l little more time, let me know and you can have it.
DEFENDANT LANDERS: I'll be asking for an extension of your court's time.
THE COURT: Thank you very much, ma'am. Ms. Petersen, do you have any statement you wish to make, ma'am?
DEFENDANT C. PETERSEN: My husband will speak for me.
THE COURT: Beg your pardon?
DEFENDANT C. PETERSEN: My husband will speak for me.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. I think it --
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Mr. Burns, may I add one
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Okay. In something that was brought up here previously about being able to get with assistance of counsel in the hostage situation that we're being held in in the Yellowstone County Detention Facility, I would ask or demand at this time that we be placed on a peace bond so that we can get this together.
We are not violent people. We are trained to aet our country back for our children and our grandchildren as all the other people in this room ought to be doing.
The government is totally out of control. We have the U.S. marshals, we have the district judges, we have all of these so-called attorneys that when you ask for their oath of office or their fidelity bond that they supposedly took an oath of office to uphold and support, will not produce to show their delegation of authority.
The agents are trying to rise above the principle, which is overthrow of the Republic that is guaranteed by our Constitution not only at the national level but at the state level.
And I feel that for all courtesy, whenever we make a demand to our so- called public hirelings, that they show us their delegation of authority and show a little bit of proper respect and get the United States of America and Montana state back on equal footing with the original 13 that they came in with, and go on and make this nation a prosperous nation instead of a kangaroo court setting.
THE COURT: Thank you very much. I think it would be an time -- proper time to take a recess. So we'll be in recess about 10, 15 minutes.
Thank you for your patience.
Thank you. Thank you for your patience.
(Open court was never reconvened.)
Brought to you by - The 'Lectric Law Library
The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.