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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: Right.
THE COURT: Well, and I deny your request because our procedures do not
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
THE COURT: Are you and he in the same general area of the detention
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
THE COURT: Well, let me -
DEFENDANT D. PETERSEN: I will forward it on to you, though, if you would
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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.