Next Page | Contents | IRS Abuse Reports | Profound Honesty | Previous Page
| Below is a letter Frank R. Wallace sent to the 28-year-old lawyer who helped prosecute the Golden-Helmet trial. |
Dear Mr. Bullard:
Last week, you helped prosecute the Golden-Helmet trial. Any young attorney familiar with this case who is not yet locked into the vested interests of today's legal profession has an opportunity for an historic, precedent-setting career. That opportunity arises from two concepts revealed in the Golden-Helmet trial. Those two concepts are fully integrated honesty and objective law.
Those concepts will become as influential to law as the thirteenth-century Magna Carta concept was to overturning the vested interests in the tyrannical, divine-rights view...and as enlightening to society as the fifteenth-century heliocentric concept was to overturning the vested interests in the flat-earth, geocentric view.
Now, late in the twentieth century, the consistent, provable concepts rising from the Golden-Helmet trial will overturn the arbitrary, vested interests in the political-agenda/ego-"justice" views. That overturn will come from three directions: (1) integrated honesty overturning manipulated truths, (2) objective law overturning subjective laws, (3) the rationality of objective justice overturning the irrationality of ego "justice".
Later, when you receive literature about the Golden Helmet, read it carefully with an integrating mind. Understand conceptually what is being sown worldwide. Perceive what is subtly entering today's society and government. Perceive that newly forming wedge approaching business and government. Move to the rational side of that wedge. Through pursuing objective law, you can help lead our country toward rationality -- toward permanent prosperity and happiness. You can help bring forth a rational, just society. You can help heal the wounds inflicted by today's political-agenda laws and ego "justice".
The poker book is a metaphor: It uses the nonreality of a game in which the mutually agreed-upon rules and universally known essence is the bluff. In that unreal-world game context, bluffing is not dishonest. By contrast, in the real-world context, outside of poker, bluffing and deception is dishonest. Such juxtaposition of reality to unreality underscores the virtue of fully integrated honesty for all real-world situations -- with no exceptions.
Consider the conclusion of my poker book: The fictional "hero", the unbeatable big winner, is always the biggest loser! Why? Wide-scope accounting demonstrates that he has wasted his assets -- his hard-earned intelligence, his irreplaceable time, his intense efforts, his integrated thinking, his iron discipline -- all wasted in an unproductive, zero-sum game that accomplishes nothing real for him or society. Instead, he could have harnessed those disciplines, assets, and precious time to achieve genuine self-worth by producing growing values for others and society. ...Thus, I forsook poker when I finished writing the book in 1968.
That mendacious argument was used to create false illusions of me hoarding and concealing assets for fleeing the country. Among Ms. K's sworn grand-jury/search-warrant affidavits and her testimony in the first trial, she stated under oath that the floor safe had a three-foot diameter cover and was located directly beneath my desk chair. She further testified that I always sat atop those assets -- assets available for quickly fleeing the country if the IRS came after me.
Now consider the facts: That safe cover was six inches, not three feet, in diameter. The safe was located in a corner of a writing office over which a bookcase was located. The geometry of a room corner with its two walls made it physically impossible to locate a chair over that safe, much less a desk. Mr. Goodrich and many other IRS agents knew those facts. Additionally, Ms. K knew those seized assets were not personal funds but were RIBI research funds. Indeed, when she worked with me, one of her main responsibilities was to manage the funds, records, business, and correspondence of the 2200 RIBI registrants. Additionally, she kept the books for I & O Publishing from 1983 to 1985...and did the accounting for those research funds.
Opposite to her testimony, Ms. K knew I had no intentions to leave this country. To the contrary, my entire objective was to stand and face all adversaries, as demonstrated by these trials. Moreover, she was well acquainted with my plans of using the Golden Helmet to confront the IRS through civil actions and the courts.
Ms. K intimately knew of my concerns about our biomedical research projects involving human cloning for nonrejectable organs and consciousness preservation for the terminally ill. I became increasingly concerned about destructive interference from regulatory bureaucracies, especially the murderous FDA. Thus, I prepared to move not me and my publishing company, but to move that specific medical research project and its funding abroad. Ms. K even participated in the abandoning of that research project in the United States. She knew we planned to do the physical research abroad, scheduled to begin in 1988, pending accumulation of the required $500,000 start-up capital. In fact, Ms. K met in Nevada with the Swiss scientist who was already developing the 144-point, Neo-Tech mind matrix -- the first step in consciousness transfer. She then traveled abroad to make preliminary arrangements for that research project. ...After our relationship failed, Ms. K spun yarns in order to evoke the seizure of those RIBI research funds that she had managed. Thus, she could rake a 10% informant's fee from the $250,000 in seized funds.
The prosecution simply conjured up those calumnies because it needed them to win. And the judge made no objection to this false "new evidence" being improperly injected into a closing argument. By injecting those dishonesties into the final rebuttal, both you and the judge knew I had no opportunity to rebut or refute those falsehoods. ...Such were the dishonesties you and the judge used to win.
Mr. Bullard, objective justice is not a poker game of bluff and deception. Do you want to consume your one-and-only life "winning" dishonestly? Think about the longer-range consequences. By nature, dishonest victories are always temporary and hollow. More important, dishonest victories are not victories at all. They are Pyrrhic and they always return to defeat the "victor".
Being young, you are, I am sure, still able to feel qualms about winning dishonestly. If you can still emotionally feel the difference between right and wrong, then you have not yet become an automaton dependent on enforcing political-agenda laws through ego "justice". With honesty alive in your conscience and new knowledge growing in your mind, you can lead the legal profession to rationality and objective law. You have an opportunity to heroically lead the legal profession away from ego "justice" and into objective law.
Being young, you probably do not yet know the end result of a career dependent on ego "justice". Look at Judge George. He is lost and can no longer interact honestly with reality. The dishonest route in law ultimately means living off subjective political-agenda laws. Self-esteem then becomes dependent on ego "justice". The legitimate, crucial activities of upholding and enforcing objective law are forgotten. The occasional enforcement of objective laws becomes merely a prop for camouflaging and rationalizing the immoral enforcement of subjective laws evolved from self-serving political agendas backed by armed bureaucrats.
The Neo-Tech literature identifies the source of such dishonesty in the courts as ego "justice". The centerfold of the Zon-2000 publication sent to you earlier described ego "justice". That description was largely theoretical. But the judge in this case transformed ego-"justice" theory into documented reality. Throughout the Golden-Helmet trial, Judge Lloyd D. George provided an abundance of factual, empirical information illustrating ego "justice". Indeed, Judge George gave history a priceless gift -- a concretized, full-blown example of ego "justice" in action.
Throughout the trial, the judge consistently acted to fill a single agenda -- control the trial and jury to convict the defendant. He had to convict the person who directly challenged his ego -- an ego whose survival is dependent on subjective law. He had to squelch any threat that could expose his fraud.
To win a conviction, Judge George relied on improper judicial abuses to control the jury. Additionally, he emphasized the derogatory "hundreds-of-years" quote both times he had to deal with the honesty oath. For, the honesty oath was the ego-bruising issue that defeated the judge in the first trial. Thus, he biased the jury against my testimony by showing his contempt for the honesty oath. Such behavior from a federal judge reflects the end result of a career based on self-indulgent ego "justice". ...Reality always levies final justice as that judge shrinks backwards in life -- incapable of experiencing genuine self-esteem or happiness.
From start to finish of this retrial, Judge George inappropriately ingratiated himself to the jury. His hypocritically saccharine, highly personal banter with jury members -- improper behavior for any judge -- is documented in the voir dire and trial transcripts. And what about the intimidations Judge George sent back to the jury after that sidebar drama concerning a jury member asking the bailiff for information about the Golden Helmet?
To cap his improper behavior, the judge had to assure direct control over the jury's verdict. How did he assure that direct control? By abusing his fair-comment privilege after both sides had rested. He bootlegged in his own unstipulated, private jury instruction demanding a conviction. That bootlegged instruction was preplanned to nullify the crucial "reasonable doubt" and "willfulness" instructions to which we all stipulated.
Judge George's gratuitous, ego-"justice" instruction implied that I should be found guilty regardless of the trial evidence and the stipulated jury instructions. He implied without an iota of evidence that I was a renegade who took the law into my own hands rather than working through politics or Congress. With his private instruction dishonestly introduced as "new evidence", about which no rebuttal or challenge was allowed, Judge George nullified the factual trial evidence that proved the exact opposite: It was I, not George, who worked within legal boundaries. It was I, not George, who respected and upheld objective law. It was I, not George, who was innocent.
As you know, during the trial, I offered the chief prosecutor, J. Gregory Damm, to waive rights if the judge would leave his bench and sit at the prosecution table as a member of its team. Then, the trial would at least have the merit of being honest in regards to the judge and how the jury perceived him. ...The judge's behavior toward the jury was brazenly self-serving. He had to save his ego. He had to save face by orchestrating an unjust conviction.
While the way is always open and a helping hand is always extended, Judge George is perhaps too calcified -- too deeply invested in his ego agendas to understand the approaching sea change to rationality and objective law. Perhaps, he can never share in the coming triumph of fully integrated honesty. Yet, if he pondered the final statement of an American judge in the 1949 Nuremberg trial of Nazi judges, George might finally understand the profound difference between objective justice and ego "justice": A German judge pleaded he had no idea of the consequences that would ultimately evolve from ego "justice". The American judge replied by telling him that using political-agenda "law" to purposely condemn even just one innocent person was enough to condemn any judge for life. ...Will George end like Tolstoy`s Ivan Ilych?
But, you, Mr. Bullard, can certainly be an important part of the coming triumph. And, if they choose to think conceptually in principles -- in a widely integrated manner rather than a narrow concrete-bound manner -- prosecutor Damm, even IRS agent Goodrich, could come to understand this newly evolving age of rationality. Then, they too could move into the world of fully integrated honesty to share the triumph and rewards.
Someday, perhaps you, Mr. Damm, Mr. Goodrich, even Judge George will work with us. Together we can uphold objective law to eliminate the armed divisions among the bureaucracies. We can then advance the Golden Helmet as the route to a genuinely prosperous, happy society.
Next Page | Contents | IRS Abuse Reports | Profound Honesty | Previous Page
[ 8 ] The following is a handwritten note from Mrs. T.S., a courtroom observer: "During Wallace's Golden-Helmet testimony, his character, his honesty, his dedication to values came across with such conviction and benevolence, the prosecution knew it had to break that image to win its case. Thus, the prosecution used its entire closing argument not to outline the facts but to falsely attack Wallace's character. By saving its innuendos for the closing argument, the prosecution unethically prevented rebuttal. ...It appeared the prosecution had no way to convict except through dishonesty."
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com